Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: suckmymuscle on January 26, 2012, 03:23:56 PM
-
I was thinking about selfishness the other day, and about how we define all morality by interpreting relations between the Self towards others. Most of what passes for selflessness is a convenient form of selfishness. Consider the businessman who invests his money to improve schools around the area his industry is based. He does it because it improves his self-image if not his image as perceived by others. It could also be because the children will be his future corporate drones, and better trained drones will make him more money. Even if genuinelly cares about the children, it is because he perceives that a life with employment at an office or factory is the best life possible, because to him it is. If to the children in their hearts their ideal life would be to be a musician living on the road outside corporate life is irrelevant to him, because it is not what he regards as the ideal life.
Now consider philantropy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have given billions to charity. Have they done it because they truly care about the indigent and destituted? Or have they done it because it improves their imagine with the public, which might lead them to make in profits more money than they have given to the charities? Warren Buffet is a an old man, and he knows his time is almost up. Maybe all those billions are eseentially to buy people to like him, so that he might survive death if only in name. Since he can't live forever enjoying the good life, his only chance for immortality is to survive in the memories of people as a good man. Pure selfishness. The Christians likewise are good towards others because they hope they will be rewarded by eternal life in paradise.
Now try to imagine altruism in it's purest form. You don't want someone to burn to death in a burning building, or starve or be tortured because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You transfer to others your own ego. So it seems that even in it's purest form, altruism is a form of self-concern.
So altruism appears to be at worst a convenient form of selfishness where you benefit others to some degree but hope to benefit from this act more and try to convince yourself that you are benefitting others to the same degree, and at best it appears to be a form of narcissism, where you turn others into extensions of yourself and don't want them to experience that pain because you can and don't want it to happen to you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
not to flame but Tbombz already does the "know it all " gimmick
fail.
-
::)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/3117015888_3db3bb1865.jpg)
-
There are special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.
-
yes, read Joseph Butler/James Rachels/etc
Welcome to the 18th century....
-
What about special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.
Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The answer is 'yes'.
A car is heading towards your child in the street. You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.
Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.
-
What about special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.
you could say they do it simply to make them feel better about themselves, so in reality yes they save others, but the only reason they do it is to feel better, then they would do it to improve themselves only, not for others
-
Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
basically what i just said except its not a french canadian who typed it lol
-
Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Perhaps this is why the Christian cult spread. Jesus, if he actually existed, is the only person that was altruistic in the truest sense. He sacrificed his life for the sins of mankind according to legend.
But if you conceive of humans or life as not separate entities--but eyes of a whole. We are not selfish, because in helping others we are helping life in it's entirety. This is a very abstract way of thinking about it... Otherwise, yes, most actions are partially selfish. You would have to dissolve the ego entirely to act unselfishly. Outside of Jesus, perhaps a self-immolating buddhist monk is the closest thing that exist. The will to live--the ego--is selfishness.
But extreme selfisness, somewhat ironically, doesn't serve the self. It's self-defeating.
-
The answer is 'yes'.
A car is heading towards your child in the street. You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.
Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.
But you are saving the child because it will enhance your self-image as well as your image in the eyes of others after you die. It is the same reason why young men sacrifice themselves in war, knowing that they will be praised for their deeds and remembered as something better than a mere man. Immortality forever in the minds of many. At worst - if there is no afterlife -, you will be remembered in the minds of all as someone of great valour who's life had great meaning, and at best, you will be rewarded with a better place after you die and a great sense of self-worth. Pure selfishness. But I agree that sacrficing yourself to save someone else's kid is more selfless than doing it to save your own kid. But according to evolutionary psychology, sacrificing yourself to save other people's kids makes sense to some degree since throughout most of Human history people who lived in close proximity tended to be relatives. So you would be sacrificing yourself for your own genetic interest.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
you could say they do it simply to make them feel better about themselves, so in reality yes they save others, but the only reason they do it is to feel better, then they would do it to improve themselves only, not for others
Ugh...my answer came before yours......
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ugh...my answer came before yours......
SUCKMYMUSCLE
lol, im a extremely slow typer when i write in english, try to make as much sense as i can..and i usually dont read new answers that pop when im finally posting, it seems i should tho
-
But you are saving the child because it will enhance your self-image as well as your image in the eyes of others after you die. It is the same reason why young men sacrifice themselves in war, knowing that they will be praised for their deeds and remembered as something better than a mere man. Immortality forever in the minds of many. At worst - if there is no afterlife -, you will be remembered in the minds of all as someone of great valour who's life had great meaning, and at best, you will be rewarded with a better place after you die and a great sense of self-worth. Pure selfishness. But I agree that sacrficing yourself to save someone else's kid is more selfless than doing it to save your own kid. But according to evolutionary psychology, sacrificing yourself to save other people's kids makes sense to some degree since throughout most of Human history people who lived in close proximity tended to be relatives. So you would be sacrificing yourself for your own genetic interest.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
No.
In my example, there is no conscious thought whatsoever. You save your own child in order to protect your DNA. There is an underlying selfish motivation there that does happen subconsciously, regardless of what a person might think while performing the sacrificial act.
You do not, however, save the child you do not know - for the sake of discussion, assume there is no relation - to protect your own DNA. Given that there is no thought, there can be no expectation of being held in high regard by the family of the child spared from certain death, nor is there an expectation of any other rewards in the afterlife. That's true altruism, because the life of another is saved without any thought (at all) of reward. The only motivation is to save the life of another.
And for the record, though I would sacrifice myself as described to save another's child, I most likely would not do the same to save another adult...or even a teenager.
-
Is true altruism possible!? How about 'Is altruism possible,' Lou Grant? Cripes.
-
There are special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.
I don't think its a stretch. Especially in the 21st century where these people(navy seal types) are looked at as the best of the best in movies/media. Even if it was just one other person knowing "the secret", that could be enough to support a massive ego. Just the fact that at family get together's the words "I can't talk about what I do" gives a person so much power.
-
No.
In my example, there is no conscious thought whatsoever. You save your own child in order to protect your DNA. There is an underlying selfish motivation there that does happen subconsciously, regardless of what a person might think while performing the sacrificial act.
You do not, however, save the child you do not know - for the sake of discussion, assume there is no relation - to protect your own DNA. Given that there is no thought, there can be no expectation of being held in high regard by the family of the child spared from certain death, nor is there an expectation of any other rewards in the afterlife. That's true altruism, because the life of another is saved without any thought (at all) of reward. The only motivation is to save the life of another.
And for the record, though I would sacrifice myself as described to save another's child, I most likely would not do the same to save another adult...or even a teenager.
I think it's still not an example of pure altruism though.
Reason being, imagine if you, the child, and the car were the only things in existence.
There was no society there to influence you, perceive you as a coward, etc.
If you sacrificed yourself, you would be trading your existence for that of the child.
The child and the car/driver would be the only entities in existence.
I don't think you would do it.
Society has influenced you to save that child, because you don't want to be looked at as the one that 'let it happen'.
I still think the only selfless people are Jesus or Buddhist that have dissolved their ego to the point that they can self-immolate.
And this is precisely why these people are held in such a high regard.
-
of course altruism stems from self-interest. self interest and selfishness are two different things. one is necessarily negative, the other positive.
-
I think it's still not an example of pure altruism though.
Reason being, imagine if you, the child, and the car were the only things in existence.
There was no society there to influence you, perceive you as a coward, etc.
If you sacrificed yourself, you would be trading your existence for that of the child.
The child and the car/driver would be the only entities in existence.
I don't think you would do it.
Society has influenced you to save that child, because you don't want to be looked at as the one that 'let it happen'.
I still think the only selfless people are Jesus or Buddhist that have dissolved their ego to the point that they can self-immolate.
And this is precisely why these people are held in such a high regard.
whether there are other people in existence or not, giving your life for someone elses is necessarily altruistic, regardless of religous or moral/social beliefs. im not sure if you were implying otherwise. just that id point that out.
if we are to take the story of jesus as presented, he was also acting out of self interest.
-
The answer is 'yes'.
A car is heading towards your child in the street. You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.
Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.
Must see video of a Honey Badger and its baby.
-
whether there are other people in existence or not, giving your life for someone elses is necessarily altruistic, regardless of religous or moral/social beliefs. im not sure if you were implying otherwise. just that id point that out.
if we are to take the story of jesus as presented, he was also acting out of self interest.
You didn't understand what I said.
The point of this thread is whether true altruism (defined in this case as acting out of 100% unselfish interest exist).
In the example I presented, I don't think anyone would help the child about to be hit by a car, because there is no society to pass judgement and create values like, 'brave', etc.
I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm not familiar with the entirety of the Jesus story.
-
all action is necessarily based on self interest. theres no escaping it. even in your scenario above, the person gives up their life because they feel its the right thing to do and couldnt live with themself otherwise. its in their best interest, at least in their mind, to die than live with guilt.
-
The Life and Death of Kevin Carter(Now famous photographer)who was broke and committed suicide seems to fit into this thread
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm
-
all action is necessarily based on self interest. theres no escaping it. even in your scenario above, the person gives up their life because they feel its the right thing to do and couldnt live with themself otherwise. its in their best interest, at least in their mind, to die than live with guilt.
Wow.
I was arguing that very point. I said in my scenario, they would NOT give up their life.
You seem to have taken what I read and comprehended an entirely different way twice--even after I pointed out that you didn't understand.
How does it feel to be so dumb, dumbass? ;D
I mean, it's seriously shocking how retarded you are.
And what's scary is how sincerely you believe your retarded arguments.
-
I read somewhere that humans and other animals have an instinct to preserve their species. This is what gives you the motivation to save a child even though it isn't your kid. It is a preservation instinct that has evolved over time.
This Honey Badger video shows exactly what your talking about
-
No.
In my example, there is no conscious thought whatsoever. You save your own child in order to protect your DNA. There is an underlying selfish motivation there that does happen subconsciously, regardless of what a person might think while performing the sacrificial act.
You do not, however, save the child you do not know - for the sake of discussion, assume there is no relation - to protect your own DNA. Given that there is no thought, there can be no expectation of being held in high regard by the family of the child spared from certain death, nor is there an expectation of any other rewards in the afterlife. That's true altruism, because the life of another is saved without any thought (at all) of reward. The only motivation is to save the life of another.
And for the record, though I would sacrifice myself as described to save another's child, I most likely would not do the same to save another adult...or even a teenager.
Yes.
Survival of your DNA is not the only selfish motivation there is when it comes to saving children not your own. Other powerful motivations are the training Society does to young men that they should put women and children first, and that a man who sacrifices himself to save a child will survive as a hero in the eyes of many, whilst letting the child die will make him a scoundrel.
I used the argument of altruism towards others having a genetic base because, throughout most of human history, people who lived closed to each other tended to be relatives, so sacrificing yourself to save an "unknowln" child might actually have selfish genetic motivations as the child is very likely a nephew in second or third degree of yours.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
just the fact 'sucksomemenoff' called it 'true altruism' goes to show how stupid he is, despite being too smart for mensa and thinking only 5 guys ever went from pride to the UFC. lol
nice work, stupid.
-
No, it doesn't exist. The reason that people like to support others, is because they want to feel good about themselves, and that they want to give others a good reason to do the same to them. People denying this, don't know themselves well or are liars. An exception is made for responsible parents.
-
This Honey Badger video shows exactly what your talking about
Honey Badger rules. It should run for president...
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/3117015888_3db3bb1865.jpg)
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/3117015888_3db3bb1865.jpg)
I love budgies ;D
-
Me too,awesome birds! ;D
-
Even pets aren't altruistic. If you don't feed them well, they unfriend you.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/funny-pictures-angry-cat-wonders-what-part-of-carnivore-confuses-you.jpg)
-
I love budgies ;D
I had one just like that! It was called Rikkie...
-
I had a couple years ago..........I used to manage a huge pet store back in the day.
-
I had a couple years ago..........I used to manage a huge pet store back in the day.
Really? When I was a small kid I wanted to have a pet store or work in the zoo... :D
-
I was thinking about selfishness the other day, and about how we define all morality by interpreting relations between the Self towards others. Most of what passes for selflessness is a convenient form of selfishness. Consider the businessman who invests his money to improve schools around the area his industry is based. He does it because it improves his self-image if not his image as perceived by others. It could also be because the children will be his future corporate drones, and better trained drones will make him more money. Even if genuinelly cares about the children, it is because he perceives that a life with employment at an office or factory is the best life possible, because to him it is. If to the children in their hearts their ideal life would be to be a musician living on the road outside corporate life is irrelevant to him, because it is not what he regards as the ideal life.
Now consider philantropy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have given billions to charity. Have they done it because they truly care about the indigent and destituted? Or have they done it because it improves their imagine with the public, which might lead them to make in profits more money than they have given to the charities? Warren Buffet is a an old man, and he knows his time is almost up. Maybe all those billions are eseentially to buy people to like him, so that he might survive death if only in name. Since he can't live forever enjoying the good life, his only chance for immortality is to survive in the memories of people as a good man. Pure selfishness. The Christians likewise are good towards others because they hope they will be rewarded by eternal life in paradise.
Now try to imagine altruism in it's purest form. You don't want someone to burn to death in a burning building, or starve or be tortured because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You transfer to others your own ego. So it seems that even in it's purest form, altruism is a form of self-concern.
So altruism appears to be at worst a convenient form of selfishness where you benefit others to some degree but hope to benefit from this act more and try to convince yourself that you are benefitting others to the same degree, and at best it appears to be a form of narcissism, where you turn others into extensions of yourself and don't want them to experience that pain because you can and don't want it to happen to you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Good post, Sucky. Ive often pondered the same thing myself, but its a fact that there is no such thing as a selfishness act. People always act out of reason for what they want, and not what others want. But I would say there are more unselfish acts than others, and the rule of thumb to live by is; do to others what you want them to do for you. :)
-
Group altruism exists, it's evolutionary valid. In the group itself it's percieved as true altruism.
Says Dutchguy, PhD in evolutionary biology
-
Wow.
I was arguing that very point. I said in my scenario, they would NOT give up their life.
You seem to have taken what I read and comprehended an entirely different way twice--even after I pointed out that you didn't understand.
How does it feel to be so dumb, dumbass? ;D
I mean, it's seriously shocking how retarded you are.
And what's scary is how sincerely you believe your retarded arguments.
bro. lmao. re read my post(s). lol.
i THINK what your now saying is that altruism is possible if the person in your scenario was to choose to save the life of the child, but its impossible in practice because no one would actually do that ? im a bit confused about your intention now that you made this last post.
what i was saying was that all action is necessarily based out of self interest, so altruism in the sense of behavior that isnt related to self interest is an oxymoron and fallacious
. BUT,i do think someone would save the life of the child in your scenario, even though i dont believe that would actually be "alturism" in the sense of not being related to self interest, in of that i explained someone would do so not because of a society that would judge them, but because they would judge themself.
-
Group altruism exists, it's evolutionary valid. In the group itself it's percieved as true altruism.
Says Dutchguy, PhD in evolutionary biology
But only to very close kin, right?
-
bro. lmao. re read my post(s). lol.
i THINK what your now saying is that altruism is possible if the person in your scenario was to choose to save the life of the child, but its impossible in practice because no one would actually do that ? im a bit confused about your intention now that you made this last post.
Correct.
what i was saying was that all action is necessarily based out of self interest, so altruism in the sense of behavior that isnt related to self interest is an oxymoron and fallacious
This depends upon how you define the 'self'. Some religions see the separation that exist between life as an illusion. It's subjective.
Even outside of spiritual concepts of it, by extension, all life on earth is related.
But in practical terms, yeah, It's all selfishness.
. BUT,i do think someone would save the life of the child in your scenario,
I don't. Because there wouldn't be a society to create values i.e.--brave, cowardly, etc.
Society creates values, because they serve the group interest, and in serving the group interest, these values serve us as individuals.
That is why extreme selfishness doesn't serve individual interest: It ostracizes you from society and the benefits you elicit from that society.
A two person universe, with one of those people being a child(follower), would be akin to a god and his creation.
And it doesn't make sense for a god to trade his existence for that of his creation.
-
Group altruism exists, it's evolutionary valid. In the group itself it's percieved as true altruism.
Says Dutchguy, PhD in evolutionary biology
Finally revealed
-
Correct.
This depends upon how you define the 'self'. Some religions see the separation that exist between life as an illusion. It's subjective.
Even outside of spiritual concepts of it, by extension, all life on earth is related.
But in practical terms, yeah, It's all selfishness.
I don't. Because there wouldn't be a society to create values i.e.--brave, cowardly, etc.
Society creates values, because they serve the group interest, and in serving the group interest, these values serve us as individuals.
That is why extreme selfishness doesn't serve individual interest: It ostracizes you from society and the benefits you elicit from that society.
A two person universe, with one of those people being a child(follower), would be akin to a god and his creation.
And it doesn't make sense for a god to trade his existence for that of his creation.
i want to discuss more later, but for now i have to go, ill just add this... i believe values (morality) is completely independant of society; and extreme selfishness, as long as its truly "selfish" and your a person with universal values, is self serving and serves any group you may be a part of as well.
-
"Tbombz", I would greatly appreciate if you didn't contribute to my threads. You are a Cumstein who thinks of himself as an Einstein. May I refer everyone to this http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 thread, where "Tbombz" appeals to tautological arguments, manipulation of semantics, circular logic and straw man arguments to essentially repeat the same argument over and over again after I shot it down and make it seem like he was saying something new every time.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I had a couple years ago..........I used to manage a huge pet store back in the day.
Bird of peace ::)
-
Bird of peace
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Correct.
This depends upon how you define the 'self'. Some religions see the separation that exist between life as an illusion. It's subjective.
Even outside of spiritual concepts of it, by extension, all life on earth is related.
But in practical terms, yeah, It's all selfishness.
I don't. Because there wouldn't be a society to create values i.e.--brave, cowardly, etc.
Society creates values, because they serve the group interest, and in serving the group interest, these values serve us as individuals.
That is why extreme selfishness doesn't serve individual interest: It ostracizes you from society and the benefits you elicit from that society.
A two person universe, with one of those people being a child(follower), would be akin to a god and his creation.
And it doesn't make sense for a god to trade his existence for that of his creation.
i dont see how those different definitions of self would make it possible for an action to be based on anything but self interest.
-
"Tbombz", I would greatly appreciate if you didn't contribute to my threads. You are a Cumstein who thinks of himself as an Einstein. May I refer everyone to this http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 thread, where "Tbombz" appeals to tautological arguments, manipulation of semantics, circular logic and straw man arguments to essentially repeat the same argument over and over again after I shot it down and make it seem like he was saying something new every time.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
went through the first two pages when i came across this post
Newton believed in God in a time when it was almost impossible not to. We are talking the 16th century, man. The amount of scientific evidence back then was so small that even a genius would have no choice but to believe is some supernatural explanation.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
what you dont realize is that all the scientific progress that has been made in the past 500 years has done absolutely nothing to explain the origin and cause of the universe.
-
Luckily for me I don't know what "Altruism" means 8)
-
Luckily for me I don't know what "Altruism" means 8)
I had to look it also my brother ;)
-
oops
This is a little gem that was brought to my attention.
I can not take credit for the beauty in the following information and will keep the source anonymous as to show respect for the fellow forum member.
It was brought to my attention that a gimmick here by the name of 'Cigaretteman' has been "nuthuggin" Suckmymuscle on various threads as of recent..
Well, the truth has revealed that the paraplegia-inducing, canine destroyer who just so happens to be a genetically engineered superhuman has been using a gimmick to reply to his own posts, LOL!
It's been an outing waiting to happen and light should be shed upon this fountain of truth.
Closely examine CigaretteMan's early posts and their striking similarity to SMMs posts and the truth shall set you, or better said him, free:
SMM:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=4908;sa=showPosts (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=4908;sa=showPosts)
Cigaretteman:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=27918;sa=showPosts (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=27918;sa=showPosts)
"1"
pWnd
omg I can't believe I haven't caught on that earlier.. looking at the post history it's so fucking obvious lmao!
mwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha, total outing, this is the icing on the cake, this is!!!!
SMM, I can see you're online, you little snivelling cunt, what's the matter, is the going too rough, now? ;D Is your monster 200 points IQ not of any use to you in this situation? :P
Come on lad, give us one of those famous 50pt font meltdowns ;D
Definately the same poster....can you say OWNED once again ?
GEEZUS,the shit just keeps on a coming! ;D
ROFLLLLLL hahah that gimmick account is so obvious wtf? how did I miss that?
Hahah , Onemorerep destroying SMM rectum.
-
oops
It is amazing the space I occupy on your mind. It is amazing that anything even fits there since your mind is so small, unlike the gap of your asshole...keep stalking me, troll. At the end of the day, I am still more intelligent, taller and better-looking than you and you will be forever known as the queer with a man-crush on a WWE clown. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
It is amazing the space I occupy on your mind. It is amazing that anything even fits there since your mind is so small, unlike the gap of your asshole...keep stalking me, troll. At the end of the day, I am still more intelligent, taller and better-looking than you and you will be forever known as the queer with a man-crush on a WWE clown. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
lol who cares, you're a fucking joke. It's beyond obvious at this point that you're just a low-life nobody sitting in front of the computer most of the day making up your own reality. You haven't backed up A SINGLE FUCKING CLAIM that you've ever made. And you never will. It's pathetic but at the same time amusing to know that there are people out there that really do believe their own lies.
-
lol who cares, you're a fucking joke. It's beyond obvious at this point that you're just a low-life nobody sitting in front of the computer most of the day making up your own reality. You haven't backed up A SINGLE FUCKING CLAIM that you've ever made. And you never will. It's pathetic but at the same time amusing to know that there are people out there that really do believe their own lies.
Lol, dude, if you could only see me in real life... ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Lol, dude, if you could only see me in real life... ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Why don't you post a pic then Cigarettemandeerrr sucky?
-
>trying to start a real discusssion
>on getbig
I seriously hope y...... ....
-
Finally revealed
I meant "women studies"...
-
Perhaps this is why the Christian cult spread. Jesus, if he actually existed, is the only person that was altruistic in the truest sense. He sacrificed his life for the sins of mankind according to legend.
But if you conceive of humans or life as not separate entities--but eyes of a whole. We are not selfish, because in helping others we are helping life in it's entirety. This is a very abstract way of thinking about it... Otherwise, yes, most actions are partially selfish. You would have to dissolve the ego entirely to act unselfishly. Outside of Jesus, perhaps a self-immolating buddhist monk is the closest thing that exist. The will to live--the ego--is selfishness.
But extreme selfisness, somewhat ironically, doesn't serve the self. It's self-defeating.
You know, this post is like I just wrote this in my sleep...
I have done things out of the kindness of my heart---just because...And i get this feeling in my being, that is a good feeling...I believe true selflessness, helps not just our soul, but the soul collective I firmly believe that my purpose was not to be a "star" in the sky, but to help those get there...and admire the "stars in the sky", I am content not being the richest (yes I love the cars), but when you look and deal with a person as a human being, instead of societal labels there is this feeling of oneness of souls,,,
-
I meant "women studies"...
Haha, yeah I bet it's the same as with studies like anthropology and sociology, lots of nerdy alternative girls I guess.
BTW, last weekend I created an optimization algorithm, called Differential Evolution, another example that biological principles can be helpful to solve complex optimization problems.
-
True Adonism is possible
-
You know, this post is like I just wrote this in my sleep...
I have done things out of the kindness of my heart---just because...And i get this feeling in my being, that is a good feeling...I believe true selflessness, helps not just our soul, but the soul collective I firmly believe that my purpose was not to be a "star" in the sky, but to help those get there...and admire the "stars in the sky", I am content not being the richest (yes I love the cars), but when you look and deal with a person as a human being, instead of societal labels there is this feeling of oneness of souls,,,
helping others makes you feel good about yourself, its soemthing youve learned over time
"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself."
-
I was thinking about selfishness the other day, and about how we define all morality by interpreting relations between the Self towards others. Most of what passes for selflessness is a convenient form of selfishness. Consider the businessman who invests his money to improve schools around the area his industry is based. He does it because it improves his self-image if not his image as perceived by others. It could also be because the children will be his future corporate drones, and better trained drones will make him more money. Even if genuinelly cares about the children, it is because he perceives that a life with employment at an office or factory is the best life possible, because to him it is. If to the children in their hearts their ideal life would be to be a musician living on the road outside corporate life is irrelevant to him, because it is not what he regards as the ideal life.
Now consider philantropy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have given billions to charity. Have they done it because they truly care about the indigent and destituted? Or have they done it because it improves their imagine with the public, which might lead them to make in profits more money than they have given to the charities? Warren Buffet is a an old man, and he knows his time is almost up. Maybe all those billions are eseentially to buy people to like him, so that he might survive death if only in name. Since he can't live forever enjoying the good life, his only chance for immortality is to survive in the memories of people as a good man. Pure selfishness. The Christians likewise are good towards others because they hope they will be rewarded by eternal life in paradise.
Now try to imagine altruism in it's purest form. You don't want someone to burn to death in a burning building, or starve or be tortured because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You transfer to others your own ego. So it seems that even in it's purest form, altruism is a form of self-concern.
So altruism appears to be at worst a convenient form of selfishness where you benefit others to some degree but hope to benefit from this act more and try to convince yourself that you are benefitting others to the same degree, and at best it appears to be a form of narcissism, where you turn others into extensions of yourself and don't want them to experience that pain because you can and don't want it to happen to you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Wasn't this already the basis for an episode of "friends?" Furthermore...who cares?
-
Haha, yeah I bet it's the same as with studies like anthropology and sociology, lots of nerdy alternative girls I guess.
BTW, last weekend I created an optimization algorithm, called Differential Evolution, another example that biological principles can be helpful to solve complex optimization problems.
Friend of mine studied bio-maths, works in the US now with all kinds of applications based on evolutionary principles. Really interesting stuff he´s amazing with it. Then again I wonder he can squat more than an empty bar... ;D
-
helping others makes you feel good about yourself, its soemthing youve learned over time
"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself."
Toomanydongz, this is what you do:
You hear something, and without analyzing it and trying to understand the underlying meaning,
you just say, "NO!" and change the direction of the conversation, with the fervency of a terrible two year old.
It's like you can't abstract anything from the immediate meaning, can't think one step ahead, it's all just NO NO!" says the two year old...
So while the rest of us have moved on, agreed, or provided a compelling counter point, you simultaneously misunderstand and believe yourself to be a genius.
So the conversations has to backtrack, as you drag people in to debating every inane "NO!" that to everyone else is obvious.
You argue for the sake of arguing--to try to prove to everyone that you're smart. But it's pretty clear that you're a dumbass.
-
True Adonism is possible
But is it only gay if you want it to be ?
-
Toomanydongz, this is what you do:
You hear something, and without analyzing it and trying to understand the underlying meaning,
you just say, "NO!" and change the direction of the conversation, with the fervency of a terrible two year old.
It's like you can't abstract anything from the immediate meaning, can't think one step ahead, it's all just NO NO!" says the two year old...
So while the rest of us have moved on, agreed, or provided a compelling counter point, you simultaneously misunderstand and believe yourself to be a genius.
So the conversations has to backtrack, as you drag people in to debating every inane "NO!" that to everyone else is obvious.
You argue for the sake of arguing--to try to prove to everyone that you're smart. But it's pretty clear that you're a dumbass.
QFT!!!!
I have said it before and I'll say it again: "Tbombz" is a Cumstein who believes himself to be an Einstein.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
seriously tbombz- do you realize that everyone on this webforum thinks you're a shithead?
-
Friend of mine studied bio-maths, works in the US now with all kinds of applications based on evolutionary principles. Really interesting stuff he´s amazing with it. Then again I wonder he can squat more than an empty bar... ;D
Reminds me on a guy I used to work with; background in physics, extremely analytic & detail oriented, but he looks like a teletubby and makes uber-lame jokes, haha.
Yes, those evolutionary principles are both interesting and promising. Last year I also created a particle swarm optimization algorithm, which is based on social behavior in swarms (particles, birds, fish, etc) in order to find food or while escaping from predators; still work in progress BTW.
-
Reminds me on a guy I used to work with; background in physics, extremely analytic & detail oriented, but he looks like a teletubby and makes uber-lame jokes, haha.
Yes, those evolutionary principles are both interesting and promising. Last year I also created a particle swarm optimization algorithm, which is based on social behavior in swarms (particles, birds, fish, etc) in order to find food or while escaping from predators; still work in progress BTW.
WTF is this your work or your hobby? Other friend of mine does things with fractals, very cool.. 8)
-
Reminds me on a guy I used to work with; background in physics, extremely analytic & detail oriented, but he looks like a teletubby and makes uber-lame jokes, haha.
Yes, those evolutionary principles are both interesting and promising. Last year I also created a particle swarm optimization algorithm, which is based on social behavior in swarms (particles, birds, fish, etc) in order to find food or while escaping from predators; still work in progress BTW.
I'm currently studying mathematics and I'm starting to enjoy it quite a bit and find it fascinating. I'm intrigued by this algorithm you mentioned and I'd love too see it laid out if you don't mind.. just out of sheer curiosity.
-
Toomanydongz, this is what you do:
You hear something, and without analyzing it and trying to understand the underlying meaning,
you just say, "NO!" and change the direction of the conversation, with the fervency of a terrible two year old.
It's like you can't abstract anything from the immediate meaning, can't think one step ahead, it's all just NO NO!" says the two year old...
So while the rest of us have moved on, agreed, or provided a compelling counter point, you simultaneously misunderstand and believe yourself to be a genius.
So the conversations has to backtrack, as you drag people in to debating every inane "NO!" that to everyone else is obvious.
You argue for the sake of arguing--to try to prove to everyone that you're smart. But it's pretty clear that you're a dumbass.
and what "no" are you refering to ? ;D where am i incorrect ? ;D
-
I'm currently studying mathematics and I'm starting to enjoy it quite a bit and find it fascinating. I'm intrigued by this algorithm you mentioned and I'd love too see it laid out if you don't mind.. just out of sheer curiosity.
Well, I can't reveal my code, if that's what you ask (sorry), but its Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization) is a good starting point, where you can find the basic pseudo code. The two most important steps are the particle's velocity update and it's new position. You can find many code samples on this page (http://clerc.maurice.free.fr/pso/). For visuals, check Youtube, but most of them are not/poorly documented.
BTW, I suck in mathematics ;)
Here's a good overview about evolutionary/biologically inspired search algorithms.
(http://nojhan.free.fr/metah/images/metaheuristics_classification.jpeg)