New theory (of mine)

[Proletar]

I like the cell in the body example...
of course it a'int gonna be a perfect analogy-- but the main poignant factor is that cells work together to benefit the system; and unless there's a malfunction or cancer, a normal healthy cell won't reproduce endlessly (like a virus) to the system's (body's) detriment.

Thus, the human body is sort of a Nash Equilibrium, the cells "know" that working together is in their best interest somehow-- so supporting the system is in turn supporting the individual (cell).

I do like the human body/cell analogy and think it works to point out the value of altruism as a selfish mechanism. I guess I only like the analogy because it supports my own position though

First off: All analogies are flawed. It's the power in them - to show a pattern in different forms - that make them great. The cell/body one is great since it speaks of a unit and a system, and their relation. This is noted from everyone that objects to it, and I agree. I however don't think that I am able to express my view in any different manner.


You say that cells are doing what they do because of selfish needs, in order to stay alive in the long run, and that humans do the same under the system. If a human in a society can do what a cell can do in a human body, why can't society do what a human does?

I.E: Can this super-organism known as society be selfish?


It should be able to. Life is a truly amazing entity that seems to recreate itself on layer after layer of levels of abstraction. From a cooperation between some amino-acids, to different parts cooperating as cells, to cells cooperating, to different celltypes cooperating, to organs cooperating, to humans cooperating. Symbiots, ecosystems, societies - life aiding itself. Selfishness.

If you bake together the cell and the body into one entitiy, then giving is taking, taking is giving. Taking is selfish, giving is selfish. War is peace. The notion of selfishness becomes irrelevant and flawed, since everything is selfish. And if everything is selfish, then everything is also unselfish.


Or more precisely, the body is selfish, the different parts are not. And if society is the body, the humans are unselfish whilst society is. Where does this end? Well... We can probably assume that the only truly selfish entity in this universe is either the Intergalactic Council of Intelligent Lifeforms (ICIL) (or whatever, we wont be invited until we cure death and do some serious space-travel, so we don't know yet) or God.

 

[BigApplePi]

First off: All analogies are flawed. It's the power in them - to show a pattern in different forms - that make them great.

Analogies present a correspondence. The correspondence is only part of the whole thing, but if the correspondence has enough of a cause-effort or "life" of its own then that hidden meaning can be used to search out comment elements.

You say that cells are doing what they do because of selfish needs, in order to stay alive in the long run, and that humans do the same under the system. If a human in a society can do what a cell can do in a human body, why can't society do what a human does?

I.E: Can this super-organism known as society be selfish?

I'm fond of using the concept of "constructive" or "beneficial" as opposed to "selfish." That avoids some of the problems of that word (I think). A cell or a person or a culture can act in self-interest and if by chance (rather than deliberation) it benefits the whole body, the particular culture, or all cultures, you have a constructive element. If the latter in turn benefits the former, you have positive feedback and longer life.

It should be able to. Life is a truly amazing entity that seems to recreate itself on layer after layer of levels of abstraction. From a cooperation between some amino-acids, to different parts cooperating as cells, to cells cooperating, to different celltypes cooperating, to organs cooperating, to humans cooperating. Symbiots, ecosystems, societies - life aiding itself. Selfishness. ... Or more precisely, the body is selfish, the different parts are not.

Different parts can fail, leaving the body to do the best it can. That would make those parts, "selfish" in the sense that now the body has to devote energy to either nursing or surviving without those parts.

 

[Da Blob]

Consciousness of self is a type of awareness shared by just a handful of species on this planet. Some say that a consequence of that knowledge of Self as separate from the universe is the knowledge of one's own mortality. Others speculate that this consciousness of self was the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, the knowledge of good and evil.

There is little doubt that self awareness spans a broad spectrum of experience and perhaps is a host to a number of parallel POVs. Me, I, Mine, Ours, Us, We are not empty symbols or mere abstractions, but provide different POVs, different reflections of a reality that includes Self - includes one as a constant in the various equations of life.

The POV of Me is different from the POV of I.
The POV of Mine is different from the POV of Ours.
The POV of Us is different from the POV of We

The primary social differentiation is between Us and Them
But a primary selfish differentiation is between Me and We

Both boundaries are causes of conflict, one of an internal nature, the other external.
One the great challenges of Self Awareness is the successful growth of Me, as an individual self into We, a plural Self. Western cultures do not facilitate this growth as well as Eastern cultures. A child in the West can often grow physically, but never enlarge the self, entertaining a Me against Them perspective instead and never fully realizing what is represented by the word, We.

I really do not believe that there are many valid analogies that can describe this state of being, Self, for how can the simple reflect the complex? How can a Black and White image, reflected from simple cells or tissues or organs truly give an accurate picture of a spectrum of consciousness, of self awareness, with colors of many shades and hues?

Me may be Blue
I am Yellow
Mine is Red

We, Us and Ours
may be shades of gray between
the Blackness of solipsist sociopathy
And the Whiteness of sainthood

Paint an image of Self with these...

 

[BigApplePi]

Consciousness of self is a type of awareness shared by just a handful of species on this planet.

Seems true. How aware is a tree?

Some say that a consequence of that knowledge of Self as separate from the universe is the knowledge of one's own mortality.

One would need to experience some element of death.

Others speculate that this consciousness of self was the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, the knowledge of good and evil.

As soon as one acquires knowledge, the self is now responsible.

The POV of Me is different from the POV of I.
The POV of Us is different from the POV of We

Grammar difference?

The primary social differentiation is between Us and Them
But a primary selfish differentiation is between Me and We

Both boundaries are causes of conflict, one of an internal nature, the other external.

Each has a physical boundary and this can cause competition = conflict.

One the great challenges of Self Awareness is the successful growth of Me, as an individual self into We, a plural Self. Western cultures do not facilitate this growth as well as Eastern cultures. A child in the West can often grow physically, but never enlarge the self, entertaining a Me against Them perspective instead and never fully realizing what is represented by the word, We.

True. I have an immediate physical interest. We can mutually support this interest, if so informed, and all that goes with it.

I really do not believe that there are many valid analogies that can describe this state of being, Self, for how can the simple reflect the complex?

Both the simple-self and the complex-we seek survival if not actual prevalence.

"I believe that man will not merely endure. He will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance." - William Faulkner

 

[Da Blob]

Seems true. How aware is a tree? One would need to experience some element of death.As soon as one acquires knowledge, the self is now responsible.

There is a video popular on youtube of a Mother dolphin swimming in a harbor in China, she stays underneath the body of her dead baby keeping it at the surface so that it can breathe. There are videos of elephants grieving for their dead and recently a video was posted about elephants gathering to grieve at the death of a human. A man who had dedicated his life to the care of wild elephants.


Grammar difference?

Me is a subject
I am an object
Us, passive observers/experiencers
We, active agents of change

Four distinct windows each offering a different view

Each has a physical boundary and this can cause competition = conflict.
True. I have an immediate physical interest. We can mutually support this interest, if so informed, and all that goes with it.

United We stand, divided I fall

Both the simple-self and the complex-we seek survival if not actual prevalence.

The whole of We is more than the sum of its individual 'Me's

"I believe that man will not merely endure. He will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance." - William Faulkner

Is it not true that those who are conscious of spirit are also conscious of Self from an additional perspective?

Edit:
Elephants
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....0.0.956.5084.6-6.6.0...0.0...1ac.qlUSlWH_gmE

Dolphins
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...0.0.0.890.890.6-1.2.0...0.0...1ac.jesKqFw6zyI

EDIT 2:

Lawrence Anthony, The Elephant Whisper was the man I referred too above. Somehow 2 days after his death elephants after traveling a great distance gathered at his house, seemingly to mourn him. There is video of that event that I will try to find and post as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4nvQbfQAUg

I could not find the video that the son made... But here's this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKUjGicMK6A&feature=related

 

[rattymat]

I would at least update your theory to "people act the way they want to within the confines of known unwanted consequences." Since, they actually do WANT to kill someone, but they DON'T WANT to go to jail, there is a conflict of want/don't want.
In any case, I don't think it is entirely correct. Many people are limited because of their lack of self awareness, and are controlled by their sub conscious consequentially. True, that is still THEM, but it isn't necessarily true that their entire mind is synchronously consistent with what it wants.

 

[BigApplePi]

Basically, let's assume you're really annoyed with someone and want to kill them. But you know the consequences, so you don't.

I would at least update your theory to "people act the way they want to within the confines of known unwanted consequences." Since, they actually do WANT to kill someone, but they DON'T WANT to go to jail, there is a conflict of want/don't want.
In any case, I don't think it is entirely correct. Many people are limited because of their lack of self awareness, and are controlled by their sub conscious consequentially. True, that is still THEM, but it isn't necessarily true that their entire mind is synchronously consistent with what it wants.

It suddenly struck me that if you want to kill (eliminate them from what they did or are doing) someone, nothing is so encouraging as to have those wishes reinforced by your compatriots. You are not thinking of jail or death. You are thinking of going along with your buddies supported by their approval.