X-Message-Number: 30196
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: DSS note
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:01:49 +0100

On 20 Dec 2007, at 16:39,  wrote:

> DSS wrote:
>
>> On  18 Dec 2007, at 16:58,  wrote:
>
>>> One of my core  theses is that conscious motivation ALWAYS stems
>>> from  self
>>> interest
>
>> This doesn't take into account the very  strong evidence for group
>> evolution (see eg. the book "Unto  others") and the research on
>> hardiness in social psychology,  also very well supported.
>
>
>
> I have indeed taken group evolution into account, but that isn't even
> important to the main thesis, as I clearly showed. The thesis above  
> follows  simply
> from the definition of conscious motivation. It is what moves the  
> self,  i.e.
> what is important to YOU, hence every conscious choice is intended  
> to  benefit
> YOU, which means one or more of your wants or needs, the want(s)   
> currently
> dominant in your mind.
>
> If an example is needed, consider a mother running into a burning  
> building
> to rescue a child. She risks her life, contravening the "instinct"  
> of self
> preservation, because evolution has resulted in parents haveing strong
> inclinations to protect children. Properly speaking,  she is not   
> sacrificing her
> safety for her child, but sacrificing one of HER wants for  another.


Whatever else might be said, she is sacrificing her safety.

Conscious motivation isn't the total influence on human behavior and  
it may not be even the majority component, from an existential analysis.

You equate "benefit to you" with "important to you." This simply  
doesn't follow.

There is no solid way to measure conscious motivation. This is a not  
a concept that has been operationalized as far as I know.


The way you have redefined 'self-interest' certainly is at odds with  
how the term is used in evolutionary biology, not to mention common  
usage.



dss



David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30196