He devoted the last few years of his life attempting to prove himself wrong by sharing his property and belongings with the homeless, only to become more depressed when some of them stole from him and he was eventually evicted. No wonder his biography is called The Price of Altruism.
For me, stories like this symbolize the incredible compartmentalization of the brain - we can think with complete clarity about the focus of our intellectual passions, and still not have a clue about the rest.
I don't agree with that, on the compartmentalization of the brain. Some of what we think in one compartment of the brain can work concurrently in another part of the brain, which can cause us to make all sorts of irrational leaps of reasoning that we abstract over and call logic or rationalization.
It's pattern matching, and some people get too carried away with it, because that pattern matching is typically what initially marked them as intelligent by everyone else, and it works, most of the time, except when we have paradoxes, which we just cover up with more symbolic logic, because we'd prefer to explain logic with more logic, than explain it with common sense.
Some people can think with perfect clarity and be seen as crazy by everyone else, just because people seem to want to observe things that way.
I mean, consider how the homeless who stole from this man may think. Many patterns of which to reason with, none of which are purely mathematical or logical.
I mean, on one hand, we use these things we've been taught mark intelligence and cunning, half truths dressed up in eloquent, alluring, and rhetorically deceptive wording, the rhythm and tempo of each sentence.
On the other hand, it's only the correlation between the Harvard 4.0 GPA and being fascinated with the random dreams and images one's mind presents to oneself day to day. You don't have to literally hallucinate in order to become convinced that your hallucinations are real. That's often a problem with language - day to day, we think some of it literally exists, and it doesn't (or we at least can not prove that it does).
I don't know what George Price symbolizes, because I don't pretend to understand him. But it gives me something to think about that is new.
While one can develop strange beliefs in fields one knows little about, it does sound like he in particular may have been suffering from Schizophrenia. The inability to function, the depression you describe and (at the risk of courting trouble for criticizing religion) his report of visions and extreme religious convictions are pretty overwhelming indicators.
Mind you, a diagnosis at a distance is obviously tenuous but it's pretty clear his problems we more likely biological than caused by generosity. There are after all hundreds of billionaires who give away vast percentages of their wealth and do not fall into a deathly depression over it.
I imagine that if one would thoroughly internalize the belief that we're driven by purely rational, mechanistic forces, diving head-first into irrationality in an attempt to search for (or somehow invent) freedom and meaning, would be the only rational thing to do.
His case is discussed in the BBC documentary series "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" by Adam Curtis, which is very much worth seeing. It's wide-ranging and opinionated in a way that invites criticism, but always fascinating and I think a point of view worth considering, especially for technologists.
>I imagine that if one would thoroughly internalize the belief that we're driven by purely rational, mechanistic forces, diving head-first into irrationality in an attempt to search for (or somehow invent) freedom and meaning, would be the only rational thing to do.
Nah. Compatibilist free will is entirely real, and meaning is more-or-less a built-in byproduct of living life. In fact, the most common reason people "lack meaning" is precisely because they're trying to be as "free" as possible by minimizing the attachments that make life meaningful.
Here's a different point of view: isn't it great that selflessness is hardwired into our very being? Of course, our actions are tied to a desired outcome, but we value our legacy above our own physical and mental wellbeing. imho the human race may be selfish, but the individual is prone to express selflessness.
Yea, I don't really get why it bothers people so much that selflessness has evolutionary origins, which in my mind is completely distinct from the (empirically false) claim that there is absolutely no selflessness in the world.
I mean, from a naturalistic viewpoint the options are pretty much "selflessness has a mechanistic explanation" or "selflessness is a random accident of history". I don't see how the latter would make things better. And if you don't like the dichotomy, your real problem is with naturalism not selfishness.
The point is though that we perform selflessness acts because of the way it makes us feel. We aren't truly "selfless". Good deeds are a byproduct of our desire to make ourselves feel better.
So, of course everything you do is for a selfish reason. You behave to fulfill behavioral and emotional needs, but its mostly based on emotion; for without that you would just sit and die. Emotions drive all, even "logic" and "reasoning".
But, the issue is not that we act selfishly, for that will always be, as that is how we can be autonomous; selflessness though, facilitates us acting as a group instead. It is pro-social to improve things for others, and so there must naturally be internal mechanisms that drive that behavior, and dopamine is pretty good at getting behavioral responses.
But to say 'selflessness" doesn't exist is like saying there is no sun. Selfless does not mean you get nothing out of it, just that you get little to nothing out of it; or may even end up suffering considerably for it.
Maybe our definition of selfishness/selflessness is skewed, but they both exist.
I haven't found much evidence for what I would call selflessness, so I tend not to believe in it.
What I mean by selfish is:
- You do it because you are motivated to do it for yourself. I get an ice cream because I want an ice cream. I study for an exam because I want good grades, not necessarily because I like the studying. I give my SO a back rub because I like to see her smile, or just because I like to give a back rub. I do my friend a favour because I'm afraid he's not gonna like me if I rebuff him.
- Doing things which benefit others can be done for selfish reasons; the distinction is intent, not outcome.
- I could probably fill in other examples but I can't really think (of something) now.
Some might think that I'm a misanthrope for believing that all people are selfish. But no, I'm a misanthrope for different reasons. I don't view being entirely selfish as inherently bad, which I guess some people do. If someone wants to do good by others, or at least not be in the way of others, that desire is not tainted because it is motivated by selfishness.
Maybe my definition of selfish is so broadly applicable that it is quite useless. What good is a word if all things are [that word] and not something else, like an opposite?
Yes, exactly, you're misusing the word by widening its definition unnaturally. Which you're aware of, so the question becomes: why? Who knows, you might find out that the reason could be ascribed to "selfishness" in a much more narrow (and appropriate) way.
What if we turned that around? "I don't believe in selfishness"
- You get an ice cream because you've seen other people do it and have watched adverts and want to fit in. You've gotten an image that it's "a thing that people do", eating ice cream. You don't actually even like ice cream. You just don't want to offend anyone who does.
- You help others because helping is a root cause, there's no "because" of some other thing.
- You study, make a career just because, firstly, it's expected of you, by your parents, by your spouse, you can better support your children. Secondly your workplace and society rewards you with money, which is just a token of how much value you have added : in other words, how much you have helped others.
I have definitely seen people do things that make someone else happy, but makes the first person less happy and provides that first person with no benefit.
I'm just one data point on a screen, but is that evidence for what you would call selflessness?
[+] [-] xianshou|11 years ago|reply
As one of the most important figures in the last forty years of evolutionary theory, he would make an excellent addition to this list of geniuses with bizarre beliefs: http://kruel.co/2014/05/30/highly-intelligent-and-successful...
For me, stories like this symbolize the incredible compartmentalization of the brain - we can think with complete clarity about the focus of our intellectual passions, and still not have a clue about the rest.
[+] [-] 0359B02149AB|11 years ago|reply
It's pattern matching, and some people get too carried away with it, because that pattern matching is typically what initially marked them as intelligent by everyone else, and it works, most of the time, except when we have paradoxes, which we just cover up with more symbolic logic, because we'd prefer to explain logic with more logic, than explain it with common sense.
Some people can think with perfect clarity and be seen as crazy by everyone else, just because people seem to want to observe things that way.
I mean, consider how the homeless who stole from this man may think. Many patterns of which to reason with, none of which are purely mathematical or logical.
I mean, on one hand, we use these things we've been taught mark intelligence and cunning, half truths dressed up in eloquent, alluring, and rhetorically deceptive wording, the rhythm and tempo of each sentence.
On the other hand, it's only the correlation between the Harvard 4.0 GPA and being fascinated with the random dreams and images one's mind presents to oneself day to day. You don't have to literally hallucinate in order to become convinced that your hallucinations are real. That's often a problem with language - day to day, we think some of it literally exists, and it doesn't (or we at least can not prove that it does).
I don't know what George Price symbolizes, because I don't pretend to understand him. But it gives me something to think about that is new.
[+] [-] whybroke|11 years ago|reply
Mind you, a diagnosis at a distance is obviously tenuous but it's pretty clear his problems we more likely biological than caused by generosity. There are after all hundreds of billionaires who give away vast percentages of their wealth and do not fall into a deathly depression over it.
[+] [-] pegasus|11 years ago|reply
His case is discussed in the BBC documentary series "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" by Adam Curtis, which is very much worth seeing. It's wide-ranging and opinionated in a way that invites criticism, but always fascinating and I think a point of view worth considering, especially for technologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of...
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|11 years ago|reply
Nah. Compatibilist free will is entirely real, and meaning is more-or-less a built-in byproduct of living life. In fact, the most common reason people "lack meaning" is precisely because they're trying to be as "free" as possible by minimizing the attachments that make life meaningful.
[+] [-] Red_Tarsius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessriedel|11 years ago|reply
I mean, from a naturalistic viewpoint the options are pretty much "selflessness has a mechanistic explanation" or "selflessness is a random accident of history". I don't see how the latter would make things better. And if you don't like the dichotomy, your real problem is with naturalism not selfishness.
[+] [-] downandout|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerooneinfinity|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morpheous|11 years ago|reply
Case in point: man abandons wife and two young daughters to prove to the world that human beings are not selfish.
[+] [-] meesterdude|11 years ago|reply
But, the issue is not that we act selfishly, for that will always be, as that is how we can be autonomous; selflessness though, facilitates us acting as a group instead. It is pro-social to improve things for others, and so there must naturally be internal mechanisms that drive that behavior, and dopamine is pretty good at getting behavioral responses.
But to say 'selflessness" doesn't exist is like saying there is no sun. Selfless does not mean you get nothing out of it, just that you get little to nothing out of it; or may even end up suffering considerably for it.
Maybe our definition of selfishness/selflessness is skewed, but they both exist.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] amelius|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whitten|11 years ago|reply
So probably, the reason why you think the answer is in game theory is because of his original work.
[+] [-] Dewie3|11 years ago|reply
What I mean by selfish is:
- You do it because you are motivated to do it for yourself. I get an ice cream because I want an ice cream. I study for an exam because I want good grades, not necessarily because I like the studying. I give my SO a back rub because I like to see her smile, or just because I like to give a back rub. I do my friend a favour because I'm afraid he's not gonna like me if I rebuff him.
- Doing things which benefit others can be done for selfish reasons; the distinction is intent, not outcome.
- I could probably fill in other examples but I can't really think (of something) now.
Some might think that I'm a misanthrope for believing that all people are selfish. But no, I'm a misanthrope for different reasons. I don't view being entirely selfish as inherently bad, which I guess some people do. If someone wants to do good by others, or at least not be in the way of others, that desire is not tainted because it is motivated by selfishness.
Maybe my definition of selfish is so broadly applicable that it is quite useless. What good is a word if all things are [that word] and not something else, like an opposite?
[+] [-] anshin|11 years ago|reply
RE: Misanthropy I strongly recommend you read Medaka Box and reserve judgment on why I recommend it until you've finished it.
[+] [-] pegasus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gravityloss|11 years ago|reply
- You get an ice cream because you've seen other people do it and have watched adverts and want to fit in. You've gotten an image that it's "a thing that people do", eating ice cream. You don't actually even like ice cream. You just don't want to offend anyone who does.
- You help others because helping is a root cause, there's no "because" of some other thing.
- You study, make a career just because, firstly, it's expected of you, by your parents, by your spouse, you can better support your children. Secondly your workplace and society rewards you with money, which is just a token of how much value you have added : in other words, how much you have helped others.
[+] [-] EliRivers|11 years ago|reply
I'm just one data point on a screen, but is that evidence for what you would call selflessness?
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]