[allendoerfer]

I think it depends whether you are arguing on a philosophical or on a biological/chemical level. On these low levels we do stuff, because substances in our brain reward us for doing so even if it might hurt ourself in the long run. So I do not believe in true altruism either, which does not mean that people actively have egoistic motives when doing altruistic actions.

[Tosh108]

What does believing in an emotion mean? Egotism is arguably no more real then altruism. If your "reward in the brain" statement is correct why is that egotism? If that reward system drives a father to kills himself for his child that's not very egotistic. Why in a biological system would the "self" be preferred above the larger picture? This is definitely not argued in evolutionary theory. In the end it's very much connected to our core motives for doing what we do, and surviving is not always on the top of that list.

[allendoerfer]

I don't believe that people do altruistic things, because on a biological level we do stuff, because we like the feeling in our brain, therefore we do it for ourself, which is egotistic.

Truly altruistic would be something we just do without any benefit for ourself. I just argued that this only exists on a philosophical level, not on a biological level, so I don't believe in the concept unless we agree to treat the brain as a blackbox.

[jdmichal]

So do you believe in free will at all? Or is everything just a deterministic chemical cascade of inputs and outputs, in which case the answer to all this discussion is "mu". [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29

[allendoerfer]

Ah, you got me. Indeed I think so, but I find it nice that the complexity of the universe hides it from us and it only occasionally comes up in discussions like this. Thanks for the interesting link.

[jdmichal]

> I find it nice that the complexity of the universe hides it from us and it only occasionally comes up in discussions like this.

I agree. I find arguments for lack of free will strange. If we don't have it, then what's the point of anything, including arguing whether we have it? It's not about being right or wrong for me, but rather that I'll always accept the illusion of free will, because anything else is just boring and depressing.

And who knows, maybe in the end we'll discover that there's randomized quantum effects that break the determinism. While not quite free will, at least it's an out from the boring and depressing alternative.

[allendoerfer]

We are tiny unimportant ants on a tiny and unimportant planet floating meaningless through time and space and yet we are alive and are at the same time already distanced so far from the act of surviving. I think there is no point in anything, but consciousness and thoughts are a pretty awesome compensation to me.

I personally believe that quantum effects don't break the determinism, just because I like to. Otherwise there is more space for a god and I am to lazy to invent my own, while I am absolutely certain that the current ideas of him are wrong. I like the idea that there has been something at the beginning much more. Then it can be something simple like "time does not flow linearly" and you are done.

In the end it does not matter whether we will take even more blue pills or somehow get to experience the red pill. Either way it is a hell of a show and not boring at all.

[hx87]

> I just argued that this only exists on a philosophical level

That definition of altruism doesn't even work on a philosophical level, since one can always level an unfalsifiable charge that /some/ part of the brain is perceiving the altruistic action as a reward.