I watched an interesting show the other night called "Dark Matters". In it, they dramatize some true events that are bizarre but are none the less considered true. The show depicted the story of George Price, whom at the time was an Atheist. He was an amateur mathematician who worked out a theorem that proves that altruism is an evolutionary trait that helps insure that one's genes are passed on and is therefor selfish by design.
I understand the concept but not the theorem. To be considered a theorem, it must always be true in all examples given. Even in hypothetical examples.
Here is a wiki link to the theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation
If anybody can explain this to me in layman's terms, I would be grateful. I have a healthy understanding of algebra and geometry but this is beyond me.
Interesting,
I recently listened to a talk I got from iTunes by a monk called swami tayanaga.
He explained that the only person that gains from kindness ultimately is the person giving so it is infact a selfish act. It's worth a listen. It's called something like 4 basic rules.
A subjective perspective is inherently selfish.
It is a working system that exists because there is an inner ecosystem alongside a wall.
These are some universal constraints of all walks of life.
Best on your studies.
Cheers,
Contenteo
If one is kind for the purpose of gaining 'Karma' points then ultimately the motive is selfish. - "I will give you this because it makes me feel good and I will surely be rewarded"
If one is kind because of empathy and compassion then it is selfless. - "I will give you this because I understand what it's like to be starving and to go without"
I read Richard Dawkin's 'the Selfish Gene' and I found him to be somewhat of an evangelical Newtonian Darwinist. There are severe flaws in the way Darwinism is approached. Bruce Lipton illustrates this very well.
Quote from: Bedeekin on February 12, 2013, 02:29:31
If one is kind for the purpose of gaining 'Karma' points then ultimately the motive is selfish. - "I will give you this because it makes me feel good and I will surely be rewarded"
I agree most certainly.
Quote from: Bedeekin on February 12, 2013, 02:29:31
If one is kind because of empathy and compassion then it is selfless. - "I will give you this because I understand what it's like to be starving and to go without"
To a degree i agree. I agree if
the act of kindness is coming from a clear pure heart and mind. If it isn't i believe it may still be debatable as to whether some aspect of this would be selfish. Though when coming from a pure heart and mind definitely, i agree.
Another possible option is that a person is just doing what comes naturally. Maybe a person is performing kind acts according to those on the outside viewing in but if the person is simply being themselves and following the flow of the universe then kind acts wouldn't even be identified as kind by the one performing the acts. They would simply be in the flow and in line with their higher selves.
It is all about the inner world and it is typically impossible to tell
exactly what is going on in another's inner world.
I'm not religious in any way but surely there is wisdom in:
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Quote from: newmethod on February 12, 2013, 09:10:52
It is all about the inner world and it is typically impossible to tell exactly what is going on in another's inner world.
Absolutely precisely. We can only interpret other's intentions based upon projections of our own motives.
My act of kindness may be absolutely pure... you can't possibly know otherwise. You can only project why YOU would display an act of kindness.
For instance, I don't understand the emotion of jealousy or envy. I can identify it in others... but I simply don't understand it, nor have I ever experienced it. Many times it has made me appear VERY naive in the eyes of people I work with. My inability to identify envy and jealousy in people set my career back quite a bit.
"I want what you want.. and because I don't have what you have then I dislike you"... or whatever it seems to make people think. :|
So my intentions of kindness won't be the same as others or yours.. or my acts of whatever won't correlate to yours.
It seems you totally agree with the first statement... but you still can't agree with the second statement because it can be twisted into a non-pure intention if it's looked as in a certain way, which is interesting.
Purity is in the eyes of the intender, not the beholder. :wink:
Quote from: Bedeekin on February 12, 2013, 02:29:31
[/i]
If one is kind because of empathy and compassion then it is selfless. - "I will give you this because I understand what it's like to be starving and to go without"
I personally believe that there can be true selfless kindness but the theorem supposedly proves otherwise. It says that no matter what, altruism is an evolutionary trait and therefore all acts of kindness are self serving. Empathy and compassion are emotions that may drive one to do good for others. IF it makes the person feel good after they help, then it is selfish. If they feel no better for doing good afterwards, then it is still a supposed selfish act, and the math supposedly proves that. But I can't see how in cases like that.
I emailed a professor from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a sociologist and has a PhD. in some sciences that I can't even pronounce. She has replied to me before in the past. If she does so again this time, I will post her reply if anyone is interested. Thanks.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 09:27:14
If they feel no better for doing good afterwards, then it is still a supposed act, and the math supposedly proves that.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by a "supposed act".
I looked at that math and it is beyond me but surely math
can't prove the purity of good deeds or reflect on an individuals inner world and any link to source that may drive
some good deeds.
if it is the person being themselves and they don't even identify the act as being kind surely the math would be irrelevant in this instance.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 09:27:14
I emailed a professor from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a sociologist and has a PhD. in some sciences that I can't even pronounce. She has replied to me before in the past. If she does so again this time, I will post her reply if anyone is interested. Thanks.
I for one would be interested.
I edited my post. Thanks, as it made no sense. :lol:
My problem with the theorem is that I believe we are only here to grow "spiritually", or however you prefer. But I believe we still exist in some form after this life. If this life is it, and the show is over, then I can see how every act of kindness would be selfish. Since surely being nice to others will promote others to be nice to you and your offspring, therefore increasing their chances of survival. Even if you gave away everything you had to the point that it actually hurt you, it could still benefit your offspring.
It is an afterlife that disproves this theorem to me. But I can't prove that with math.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 09:27:14
the theorem supposedly proves otherwise. It says that no matter what, altruism is an evolutionary trait and therefore all acts of kindness are self serving.
Perhaps the initial presumption that the math is built on is false.
Perhaps what some of us are talking about is beyond altruism.
I for one, am talking of kindness that is perceived by those on the outside as being kind but the one "doing" the kindness is being themselves & in line with spirit and the creative force!
It is possibly true that if you are doing kindness "at expense of yourself" then it
is selfish in some way.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 09:48:59
Since surely being nice to others will promote others to be nice to you and your offspring, therefore increasing their chances of survival.
Oh my... If I was nice to people expecting them to be nice back... I would be here waiting... for a long time.
It never dissuades me from still being good to people though.
It's obvious my replies here are off topic because they aren't tackling the subject using the math thing. Sorry.. I just think it's a pile of crap.
Math can't explain or describe spiritual kindness nor the lowering of entropy using pure unconditional love. It's way off the mark.
*EDIT*
Sorry.. didn't mean to dis your original post its_all_bad... I just don't find the relevance between math and emotion and Im answering to be involved' in the discussion. :)
Beedeekin- It seems we agree wholeheartedly on this matter then. My problem with this concept, is that "spiritual kindness" (pardon my phrase theft) can't be explained with math or even defined with language for that matter.
Mr. Price himself killed himself after he went mad trying to disprove his own work. He "discovered" the theorem when he was an Atheist.
He began contemplating about his own life and how everything came together to bring him to the point where he was at. In other words, he believed that there were far too many coincidences that he believed influenced his life's journey. For example, he had something like 5 serious gf's in a row who had the name "Mary" (I can't remember the real name). Since he was a "love at first sight" kind of guy, he reasoned that he was not attracted to the specific name for some unknown reason since his infatuation for the women would begin before he knew their names.
Anyways he looked at a lot of others things and worked out the individual odds of each coincidence and them looked at the odds of each one coming together. He reasoned that only an outside force or "God" could overcome those odds so he became a believer.
i woke this morning thinking of this post and my mind led me to George Vithoulkas (
homoeopath). In his book "The Science of Homeopathy" he describes health and illness on the three levels:
1. Mental/Spiritual
2. Emotional/Psychic
3. Physical (including sex, sleep, food and five senses)
In regard to the Mental Plane he suggests:
"health on the mental plane is freedom from selfishness, having as a state complete unification of the person with the divine, or with truth, and whose actions are dedicated to creative service........The parameter which enables such measurement of health is
creativity. By creativity, I mean all those acts and functions which promote for the individual and for others their main goal in life: continuous and unconditional happiness. To the extent that an individual is limited in the exercise of his creativity, to that degree he is ill."
Quote from: Bedeekin on February 12, 2013, 10:11:14
Oh my... If I was nice to people expecting them to be nice back... I would be here waiting... for a long time.
It never dissuades me from still being good to people though.
I know what you mean :wink:
Quote from: Bedeekin on February 12, 2013, 10:11:14
Im answering to be involved' in the discussion. :)
Myself also. I actually think it's a fascinating topic. Thanks its_all_bad for starting the thread. Do post the professor's answer if she gets back to you. :-)
She replied back!! I'm pretty damn sure she called me a dumb butt but I get it now. At least I think. You read and decide. All errors are my own as I could not cut and paste.
Hello Simon,
In the two years since I have retired, I've come to realize that very little of my life's work has served me well to find a lasting peace. This I tell you, is a good thing. For reasons I'm sure I will never understand, society tells us to that happiness is to do nothing in the latter of our life's journey. Actually I do understand that. What I don't understand is why I ever believed it. Your email led me to believe that you too, would find no solace in a lazy day. Never stop questioning the world and it's marvelous complexities. I am no longer an educator in a formal setting and this permits me liberties to ramble like a mad woman. Your query permits me.
Many years ago, while I was an undergraduate at Columbia, I had a Professor who was a creationist teaching a course on evolution. This is a worse-case scenario for a man of his convictions. Imagine if you will, someone who believes his physical well being depends on teaching a doctrine that not only conflicts with his own beliefs, but to do so may condemn his chances of a better and eternal tomorrow. Dr. Ratzky used the Price theorem at the end of that long semester to illustrate how it works seamlessly with evolution and how a learned man can ignore it completely with abandoned caution. To understand the Dr., you need to know that he was a Polish Jew who spent three years in the Nazi concentration camps. He reasoned that man has devolved and understandably so.
He proved the theorem with every possible example we students could eagerly provide. It explains everything from how the genes that determine our eye color- to how the trait of one's food preference can be accurately predicted to emerge in the next generation of a given sample population. Now, I need to address the reason you queried me. I acknowledge that your concern does not lie in the concept but with the formula. Trust me when I say, the link you forwarded explains the math in the simplest way possible. So it would be a boring disservice to us both if I tried to simplify it further. I believe you think your own interests have a stake in this equation being proved false. When in fact, you should find comfort because it is true and not in spite of.
What else could hold a truth so firmly, yet have no bearing at all? That what else is a God, or a Higher Power as you say, that can rise above any truth and discount it in a glorious fashion. Remember that biology alone does not have the final word on traits. Culture, tradition, and education all have an equal if not greater say in how we are shaped by the "laws" we can't escape. I'll leave you with the final example Dr. Ratkzy left each of his students with:
"How did giving away the meager slice of bread that I risked my own life to get in order to increase my own chances of survival help me? The man I shared it with died two days later. He did not have a chance to tell everyone how kind I was and therefore making me deserving of anybody's help. He had no way to return the favor. Kindness did nothing to increase my life here on Earth. Instead, it nourished my spirit, so that it would not wither and burn to ashes with my body were that my fate."
How's that for an evolutionary trait that insures survival? Thank you, and.......
Dr. Smith-Klein
----------------------------------------------
Kindness is a trait that ensures our spirit can grow and live on. That's great, but I kind of wanted a reply that fought science with science. What I got was the same old truth, science does not explain everything. I'm good with that, for now. Anyhow, I am grateful because It would have been a long time before I looked at it like this.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 09:48:59
My problem with the theorem is that I believe we are only here to grow "spiritually", or however you prefer. But I believe we still exist in some form after this life. If this life is it, and the show is over, then I can see how every act of kindness would be selfish. Since surely being nice to others will promote others to be nice to you and your offspring, therefore increasing their chances of survival. Even if you gave away everything you had to the point that it actually hurt you, it could still benefit your offspring.
It is an afterlife that disproves this theorem to me. But I can't prove that with math.
How does an after life disprove this theory to you? Im interested. Since as we move to the next world all our good and bad karma comes with us and still affects us. You said we are here to grow spiritually so why would we need or want to grow if I didn't affect us when our physical body dies.
If we dont believe in Karma then it doest matter what we do to anyone.
If we believe in Karma them if we give out of kindness and compassion then we still reap good Karma from it and the person reviving it must have dome something in order that the universe has delivered them a position of suffering or need. Maybe the person receiving might get a lesson in gratitude but on a spiritual level little else. Where the giver receives abundantly from their altruistic nature and deed.
We must never expect to have anything in return for giving or we will suffer and be disappointed and we must always forget the good which we do or we will simply add it to our ego and suffer again. We must forget the idea we are more holly or spiritual than some one else for this also inflates our false ego and also not be proud of being the most "humble person" LOL as ironically that too is of the ego :-D
"Give and you shall receive" Makes sense
Majour ka-
I think we agree on this, but maybe just read that part and skimmed the rest. I know I am guilty of that.lol.
I did not know how to put into words what I was feeling until the Dr. replied back. I believed that since there is a life after this one, that traits such as kindness and compassion could not be explained by science. Thus my elementary equation to counter the original is-- Afterlife=kindness that is selfless (pure). In my equation, the afterlife is all inclusive and was my way of saying I know I'm right but I just can't prove it, for example- infinite is greater than one day since infinite goes on forever and can't be represented with an actual number.
Since I too believe in karma, the Price Equation would practically wipe out any good we do for one another since it supposedly proves that all kind acts are selfish. Keep in mind though that I have a generic sense of the word karma. My interpretation of karma is not influenced by any religious philosophy. So maybe I should just say that I believe in what comes around, goes around. In that aspect, I see nothing wrong with doing good just because it makes me feel good. But then again, I don't consider an act to be kind if someone's motive is to be praised.
We can do right by our fellow man even though our motives are self-serving. But doing the right thing for the wrong reasons does not mean that we did something good. The reason I feel good for helping someone is because I have eased their burden in some way and I can't help but want to have that feeling again. So what Price calls kindness does not meet my definition and is invalid to me.
Thus, if all kind acts were truly selfish by design, kindness would have no effect on karma since that would make it a "law" and entirely out of our influence. To me, karma is based on our personal motives and not necessarily the outcome. Some butthole might construe that as a "get out of jail free card". But to be honest, I personally see no other way to "build" up our positive karma but to be kind and good so an afterlife does disprove the theorem for me.
In conclusion, I have three choices:
1. I can accept the equation to be true and not worry about karma since nothing I can do is truly kind.
2. I can accept it as true sense TRUE kindness serves us well in the afterlife.
3. I can look foolish and not accept it as true and be kind for kindness sake.
I'm an equal mix of both 2 and 3 right now. Thank you Majour Ka, as I hadn't thought about it this hard until your post. Much appreciative.
One last thing. Why must we forget the good that we do? I can see many ways in which remembering our good work doesn't mean having a boosted ego. I will never consider myself holy. I will always consider myself spiritual but I have no way in knowing or caring if I'm more spiritual than another. I apologize if the word karma has spiritual or religious meaning to you and I have used it inappropriately.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 09, 2013, 12:56:03
I watched an interesting show the other night called "Dark Matters". In it, they dramatize some true events that are bizarre but are none the less considered true. The show depicted the story of George Price, whom at the time was an Atheist. He was an amateur mathematician who worked out a theorem that proves that altruism is an evolutionary trait that helps insure that one's genes are passed on and is therefor selfish by design.
I understand the concept but not the theorem. To be considered a theorem, it must always be true in all examples given. Even in hypothetical examples.
Here is a wiki link to the theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation
If anybody can explain this to me in layman's terms, I would be grateful. I have a healthy understanding of algebra and geometry but this is beyond me.
I will have to look at the equation more when I am not physically ill. I am usually good at math. The thing is about math theories is they are just theories. Our genetic codes are passed down our family line. My Grandmas both had adult onset type 2 diabetes. My Uncle does not have it. My mother and I have developed it. Our strength, sight, hearing, health, and maybe even our intelligence is passed through the genetic code of our family tree. Our bodies do not always choose the best from our genetic codes. Two deaf parents can have a child who hears. Still many of us behave as opposites of our parents. I am nothing like my mother. My daughter is nothing like me personality wise and I am happy with our differences. Not all family members have the same beliefs or lifestyles. Here are some Stanford notes on the "Price Equation". (http://"http://www.stanford.edu/~jhj1/teachingdocs/Jones-PriceEquation.pdf")
As for being kind to another person, animal, living being, in life is possibly a selfish act that depends on the situation. The person being kind does not always benefit. There are situations where the act off kindness can be harmful for the individual being kind but they sacrifice for another person. For example say you see a child run in the street after a ball. You get hit by the car instead of the child you saved. I would not say you benefited from that act of kindness but you did it because it is a natural instinct to rescue the child. I have been in this world for 50 years. I have not always been in situations where a kind act I did was benefiting me. Especially with being around children. A neighbor was beating her children almost to death. I stepped in and saved them. They were put in a foster home and they are safe. The woman egged my house, stole from me and threatened me. Did I benefit from saving her children. Her children have thanked me since they grew up. They benefited by what I did. They lived the rest of their childhoods free from abuse.
Quote from: Weatherwax on February 25, 2013, 00:14:38
I will have to look at the equation more when I am not physically ill. I am usually good at math. The thing is about math theories is they are just theories. Our genetic codes are passed down our family line. My Grandmas both had adult onset type 2 diabetes. My Uncle does not have it. My mother and I have developed it. Our strength, sight, hearing, health, and maybe even our intelligence is passed through the genetic code of our family tree. Our bodies do not always choose the best from our genetic codes. Two deaf parents can have a child who hears. Still many of us behave as opposites of our parents. I am nothing like my mother. My daughter is nothing like me personality wise and I am happy with our differences. Not all family members have the same beliefs or lifestyles. Here are some Stanford notes on the "Price Equation". (http://"http://www.stanford.edu/~jhj1/teachingdocs/Jones-PriceEquation.pdf")
As for being kind to another person, animal, living being, in life is possibly a selfish act that depends on the situation. The person being kind does not always benefit. There are situations where the act off kindness can be harmful for the individual being kind but they sacrifice for another person. For example say you see a child run in the street after a ball. You get hit by the car instead of the child you saved. I would not say you benefited from that act of kindness but you did it because it is a natural instinct to rescue the child. I have been in this world for 50 years. I have not always been in situations where a kind act I did was benefiting me. Especially with being around children. A neighbor was beating her children almost to death. I stepped in and saved them. They were put in a foster home and they are safe. The woman egged my house, stole from me and threatened me. Did I benefit from saving her children. Her children have thanked me since they grew up. They benefited by what I did. They lived the rest of their childhoods free from abuse.
That was a beautiful thing you did by stepping in and helping those kids. Who knows how far and wide the negative ripples would have travels had you not done so.
The thing is, this is a mathematical theorem and not a theory. Supposedly it holds true in all sorts of weird ways that are hard to imagine. I am a surveyor so I know trigonometry inside and out for the most part but this equation and how to plug in the numbers for the different variables is beyond my current capabilities so any insight you may have is appreciated.
thanks.
Oops theorem not theory. Sorry I am living on lack of sleep today. I still have several of my math books from my college text books. I will look through them and try to refresh my mind. I have yet to take Trigonometry but I have taken college algebra. I have been a non traditional student the past few years but had to take medical leave because I could not focus on my studies while I am healing.
Quote from: Weatherwax on February 25, 2013, 00:51:17
Oops theorem not theory. Sorry I am living on lack of sleep today. I still have several of my math books from my college text books. I will look through them and try to refresh my mind. I have yet to take Trigonometry but I have taken college algebra. I have been a non traditional student the past few years but had to take medical leave because I could not focus on my studies while I am healing.
I've taken college algebra too and that is far more difficult than trig in my opinion. I barely passed it and that's only because a high D is considered passing on some courses that aren't oriented towards your major. Also, I'm a big believer in the benefits of one educating themselves in a non traditional schooling environment.
Trig... *shudder* That class in High School was my bane. After that College level math classes were easy as pie.
heh... heh... pie
Quote from: ChopstickFox on February 25, 2013, 06:55:27
Trig... *shudder* That class in High School was my bane. After that College level math classes were easy as pie.
heh... heh... pie
My opinion is completely opposite. I just do well with shapes. But only in human terms (not Ummo). :-D
Haha, seriously, where else would you need to specify "human not Ummo" xD
Sorry, in a goofy easily amused mood tonight.
Very interesting, read the whole thread, thanks for posting. I'm not going to comment on the equation in mathematical terms; I hated math. You can chalk up ANY good deed to spiritual nourishment. I think its sad to "know" that no matter what you do for others, its really all for yourself in the end. For someone who wishes to become or believe that in the past they've been completely selfless for the greater good of another, that equation can be a bummer. I guess thats ego though too. "Im a good person and have no selfish needs, don't prove me wrong" I guess I have to believe in something like this: if the equation can't be proven wrong, then we shouldn't focus on ourselves and our inability to be selfless. Just focus on filling yourself up with good karma, pay it forward, always be kind, promote peace externally and internally... Maybe humans are incapable of detaching from the ego completely. Maybe we need a billboard that says something like "being kind benefits you! Stop being a Jerk" Maybe that would change the world faster than trying to shed the ego all together. Do I make sense?!
Quote from: Sarahinthesky on March 02, 2013, 11:13:59
Very interesting, read the whole thread, thanks for posting. I'm not going to comment on the equation in mathematical terms; I hated math. You can chalk up ANY good deed to spiritual nourishment. I think its sad to "know" that no matter what you do for others, its really all for yourself in the end. For someone who wishes to become or believe that in the past they've been completely selfless for the greater good of another, that equation can be a bummer. I guess thats ego though too. "Im a good person and have no selfish needs, don't prove me wrong" I guess I have to believe in something like this: if the equation can't be proven wrong, then we shouldn't focus on ourselves and our inability to be selfless. Just focus on filling yourself up with good karma, pay it forward, always be kind, promote peace externally and internally... Maybe humans are incapable of detaching from the ego completely. Maybe we need a billboard that says something like "being kind benefits you! Stop being a Jerk" Maybe that would change the world faster than trying to shed the ego all together. Do I make sense?!
You make an interesting point. If we approached kindness from the angle that helping others will help ourselves, it may appeal to larger egos less inclined.
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 09, 2013, 12:56:03
I watched an interesting show the other night called "Dark Matters". In it, they dramatize some true events that are bizarre but are none the less considered true. The show depicted the story of George Price, whom at the time was an Atheist. He was an amateur mathematician who worked out a theorem that proves that altruism is an evolutionary trait that helps insure that one's genes are passed on and is therefor selfish by design.
I understand the concept but not the theorem. To be considered a theorem, it must always be true in all examples given. Even in hypothetical examples.
Here is a wiki link to the theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation
If anybody can explain this to me in layman's terms, I would be grateful. I have a healthy understanding of algebra and geometry but this is beyond me.
"I understand the concept but not the theorem. To be considered a theorem, it must always be true in all examples given."
No theorem is always true, people formulate a theorem and then set out to prove it is right, so if anything over about 75% of the times the experiments agree with the theorem they say the theorem is correct. Most of the time if it is right over 95% of the time it will once others also test it, it will be considered a "law of Physics" or whatever field it is in. The times when it didn't work, are considered faulty technique or some other way to justify why it didn't work. None of the "Universal Laws" have ever been 100%. So just because you get hundreds of experts telling you something can't be done because of some law or another, laugh at them and do it anyway. Maybe you can only get it to work one time out of twenty or fifty times, that just proves what I stated above. Remember, expectations affects the results and their expectations may have been the main reason that they got the answers they were looking for most of the time resulting in "proving" their theorem.
Here's one ,
Take the price equation.
Mix it with a dash of misconception and derive it's negative outcome using physical objects.
Let's use our fingers on both hands as the objects.
We know ( thumbs included) we can count to ten, logically.
That was our standard and it's a factual reality.
Now intergrate the price equasion. This means putting a negative aspect into the counting process.
On one hand we count up, a positive aspect.
On the other, as we already know there's ten we count down.
To sum the two results we now have a problem.
1,2,3,4,5 ok take the.5.
Next we already know theres 10, so counting down.
10,9,8,7,6. Ok take the 6.
When these are added we now have 11.
If we start with 9 then knowing there's really 10 do we chop one off?
Of course not.
This is a simplified view of the price equasion.
It can't work as you need to stay positive throughout.
It's annoyingly clever.
Imagine baking a sponge cake this way. Half cook in the morning then half cook at night.
If you can bake you'll understand the outcome. Lol
This argument is invalid. The semantics are misrepresented and the only outcome is negative.
It's a copy of the 'world is flat because we say so'.
A black hole of Sorts.
Try to apply this to unconditional love.
Houston we have a problem...
:-o
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 13, 2013, 17:57:09
In conclusion, I have three choices:
1. I can accept the equation to be true and not worry about karma since nothing I can do is truly kind.
Karma is change, if you are kind to others they might pass it on and again creating a new pattern of kindness. Even when kindness is selfishness, wouldn't you want for yourself and future generations to live in a world of kindness rather than a miserable world? We are the world, become the change. I don't see why we have to view selfishness as something negative, aren't we here for our own reasons?
Quote from: its_all_bad on February 12, 2013, 10:41:28
Beedeekin- It seems we agree wholeheartedly on this matter then. My problem with this concept, is that "spiritual kindness" (pardon my phrase theft) can't be explained with math or even defined with language for that matter.
Mr. Price himself killed himself after he went mad trying to disprove his own work. He "discovered" the theorem when he was an Atheist.
He began contemplating about his own life and how everything came together to bring him to the point where he was at. In other words, he believed that there were far too many coincidences that he believed influenced his life's journey. For example, he had something like 5 serious gf's in a row who had the name "Mary" (I can't remember the real name). Since he was a "love at first sight" kind of guy, he reasoned that he was not attracted to the specific name for some unknown reason since his infatuation for the women would begin before he knew their names.
Anyways he looked at a lot of others things and worked out the individual odds of each coincidence and them looked at the odds of each one coming together. He reasoned that only an outside force or "God" could overcome those odds so he became a believer.
Unfortunate, but fascinating end to his life. Also, fascinating thread.
I think about kindness and "selflessness" a lot and have come to the conclusion that every single act is done in self-interest. At least, every single act can be construed as being done in self-interest. I don't like this conclusion, but when I explain it as I will below, I don't know what else to think.
Think of a "selfless" act, for example, sacrificing your life for another. You go onto the train tracks to push a child out of the way of an oncoming train, knowing there isn't enough time to save yourself, so you'll definitely die.
I think it could be argued that the alternative, letting the child die when you know you could have saved him, is so undesirable to you in that moment that it's preferable to die and save him. So the act is in part motivated by a desire to save that child, and the desire to avoid those terrible feelings of not saving him. Those desires outweigh your desire to live, especially
in that moment (if you could freeze time and ponder your decision maybe things would change), so you act accordingly and sacrifice your life.
Even the desire to save the child could be described as a desire to avoid the negative feelings of not saving the child as well as experiencing the positive feelings (albeit very momentary in this example) of saving him (albeit very momentary in this example).
This could be flawed logic though, I'm not sure. Like saying, "I want to do this because I want to do it." Or something. But it seems pretty reasonable to me that even the most selfless acts can, at their base, be described in terms of self-interest.
Just yesterday I got home from work and there was a centipede on the dry part of a chopstick in a water-filled bowl in my sink. I imagine he was going to drown but found safety on the floating chopstick. I brought him outside and released him in the grass and wished him luck. If I didn't post this no one would have ever known I did that. It seems like a pretty selfless act but the thought of killing the centipede irked me. I would have felt bad. Maybe I only did that to avoid those bad feelings and to experience the good feelings I did by freeing him? I'm really not sure. I find it easier just not to think about these things as it doesn't really matter anyway :)
Interesting thread, disagreed with some parts of the theory itself and with other things that reinforce them.
I thought about this all trough work, How there is always a self-interest element in all the things we do. I wanted to dig deeper and find out my perspective in this, was I a selfish person and did not know it. I came to a conclusion, at least for me; It is true that there is and probably will always be some what of a self-interest element in all that we do. But trough my experience in AP and from some research I have done I came to realize that everything is planed and nothing is ever a coincidence. What ever we do here has been agreed upon in a completely different level by any participants participating in such events. We all chose to forget and play a game call life, we are all made and come from the same cloth. When we hurt others, we are just hurting ourselves and that goes too for the good things, yes we could act selfish and still do nice things. But throughout it all, that is the reason we are here for, to learn and grow. As I always say "The one is all and The all is one"
If we were all just one giant living entity having separate experiences then helping another "you" would technically (and bizarrely) be considered selfish from a big-picture point of view. Then again from that point of view, I would think that helping another "you" would be just like you scratching your own nose when it itched, so maybe from that perspective selfishness isn't defined as we choose to define it in terms of individuality. Not saying that this is how the world is, but ultimately I think it just comes down to what you describe as self.
I see a pattern in this thought train.
It's now the beginning.
We have the word-s.
Let there be light.
:-D