Why do we do anything? The true motivation behind human actions

[moose]

If you think about it, why do you do anything? Everything that one does is towards themselves. There is a reason why everybody does anything. If you help someone out, you are happy that you helped them out. If you bought somebody a gift, you could be happy that you bought the gift. Slaves did what they did because they did not want to die or whatnot. If you sacrifice yourself for something, you are doing it because you feel it is right and you feel better about it. Its amazing how some people don't realize this. If you do something, its because you want to.

Then again, it all depends on your definition of selfishness ;)

 

[loseyourname]

I'd say self-interested. Selfish has too many negative connotations and seems to imply that an action be done at the expense of another. Certainly not all human action qualifies in that regard.

 

[Barbie]

I agree. I have held and argued this view in the past couple of years without success, because the word "selfish" makes it too hard to admit because of the negative connotation (like loseyourname mentioned). I propose that we put together a better way of wording the idea so that it doesn't scare people away. lol Self-interest is better - more positive, but seems to me that it would take additional explanation.

 

[chroot]

Read Ayn Rand.

- Warren

 

[Barbie]

Oh, another thought: What about a parent giving up his/her life for the life of his/her child? Is this still in self-interest or is something else behind it: such as genetic programming, social conditioning, etc... What do you guys think?

 

[Barbie]

Read Ayn Rand.

- Warren

You mean because of the "ego" theme? It is literature written by a person just like us. Although Anthem was an interesting read...

 

[chroot]

You mean because of the "ego" theme? It is literature written by a person just like us. Although Anthem was an interesting read...

I'm aware that Ayn Rand was a person.

Her philosophy, logical positivism, includes at its heart the idea that all actions are done for selfish reasons. Several of her novels deal almost exclusively with this topic. I only bring them up because she has examined this selfishness theory quite thoroughly already.

- Warren

 

[Barbie]

Thus I ask, "You mean because of the ego theme?" I won't be rolling my eyes at you though.

I simply said that because we already agree with her position, reading more from the same view point isn't going to offer anything new.

This is not to say that you shouldn't read her. May as well if it interests you...

 

[Kerrie]

sometimes being a parent changes this "selfishness" you claim we all are.

 

[Bartholomew]

We do what we do because we have been programmed to do it by our genes. It would be possible for our genes to program a brain to always reference back to personal interest, but is it likely? Would you say that a computer program is doing what it does because the action is in itself interest? I think it is far more likely that we have been programmed with many different motivations that are not all unified under the umbra of "self interest."

 

[Enos]

I say we just do the best we can with what we got. We got beliefs and morals too.

 

[loseyourname]

sometimes being a parent changes this "selfishness" you claim we all are.

This "selfishness," which really should be changed to "self-interested," also needs to be qualified to fall in line with current research. Self-interest has been found not to act at the level of the individual organism, but rather at the level of the individual gene. There is no distinguishing at the genetic level between you and your child. Your child is 50% you genetically, and studies have persistently found that organisms have an evolutionary logic that causes them to take exactly a 50% risk of their own death to ensure the survival of their children (in animals that display altruistic behavior of any sort). The likelihood of taking such a risk can actually be mathematically modeled depending on how closely related the person is to you. You are more likely to risk your life for your child than for your sibling, more likely for your sibling than for your cousin.

None of these studies have ever been conducted on humans, so I have no idea if human altruism is equally predictable. The only point is that displaying altruistic behavior toward any member of one's in-group, and particularly toward one's own kin, does not in any way contradict the hypothesis that all animal behavior is self-interested (provided we qualify the hypothesis by saying that the self-interest is at the genetic level, rather than the organismic level).

 

[Bartholomew]

The evolutionary logic is not always in the interest of the organism. It's in the interest of the organism's genes, and the organism is not identical with its genes. In any case there are always inferior mutants who do not conform to the optimal behavior for propagating their genes, so their non-optimal behavior does not work in favor of their genes, so they can't even be said to be fully motivated by that.

 

[GeD]

If you think about it, why do you do anything? Everything that one does is towards themselves. There is a reason why everybody does anything. If you help someone out, you are happy that you helped them out. If you bought somebody a gift, you could be happy that you bought the gift. Slaves did what they did because they did not want to die or whatnot. If you sacrifice yourself for something, you are doing it because you feel it is right and you feel better about it.

Well, the presence of feeling "right" or "better" after an action is not sufficient evidence to prove that we acted with only self-interested reasons. People can feel pleasure or benefit from an action, even if they had no intentions of getting them.
Also, there are cases where either a person chooses randomly (ie. all choices are thought to end up with the same consequence) or the consequence of the action is not known at all by the person. In at least these cases, action is simply instinct - not preceded by attempting to do what one feels is right or what would be good for self-interest. One could argue that even this is an egoistic action, and I won't offer any resistance.

Its amazing how some people don't realize this. If you do something, its because you want to.

I'm pretty sure most people over the age of 2 and aren't deluded know this - everyone is self-interested (ie. all act in a way to benefit their self-interests/values). I think the biggest problem is that people don't believe that everyone is "selfish" - that everyone will sacrifice anyone and everyone just to serve their own interests. The difference is between "cut-throat-action" vs "self-interested-action".
^^ Has been said by loseyourname and Barbie already.

However, the reason that no one is "completely" selfish is because we lack or are finite in POWER - we do not have absolute power over our recognized enemies. If one had absolute power (or felt strongly enough that he does), I'm sure that at least for that certain period of time, he would act 100% selfishly.

 

[Dayle Record]

Quantifications like 100%, and everybody, don't apply on this world, especially when describing human behavior. As much as spin masters would like a 100% response to every saleable ideation, it just doesn't happen. Universal selfishness implies that every action is a reaction to stimulus, that forwards immediate selfish goals.

Each of us has a fire to feed, other than that, and the activities attendant to that, it is a field with many variables. So various is the experience that I submit, it is individual and unique and above categorization. I think that the sameness that runs through existence has to do with feeding our fires, and survival. I maintain that the structure and sameness, or even similar chaotic history, has to do with the "selfishness", or (survival) mode; the entire rest has to do with the doings of the universe in general, some of that set intersects with the sets of our doings, and more in a bland-to wondrous way, having more to do with the ongoing processes of the universe, and our link to them.

 

[russ_watters]

Her philosophy, logical positivism, includes at its heart the idea that all actions are done for selfish reasons. Several of her novels deal almost exclusively with this topic. I only bring them up because she has examined this selfishness theory quite thoroughly already.

Though I can certainly see the logic of it - pretty much every action one takes can be shown to have a positive consequence for the person who takes it - but I don't buy it. I think it ignores the concept of "caring".

I definitely need to read some of her work though...

loseyourname - interesting idea, quantifiable altruism. I never considered that.

 

[hitssquad]

Objectivism vs Logical Positivism

Ayn Rand was a person. Her philosophy, logical positivism

Ayn Rand's philosophy was Objectivism.


--
Greenspan and Rand didn’t hit it off. According to Nathaniel Branden, he was philosophically a logical positivist and economically a Keynesian, both doctrines anathema to Rand. “How can you stand talking to him?” Rand asked Branden. “A logical positivist and a Keynesian? I’m not even certain it’s moral to deal with him at all.” (Barbara Branden doesn’t remember it that way, and neither does Greenspan. She and Greenspan deny he was ever a Keynesian.)
--
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16149/article_detail.asp

 

[Enos]

I'll keep it simple.

What on does, does for oneself. What is oneself? It's your beliefs, morality, values, your mental and physical being.

If you believe that your life is less valuable then the life of anothers then you should have no problem risking yours when the situation arrives.
If you believe that the physical and mental stimulation of a cigarette is more important then the long term effects of smoking or better then the suffering of the craving caused by addiction exceeds the pain of quiting then you will continue smoking.
If you think one more moment in your miserable life isn't worth the pain then you will find a way to deal with that whether it involves murder, suicide or a mid life crisis then that is what will happen.

Every action whether the outcome is what was expected or not is done because at the time you choose to do the action is what was the best possible action that you could think of doing in the time given. Whether you had a split second or a couple years to make that choice.

Any selfish and altruistic act is based on actions meant for oneself. And we tend to consider much family, friends, race, life, matter as oneself. Depending on our views on life, universe or our compassion.

 

[GeD]

Any selfish and altruistic act is based on actions meant for oneself. And we tend to consider much family, friends, race, life, matter as oneself. Depending on our views on life, universe or our compassion.

If an action were TRULY altruistic, then it is not done for one's self. To say that someone acts altruistically for selfish reasons is a contradiction of concepts.

If you are instead invoking the possibility that we may psychologically delude ourselves into thinking we act altruistically, or we have deeper intentions than we realize, such that altruistic acts are in fact a misnomer and all acts are done for ourselves, then you might be right.

Again, however, I will quote you the same arguments I posted before - that we can't be 100% selfish (even though I would agree that we are always looking over our self-interests).

I'm pretty sure most people over the age of 2 and aren't deluded know this - everyone is self-interested (ie. all act in a way to benefit their self-interests/values). I think the biggest problem is that people don't believe that everyone is "selfish" - that everyone will sacrifice anyone and everyone just to serve their own interests. The difference is between "cut-throat-action" vs "self-interested-action".
^^ Has been said by loseyourname and Barbie already.

However, the reason that no one is "completely" selfish is because we lack or are finite in POWER - we do not have absolute power over our recognized enemies. If one had absolute power (or felt strongly enough that he does), I'm sure that at least for that certain period of time, he would act 100% selfishly.

Thus, I it would be reasonable to state that everyone is self-interested, but assuming that we are all completely selfish would require more arguments.

 

[Enos]

Maybe I should have said "seemingly altruistic"

I do think it works 100% or completely.

 

[GeD]

Maybe I should have said "seemingly altruistic"

I do think it works 100% or completely.

Then explain how this is so. Or better yet, prove why all actions are simply selfish, and that it is not possible that actions can be only self-interested.

 

[Enos]

Can you give me an example of why it isn't complete so I can see where our differences collide.

 

[GeD]

Definitely.

From one who understands their finitude, they must help others in order to survive or secure their power. But in order to get that help, you must secure the loyalty and trust of others. Surely, we do favors in order to keep the trust in order to secure our power (basically it's done for our self-interests). However, this does not mean that we would abandon and sacrifice anyone or everyone whenever it suits us (especially for those we care about). Yes, the reason we may not abandon or sacrifice the people for the sake of our own interests as well, but unfortunately, not every action involves thinking about all the worthy consequences to our self-interests. Some actions are simply done instinctively or by virtue of the value one has placed on them - we would still be considerate only to the extent that we sometimes think of other people's interests as well.

I also won't go far into the technicality that we are not perfect - and could therefore never act selfishly 100% of the time.

I agree that the word altruistic is a misnomer, but I still take the stand that if someone believed or actually had absolute power - they could be completely selfish.

 

[Enos]

First I don't think proving self-interest wrong is possible because self-interest is pretty much the wings of selfishness.

From one who understands their finitude, they must help others in order to survive or secure their power. But in order to get that help, you must secure the loyalty and trust of others. Surely, we do favors in order to keep the trust in order to secure our power (basically it's done for our self-interests).

Well we humans as you put it in different terms are limited both mentally and physically and a part of our limits involve laws, morals and ways of controlling each other. It's a part of the power seekers long term plans of manipulation and immortality. Once one does the help using manipulation in mind and the people manipulated believe they act with loyalty and trust then loyalty and trust are new concepts that are added to our understanding of actions. Much like how altruistic behaviour is rather a concept than an actuality.

However, this does not mean that we would abandon and sacrifice anyone or everyone whenever it suits us (especially for those we care about). Yes, the reason we may not abandon or sacrifice the people for the sake of our own interests as well, but unfortunately, not every action involves thinking about all the worthy consequences to our self-interests. Some actions are simply done instinctively or by virtue of the value one has placed on them.

What would you mean by instinctively? From my understanding every act we do is rooted to our experience. And if one did something because of the virtue of the value one has placed on them it is still a choice one has to make. If you value the path that has been chosen upon you by manipulators whether or not the intentions of manipulation are there more then you value your own freedom of choice then of course you will choose the best path which would be to act the already set path rather then deal with the confrontations and thoughts of failure.

I also won't go far into the technicality that we are not perfect - and could therefore never act selfishly 100% of the time.

However, I still take the stand that if someone believed or actually had absolute power - they could be completely selfish.

Perfection and absolute power is relative. One can have only the clothes they wear and feel perfect, one can own a country, be very wealthy and feel powerless. Our actions are linked to our mental limits and are tested by our physical limits. Our physical and mental pleasures and pains in life are added to our memories so when a similar situation arrives we are able to act sooner and yet sometimes seemingly instinctive. Like jumping from a snake before our mind identifies it as a garden hose. Our experience tells us that snakes are dangerous and so our body reacts to the shape of a snake even before we know its a snake for sure. The shape is a form of manipulation in the same sense of loyalty and trust. Don't get me wrong, the concepts are great and very well needed with the amount of humans and life that share this planet. I seek these meanings because I believe that we were all ONE at one point through my scientific beliefs and we are ultimately the same existence.

 

[GeD]

Well we humans as you put it in different terms are limited both mentally and physically and a part of our limits involve laws, morals and ways of controlling each other. It's a part of the power seekers long term plans of manipulation and immortality. Once one does the help using manipulation in mind and the people manipulated believe they act with loyalty and trust then loyalty and trust are new concepts that are added to our understanding of actions. Much like how altruistic behaviour is rather a concept than an actuality.

Sounds good to me, but very few people have the strength to seek power constantly. People take many breaks from that quest, or they may delude themselves temporarily into going against power. Thus, no matter what the english dictionary defines loyalty and trust are, it's still committed by people.

What would you mean by instinctively? From my understanding every act we do is rooted to our experience.

I'm not sure where the confusion is - we simply act instinctively at some level, and having experience does not somehow free us completely from such a constraint.

And if one did something because of the virtue of the value one has placed on them it is still a choice one has to make. If you value the path that has been chosen upon you by manipulators whether or not the intentions of manipulation are there more then you value your own freedom of choice then of course you will choose the best path which would be to act the already set path rather then deal with the confrontations and thoughts of failure.

This seems to be a loaded argument - just because we follow the manipulators regardless of intentions, it does not mean that we are not acting freely. As we've agreed on, we may act on what we feel is best for our self-interests (all those actions being selfish is what I have a dispute about), but this doesn't necessarily mean that we are avoiding confrontation and thoughts of failure just because we "follow the manipulators" (even though I know of many cases where this is the case).

Perfection and absolute power is relative. One can have only the clothes they wear and feel perfect, one can own a country, be very wealthy and feel powerless.

Perfection and absolute power are concepts that can only be defined as perfect or absolute if you assume a limited number of properties, otherwise they are considered to be limitless. However, since you chose to assume that we are a NON-relative 100% selfish people, you are stating that we must endlessly and constantly act selfishly without mistake. This, in my experience is impossible for finite beings such as ourselves. It may be admirable, but alas, it does not happen.

Our actions are linked to our mental limits and are tested by our physical limits. Our physical and mental pleasures and pains in life are added to our memories so when a similar situation arrives we are able to act sooner and yet sometimes seemingly instinctive. Like jumping from a snake before our mind identifies it as a garden hose. Our experience tells us that snakes are dangerous and so our body reacts to the shape of a snake even before we know its a snake for sure.

Seemingly instinctive? That's the definition of instinct. You may be assuming that I think of instinct as "intuition" or "spidey sense". I think of instinct as fixed response(s) to a given stimulus.

The shape is a form of manipulation in the same sense of loyalty and trust. Don't get me wrong, the concepts are great and very well needed with the amount of humans and life that share this planet.

The shape, I agree, is an invented property (that is useful to us), just as loyalty and trust are invented concepts for power as well. But again, at times we are just instinctively loyal or trustworthy - ie. without much, if any, conscious deliberation (instincts that are hopefully still acting on our interests).
Secondly, some people may have misunderstood the genealogy of loyalty and trust - and they begin to value it for 'its own sake'. Thus, they may act on such a value for 'its own sake' -like trust or loyalty or any other concepts.


I would only have more difficultly to counter the 100% selfish thing if you said that even our instincts are also 100% selfish - regardless of whether we act knowingly (accepted) or not (suppressed).

 

[Enos]

Sorry for this delayed reply, I don't have a computer right now so I go on every now and then at a friends house.

I'm not sure where the confusion is - we simply act instinctively at some level, and having experience does not somehow free us completely from such a constraint.

I don't consider the snake situation as instinct because it does not apply to all humans. Let's say that the garden hose is now a real snake, a human who knows the dangers of snakes will react in a way to avoid it, with exceptions to those who know how to handle snakes and or feel like taking risk. Also a two year old child who sees an animal and will most likely try to grab it. If the child survives the snake attack then he or she is most likely to avoid snakes also. But the reaction is learned and not instinct, the shape of the snake is programmed into the subconsciouspart of our minds and the reaction is a reflex of the quick scan of the environment rather than the identification part.

This seems to be a loaded argument - just because we follow the manipulators regardless of intentions, it does not mean that we are not acting freely. As we've agreed on, we may act on what we feel is best for our self-interests (all those actions being selfish is what I have a dispute about), but this doesn't necessarily mean that we are avoiding confrontation and thoughts of failure just because we "follow the manipulators" (even though I know of many cases where this is the case).

I agree that every choice is a free choice and that agrees with relativity. I'll speak more on this in the next section.

Perfection and absolute power are concepts that can only be defined as perfect or absolute if you assume a limited number of properties, otherwise they are considered to be limitless. However, since you chose to assume that we are a NON-relative 100% selfish people, you are stating that we must endlessly and constantly act selfishly without mistake. This, in my experience is impossible for finite beings such as ourselves. It may be admirable, but alas, it does not happen.

See the definition of power and perfection is really just a state of what one assumes what perfection and power is. Like trust and loyalty, perfection and power are rather concepts than actuality. Although I agree with humans as relative beings to a certian point I do believe that there is no free-will when you narrow things down enough. Although we all have freedom to choose any available choice there is, whether the action becomes what is expected, We still have no choice but to choose. And that isn't relative. The choice to end choice is a choice itself. The matter of our being still exist and our existence is not our choice also.

The shape, I agree, is an invented property (that is useful to us), just as loyalty and trust are invented concepts for power as well. But again, at times we are just instinctively loyal or trustworthy - ie. without much, if any, conscious deliberation (instincts that are hopefully still acting on our interests).
Secondly, some people may have misunderstood the genealogy of loyalty and trust - and they begin to value it for 'its own sake'. Thus, they may act on such a value for 'its own sake' -like trust or loyalty or any other concepts.

Every action is an invented property because every action is relative. Our actions are reflections of our choices and we can always choose differently from other beings. As long as there are different beings sharing the same territory and holding different concepts of what choices are considered right and considered wrong then there will be different groups, species, races..etc..
Everything that is relative is a concept but the only absolute thing is that we have no choice in choice itself. That thing about absolutes is that it only exist in the present. And relative beings can only dwell in the past and predict the future.

I would only have more difficultly to counter the 100% selfish thing if you said that even our instincts are also 100% selfish - regardless of whether we act knowingly (accepted) or not (suppressed).

I'm sure that is what I am saying.

 

[GeD]

I don't consider the snake situation as instinct because it does not apply to all humans. Let's say that the garden hose is now a real snake, a human who knows the dangers of snakes will react in a way to avoid it, with exceptions to those who know how to handle snakes and or feel like taking risk. Also a two year old child who sees an animal and will most likely try to grab it. If the child survives the snake attack then he or she is most likely to avoid snakes also. But the reaction is learned and not instinct, the shape of the snake is programmed into the subconsciouspart of our minds and the reaction is a reflex of the quick scan of the environment rather than the identification part.

Only because in the process of learning, the snake is taught to in relation to something that makes us instinctively pull away or flee. It's not just because we associate snakes with bad and we all believe it 100%. It must be based on something instinctive, or the learned reaction will not be saved.

See the definition of power and perfection is really just a state of what one assumes what perfection and power is. Like trust and loyalty, perfection and power are rather concepts than actuality. Although I agree with humans as relative beings to a certian point I do believe that there is no free-will when you narrow things down enough. Although we all have freedom to choose any available choice there is, whether the action becomes what is expected, We still have no choice but to choose. And that isn't relative. The choice to end choice is a choice itself. The matter of our being still exist and our existence is not our choice also.

Concepts are ways of understanding phenomena. They are not just invented and then begin to exist because we think of them. I'm not doubting that we always make a choice. However, making a choice does not mean that we freely did it ourselves. Existence will need to be something that is absolute. Before we can assume that choice is absolute, we must assume our own existence to be absolute.

Everything that is relative is a concept but the only absolute thing is that we have no choice in choice itself. That thing about absolutes is that it only exist in the present. And relative beings can only dwell in the past and predict the future.

You forget that instinct is different from choice. The reason we hold instinct in awe is its tendency to surpass our choices and act for us, or change our choices without consciously thinking about it.

 

[Enos]

Only because in the process of learning, the snake is taught to in relation to something that makes us instinctively pull away or flee. It's not just because we associate snakes with bad and we all believe it 100%. It must be based on something instinctive, or the learned reaction will not be saved.

Well the only reason why I seem iffy about instinct is because "instinct" has a meaning of inborn stimuli. We know nothing of snakes at birth so I refuse to believe that reacting to the snake as instinct. The only instinct I see is the selfishness, babies need to be held and fed or they get cranky. They have to learn that communications exist between others and the family laws like no touching the sharp or hot stuff. Most lessons are learned by experience or observing someone else's experience. After all our mind can't tell whether we or someone else is doing the experience. That the same patterns happen within our mind when we are doing something or watching someone else do the same thing. Just because our subconsciousmind is much faster than our conscious mind does not mean instinct is at play. It's really a matter of focus and thought process. As soon as you walk into a room your mind will begin the process everything in the room and let your conscious mind know what is relevant and ignore the irrelevant things. That's what separates the trained eye of some spy from the average civilian who lives on with his daily routines. The spy just makes things more relevant. We have a very courious nature so when we are born that is when things are the most relevant and we keep our mind with everything in our environment. As we get older the things that amazed us are no longer relevant and just become a part of our walk by and ignore part of our minds until we have use for such things. Which is why some people lose their car keys or misplaced an item. Also why when something odd is happening in our environment we investigate and observe and take in this new experience. To say that the reaction must be based on an action without going through the mind first seems wrong to me. The fact that the learned reaction is stored in the mind must mean that the reaction goes through the mind first. The pulling away and fleeing is really just a matter of our physical limits. If we were all powerful as you said we would have no reason to pull away or flee. But the best one can do if one knows that we aren't all powerful is pull away, flee or some other type of avoidance.
The stimuli that one gets once life begins should be the same for all life. But the concepts of the root meaning may differ due to our limits and our environment. The laws of our kind apply because we share most of the same physical limits and have similar concepts of right and wrong and able to communicate and understand one another. But nothing stops us from defying the laws of human and attempting to surpass or go beyond our limits. That is the whole reason why technology and inventions exist for us humans. The instinct is selfishness and we decide what is best for ourselves. Whether it be compassion or power and any other concept. The more advanced we bring our concepts and ideas the more we complicate the real meaning of our actions. The only thing that separates humans from animals is humans.

Concepts are ways of understanding phenomena. They are not just invented and then begin to exist because we think of them. I'm not doubting that we always make a choice. However, making a choice does not mean that we freely did it ourselves. Existence will need to be something that is absolute. Before we can assume that choice is absolute, we must assume our own existence to be absolute.

How detailed our concepts become are factored by our minds capacity and processing speed, our physical limits like our senses, body functions and life span. Also by passing on our knowledge and perceptions to others. There isn't really an original idea because everything that we create or call original is really just another manifestation of the same root meaning. Like the different pieces of technology used but still made of the same type of metals and silicon. Like how relativity says that in space, Spaceman A sees Spaceman B coming closer and closer to him, yet Spaceman B can say that Spaceman A is coming closer and closer. Both can say the same thing and yet both statements can be true. This goes the same with choice, we freely choose the best possible action available within our mental and physical limits because we know that attempting to go beyond our limits can lead to an undesirable result. Every choice is freely chosen but the root of our choices say that we still follow the same absolute path. If you consider that as a predetermined path that that is what I am referring to and there is really no choice at all. It's really just a definition of what you consider freedom.

You forget that instinct is different from choice. The reason we hold instinct in awe is its tendency to surpass our choices and act for us, or change our choices without consciously thinking about it.

Just because we made the choice long before meeting a similar situation to keep our distance from snakes and held the memory of it's shape doesn't mean that no choice was taken at all. The only thing I see is conflicts of long term and short term choices and old ideas vs new ideas. Our choice from going to point A to point B was disrupted by an odd shape that linked to our minds database of physical limits. Our new path has changed because going from point A to point B is not as easy as expected due to the shape of a snake in our path.The subconscious mind deals with the quick but deals with it while lacking detail or partially conscious of what we see and react to. So if something your mind links to as "avoid" blocks your path before you are fully conscious of what that something is your reactions will act depending on how much danger you link to the object that represents that shape. Just because you partially know what the object is does not mean you partially know the danger it represents. Your mind knows the choice you would make if you were fully conscious of the snake whether it be real or not, your mind makes it real before you can identify if it is real or not.

 

[GeD]

To say that the reaction must be based on an action without going through the mind first seems wrong to me. The fact that the learned reaction is stored in the mind must mean that the reaction goes through the mind first.

Of course it seems wrong to you, why would pride want you to feel that your WILL is not all powerful ;)
All the talk about the subconscious and ignoring instinct is long-winded and misinformed. Instinct does exist - we know that the body will react to touching a hot stove before the stimulus signals can even reach the brain. The mind does not always "rapidly think" so that all of our actions are simply different according to the speed at which we think. Some actions are indeed instinctive. We can learn to suppress instincts, or slow them down long enough to make a choice, but instinct is not just some lame explanation for super fast judgments.

Every choice is freely chosen but the root of our choices say that we still follow the same absolute path (and the whole paragraph).

I don't really know where this came from all of a sudden. We're talking about choices, but it doesn't mean that there is a single root, absolute meaning to it all. The choices are there yes, and they are 100% self-interested. My problem is in the concept of selfishness.
In relation to the original post, if you want to say that things like loyalty and trust are concepts, then selfishness is also a concept. So really the most we can assume is that our choices and instinct are 100% self-interested & self-serving. You stated that loyalty and trust are just concepts - then so is selfishness (as defined by 'cut-throat action'). Not all actions are an attempt to be cut-throat, and thus 100% selfish is never satisfied. Only 100% self-serving could be satisfied.
This could all just be a mere misunderstanding of the technicality and definitions.

Just because we made the choice long before meeting a similar situation to keep our distance from snakes and held the memory of it's shape doesn't mean that no choice was taken at all.

Firstly, there is the possibility that what we learn very well becomes instinct. It does not simply mean that we have a very quick deliberation. The reason things pop up in our head is not just a product of nanoseconds of brain activity at work - this is instinct at work. The point is that even if you made a choice to keep away from snakes a long time ago, when you finally meet up with a snake later on, you may move away by instinct, or with deliberation. Since at least some of the times you move away instinctively, that means that sometimes your instinct just acts - you don't make a choice. Just like how your lungs breathe and your heart pumps. Instinct just acts. Of course, this doesn't take you away from your being responsible for your instinct's actions.

Look, I'm not attacking that we make choices on every part of our life, I'm just showing you that in your attempt to universalize our choices, you ignore instinct's work in all of this. We are still responsible for everything we do, no doubt, but to assume that we consciously choose every single thing we do is just plain pride at work. Noble idea, but it doesn't happen.









NOTE: Yea sorry about the late edits, I just hate it when i accidentally press back on my mouse and I have to rewrite everything. So I just post everything in its first form and then edit over some time.

This new edit is simply a moving around of paragraphs so it's clearer for everyone else who's reading it.

 

[Enos]

Agreed. I can't seem to get the words i wish to say out of my head and it comes out differently.