Are You Insane?

[surian]

Malchik is totally right (for once ;) ... j/k man, you're always right). I will submit this as proof:

 

Theory: Human beings are simply not capable of doing anything that is not, in some way, in their best interest. To do otherwise is indicative of insanity.

 

Proof: Any situation that you encounter you are faced with a decision or sometimes multiple decisions. In some situations you are able to choose between something that is immediately benificial, in others you can choose to sacrifice immediate benifits for future benifits that may or may not be more benifitial to you. A sane person looks at the situation and weighs the pros and cons and then acts upon his decision in an attempt to benifit themselves somehow.

 

Obviously if you are given a choice between touching a burning oven and not touching it you will choose not to touch it because doing so will cause you pain. Therefor your decision is based on providing a benifit to yourself throuh denying yourself pain. However, what if you do decide to touch the oven? Then you must, as we did earlier, check your reasons for doing so. You must have some reason for doing it: Perhaps you are young and do not realise that such an action is dangerous, in which case you decided that you would increase your knowledge by experimentation, which is benifitial. Perhaps you made a bet with someone and you wish to win the bet, you may or may not recieve a monitary or phisical reward for winning the bet or you may be content with the satisfaction of winning, either way you have benifited. It is up to debate as to whether or not that action was in fact more benifitial to you than just keeping away from the burning oven, however it is undeniable that the action was preceded by a calculated risk analisis and actions were made that would benifit the person in the way that they determined to be worth more.

 

What about kindness though? True alturism (selflessness) is non-existant. The biblical morals behind alturism are false and are not phisically or mentally achievable by human beings unless they are malfunctioning mentally (i.e. insane). The reason is clear: If you decide to give 10 dollars to a bum on the street you make the choice based, as always, on a calculated pro vs. con based on your own beliefs and values. If you choose not to give the money to the bum then you are acting in your own self interest either by keeping the money for yourself or by adhering to values that you have layed down for yourself. If you do give the money to the bum then you are benifited immediately by feeling good about the action and perhaps you also feel good because you have adhered to your values in the matter.

 

The same reasoning applies to Religious matters. In every religion the basis behind it is that you make sacrifices in order to achive something better for yourself either in this world or in the next. Christianity in particular preaches alturism in a pure form, you are to be good to people not because you expect rewards but because it is the right thing to do. However, by following these rules you are attempting to gain a reward by being admitted into heaven upon death. Think about it this way: if you are religious, would you still follow your religion's teachings if you knew that the reward for following these teachings is an eternity in hell? (hypothetically). Of course not! If you did still follow the teachings, knowing that you would be granted hell for eternity, you would either have to have some other reason behind following the teachings or you would be acting in a manner that can only be described as insane.

 

If you are insane then your actions might not be linked to a pro vs. con form of deduction. You may act simply because a stray electron fired at the wrong time thus imapairing your ability to rationally think through your actions before commiting them. You could even say that in many cases people who are "insane" are still acting in their own interests, however they are unable to correctly rationalise what is in their best interest. Look at any cerial killer or mentally deranged criminal and you'll see that they always have a reason for their actions. Their reasoning may be incorrect because of their illness but they are still taking the correct actions as far as they can tell. They do a pro vs. con deduction but their data is invalid so their conclusion is wrong.

 

So, any sane person acts in their own best interest all the time. The only variable is that each person can choose what "in my best interest" means at any given time and for any particular situation.

 

Read some Ayn Rand, particularly The Fountainhead for a very good example of this. One of her characters is a completely alturistic man who adheres to the very definition of alturism, and in-so-doing becomes the villian of the story (and also a very unbelievable character because no one could actually act like that and still be sane). Whether or not you agree with her philisophical views as a whole, she is completely correct when she says that man is a rational beast and being rational is what makes a man sane. She argues that a better man is one who acts in his own self interest in every situation but who also uses reason to determine correctly what is the best benifit to themselves.

[Abramul]

This may be better than the hot oven example...if I remember the answers correctly

Do you:

Place yourself between your mother and the hot pipe.

Push your mother out of the way of the pipe.

Try and deflect the pipe.

 

What about someone who makes unimportant decisions by flipping a coin...would that benefit them by preventing them from having to think it through?

 

As I understand it, Christianity says you CANNOT be saved by good works. But that's a question for another day. However, if I were offered a chance to see Hell for a day, I probably would accept, in order to see how it works.

 

If a person, presented with a situation repeatedly, would choose a different action each time (assuming no prior knowledge, of course), then how can that be reconciled with the idea that we always act in our own best interest? Also, how can we even know what IS the best choice?

 

EDIT: The pipe scenario is one of the character generation questions. I chose that because I figured everyone would be familiar with it. The choice between touching a hot oven and not touching it is obvious, unless you are either stupid or too young to know better...I was saying that it's not always so clear cut.

[Malchik]

Abramul you have missed out the scene setting for your first example making it hard to comment. Tell us more about the situation you are in that gives rise to the choice.

 

But try this one. You are in a small boat some way out to sea. With you are your mother, your partner and your partner's six-year-old daughter by a previous relationship. The boat sinks. All four of you can swim but you know only you are strong enough to make it to the shore. You can help one other (only). Who do you save?

 

If a person flips a coin to make a choice it is because he has worked out that the benefit to him/her from making either choice is the same. You want to go out to see a film and there is a choice of two. You'll enjoy both equally, let the coin decide. You want to go to one, your companion to another (one will be happy but at the expense of some conscience pricking, the other perhaps a little resentful). Let the coin choose then the loser cannot blame the winner and the friendship is not affected.

 

Please keep religion OUT of the debate.

 

If you have no knowledge of an outcome of a situation it is the same as having equal outcomes, they are all equally unknown. In such a circumstance the decision is made by the equivalent of an unconscious flip of a coin. So the same person would not rationally make the same choice every time. However there is a flaw to this argument.

 

Suppose there are four choices. The first time the results of all four are equally unknown therefore the mental coin flip applies. The second time the outcome of one choice is known. The outcome will be of two kinds, it may be random or variable to the point when it cannot be guaranteed that the same choice will give the same outcome. In this case the choice remains between four unknowns and the coin flip occurs. It is very unlikely that the same choice will be made. If the outcome can be guaranteed then the chooser will factor this in. It may be that the outcome was what was required but the reasoning may also be - well that was good but perhaps the others would be better. Here the choice would not be random but to try all possibilities in order.

 

I hope this is clear!

[ThetaOrionis01]

Reading this thread I get the impression that some people regard 'sanity' and 'rationality' as synonymous. Self-preservation, IMO, has more to do with rationality than sanity.

 

I think that 'sanity' is a matter of brain chemistry - and I would define sanity as a state where neural connections within the brain exhibit a pattern that falls within a range we call 'normal', and that the release of neurotransmitters falls within the 'normal' spectrum - so if your sensory input is light of a certain wavelength, your brain responds 'correctly' so that you evaluate this sensory input as a beam of light rather than a chorus of voices. Sanity, then, would be a state where certain input leads to certain output.

 

Of course..... the question arises - what is a 'normal' spectrum?

[Malchik]

Reading this thread I get the impression that some people regard 'sanity' and 'rationality' as synonymous. Self-preservation, IMO, has more to do with rationality than sanity.

 

I think that 'sanity' is a matter of brain chemistry - and I would define sanity as a state where neural connections within the brain exhibit a pattern that falls within a range we call 'normal', and that the release of neurotransmitters falls within the 'normal' spectrum  - so if your sensory input is light of a certain wavelength, your brain responds 'correctly' so that you evaluate this sensory input as a beam of light rather than a chorus of voices. Sanity, then, would be a state where certain input leads to certain output.

 

Of course..... the question arises - what is a 'normal' spectrum?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think there is confusion. It was the original poster's definition that was not really about 'sanity' and I suspect was tongue-in-cheek. The thread now has two elements - what is sanity and can anyone be 'unselfish' when making a choice.

 

What is 'normal'? Mathematically a normal distribution is one that fits under a bell curve and 'normality' would be regarded as anything a couple of standard deviations on either side of the mean (IIRC :ph34r: ). So taking a random sample of people and testing their responses to a stimulus would give you 'normality'. It does not of course speculate on whether 'normal' is right or good? Judging from experiments in London recently the 'normal' reaction to someone lying hurt in the road is to look the other way. Still, I always knew I was insane!

 

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

[Gabbemaster]

What is 'normal'? Mathematically a normal distribution is one that fits under a bell curve and 'normality' would be regarded as anything a couple of standard deviations on either side of the mean (IIRC  ). So taking a random sample of people and testing their responses to a stimulus would give you 'normality'. It does not of course speculate on whether 'normal' is right or good? Judging from experiments in London recently the 'normal' reaction to someone lying hurt in the road is to look the other way. Still, I always knew I was insane!

 

I have a better explanation ( I think ;) ):

 

The majority is normal.

Example: If the majority of all the people in the world have only one leg, then it is normal to have one leg.

 

 

 

And about Sanity:

Everyone that has ever post in this tread will surely be classified as Insane and locked up in rooms with white madrassed walls floors and roofs. ^_^

[Malchik]

Everyone that has ever post in this tread will surely be classified as Insane and locked up in rooms with white madrassed walls floors and roofs.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Madrassed? Madras - a fine silk or cotton fabric, often with a woven stripe; a kind of medium hot curry. I'll go for the curry. Thanks.

[Gabbemaster]

Everyone that has ever post in this tread will surely be classified as Insane and locked up in rooms with white madrassed walls floors and roofs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Madrassed? Madras - a fine silk or cotton fabric, often with a woven stripe; a kind of medium hot curry. I'll go for the curry. Thanks.

 

...Damn, I never get those words right, maybee Mattressed will fit better? <_<