Rama Set:
"I will need some evidence for this. Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."
That's not what's happening, your loved one is dying, you can save them with your organ that will cost you your life. It's not instinctive!
This is not what was being discussed previously. We were discussing people sacrificing their lives in a snap decision. Organ donation is not performed if it will be fatal to the donor, so your situation is not even applicable.
And I did save someone! I was keenly aware of the danger I was in, I was thinking what is the best way to proceed, what do I do next. If anything, my senses and thinking were more acute.
Please tell me what you did in detail.
Someone jumps in front of a train to save someone else. Why do they do it? Who cares, let them die, better them than me! Save the group? Forget the group, who cares about some nebulous group!
Humans care about some nebulous group. This is not in dispute. You are behaving as if this has not all been addressed ad nauseam.
Turning on the light requires thinking, I'm having trouble seeing the text I need to turn on the light, is this the light with the switch on the left or right, which way should I move my arm? You're not hitting a baseball. You're thinking should I turn on the light by the chair or the overhead light?
I don't think about how I am turning on a light very often, I just reach up and do it, without premeditation.
You're thinking my loved one is dying I can save them with my organ at the expense of my own life. You know completely what's going on. I would give my life, I know from experience.
So what? Even if fatal organ donations happened (they don't), all of this has been plausibly explained by Totesnotreptilian. You seem utterly unable to address the substance of what he said. Please address what he outlined, substantively, so this conversation can actually progress.
Go look at my original statement, it's exactly what I asked!
Rama Set:
"Most accounts of people jumping in to urgent live-saving action are accompanied by anecdotes of, "I didn't have time to think, I just did what I had to do" or some variation thereof."
"Humans care about some nebulous group. This is not in dispute."
So which is it. We save someone and didn't have time to think or we did it because we care about some nebulous group?
Personally when I held the hand of my dying mother the last thing I thought about was a group, a species or anything else. Did you ever save a life? I gave someone CPR who dropped dead in front of me, saving her life. Never gave any group or species a thought. I did it out of compassion, out of love.
You reach for a light for what reason? You're thinking, the room is dark, I can't see what I'm doing or whatever. You don't reach to turn on a light in broad daylight.
You swing at a baseball, is it in the strike zone, it it a curve that I should drop my bat lower for, a fast ball? That's what you're thinking.
Apparently you missed my response to TNR:
"Your loved one is dying are you thinking about evolution, about group dynamics? Are you thinking if I let this weak loved one die I can have more healthier loved ones? No, are you instinctively following some esoteric science man can't explain? No, there's no instinct involved, we already went through this. You're contemplating - thinking!
Are you thinking that you will be dead and if you are an atheist that life will be completely over? Yes!
So where's the science to justify it?"
So Rama where's the science to justify it?
What is you life worth if you are not loved? What's your answer? Go into an institution, talk to an analyst and ask how people who think they are not loved act. Do you think they are contemplating the well being of the group? Not at all.
R