jgweed,

Any action must have a will behind it, so, it matters not motivation, it may be foolish, confused and/or mistaken. It may be a compassionate act with its motivation to save another, but, it must have the will behind the action--so in this sense, it is selfish in that the action is fulfilling the individual will. One can never get away from self interest on this level, nor should there be any desire to try, it is only through compassion that a heart moves the will to act in this direction of self-sacrifice.

Aedes,

If "every action has a will behind it" means anything, it means that every action is something I want to do. But that is not true. There are a number of actions which I don't want to do, and I am compelled to do in one way or another, perhaps by some threat if I don't do that action. Of course, That does not mean that I did not choose to do that action, even under dire threat, because the alternative was much worse, but that cannot, and does not, mean that because I chose to do it, that it was selfish. The word, "selfish" (in English) does not simply mean that what I did was something I chose to do. No one would use the word "selfish" as a synonym for choosing to to the action. The word "selfish" in English means an action that is done solely in the interest of the agent, and which invades on the what others who are affected by the action are entitled to have. In English, to say of an action that it is selfish is to make a moral judgment about that action; a negative moral judgment. Now, one can try to make the term. "selfish" morally neutral, but that is simply denuding it of its ordinary meaning. So, when that is done, calling an action "selfish" in the denuded sense does nothing at all to show that such an action is selfish is its ordinary sense. And, if that is true, what is the point changing the meaning of the word? It would be like calling someone a "fool", and then when it is pointed out that the person is very intelligent, and is well-thought of, and is eminent, the reply is that when I use the word "fool" I mean that I don't like what that person does. In that case, the term is used contrary to its ordinary meaning only to express the prejudices of the speaker. It is disingenuous to use a word, but change its meaning while continuing to retain its negative emotional connotations. In philosophy such a trick is called a "persuasive definition". It is a more or less subtle attempt to change people's attitudes by leading them to speak and think differently. You can google "persuasive definitions" to learn more about what is, essentially" a trick of propaganda.

this is empirically measurable by the lack of optionally directive commands (start, stop twitch on command) that evidentially reside in the wake of reality.

Mr Fight the Power,

I would think the same way you determine what to go to the doctor for, did I consciously direct this affliction to torment myself, or is it against my conscious wish/will. I have no idea why we are discussing this, do you deny that any conscious initiated action, [with the exception of course of convulsions not fitting the above catagory] require the will of the subject behind it? If there is a reasonable statement to be made indicating that a subject can consciously act without the function of the will and/or its intent behind it, then please state it.

What I am disputing is that we can empirically observe a difference between the firing of synapses that initiate unconscious actions and firing of synapses that initiate conscious actions.

There's no reason to think that's not possible at an empiric level -- it's just a mere technical problem of science. In fact at an ultrastructural level it can be easily done using functional brain imaging.

But who cares? Whether or not it's possible, it doesn't solve the question being posed here.

This is what I'm asking: What quality can we observe in the material processes of the brain that would denote consciousness? This is the hard question of neuroscience, and I don't think that anyone is positive that this can be solved.

Also do you also think that science can understand these physical processes in terms of optional or not optional?

There are clearly voluntary and clearly involuntary actions. Like breathing, which you can consciously control, but can also happen with no conscious input, or coughing which can be an involuntary reflex or a conscious activity. Start with functional imaging and encephalograms and see how different regions behave differently during conscious versus unconscious initiation of this activity. The motor part of the activity will happen in the same place, but the executive function, reflex loops, etc will likely differ.

Yes. At least many of them. That doesn't mean that the current state of technology allows us to answer these questions to your satisfaction. But then again, all that means is that the problem is technical. It's a matter of understanding physiology. It's not a philosophical question in the sense that this is epistemologically unknowable.

Your test already assumes that we can identify which initiations of actions are conscious and which aren't... Name one test that would show an event being optional. Can you point to one study where a neurologist pinpointed a mental event and stated that it was NOT necessitated by some other event?

RuthlessLogic said:

"Clearly, the model of the Human Being and the Natural World reveals a creature and a process (self-interest) that are explicitly linked and NO AMOUNT of idealistic interpretation will ever uncouple the process and empirical truth of self-interest."

It seems to me that you're confusing free will for self-interest. Altruism is the purpose of an act; not the process.

The process of an altruistic act must be an act of free will. In choosing the exercise one's free will (in any capacity), one is choosing to act in accordance with one's one interests, in this case, the interest of being altruistic.

So yes, the mechanism of the action originates in self-interest, but that doesn't speak to the purpose of the act at all.

YO!

Being purely altruistic is not serving the apparent self interest of the individual. Where the individual is affected by the circumstance and thus is moved within to make an alteration of said circumstance through inacting his will through action. What was simply a possiabilty before, becomes now his will to change the circumstances of say the plight of another individual. No one says to themselves, I am now going to perform an altruistic act, one is moved by the plight of the individual in a pearilous circumstance, it is an emotional happening which alters the will of our hero, then making it his will that he should rescues the situtation/circumstance. Try to examine your own functioning, it just does not happen anyother way.

The trouble with this whole thread is that altruism can be discussed at many levels.

I personally think the only interesting aspect is what someone intends to do.

Will, in my mind, should just be taken for granted. Subconscios aspects of altruistic acts are of psychological interest, but zero philosophical importance. And the results don't matter either, because to inadvertently help someone is not altruism.