It is explained by Donald Symons in "the evolutioon of human sexuality" : if everithing is cultural. Any mutant line of humans with some inmunity to social imprinted things will refine their innate self , generation after generation, to manipulate others for its own benefit by subverting the social norms. At the end no blank slate individual would remain. We try to manipulate and not being manipulated. There are norms that we may accept an even enforce for others but not for ourselves in a sinncere and effective way. Even we may intellectually accept that certain norms are good for ourselves too but out egoistic innate self force us to act otherwise. It would be no differencee between is and ought otherwise. El 16/08/2012 16:08, "Roger" <rclo...@verizon.net> escribió:
> Hi Alberto G. Corona > > Not if you select the best friends, the best woman, the best job, > the best stocks and the best doctor to help you get rich, stay healthy, > enjoy life, and raise a family. Or they select you. > > These would help in getting an upscale woman. > And perhaps she has the social skills to seduce you. Maybe > she reads Cosmoplitan magazine. > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/16/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-15, 09:16:41 > *Subject:* Re: the tribal self > > Social construction of the self is incompatible with natural selection. > > 2012/8/15 Roger <rclo...@verizon.net> > >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> � >> I燿isagree about the self not being a social contruct. >> � >> It must燼t least be partly so, for to my mind, the self >> is your memory, and that includes to some extent the world. >> � >> And the self includes what your think your role is. >> At home a policeman may just be a father, but >> when he puts on his uniform and stops a car for >> speeding, he's a different person.� >> � >> � >> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/15/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> *Time:* 2012-08-14, 11:03:48 >> *Subject:* Re: on tribes >> >> >> On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:42, Roger wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> � >> I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view.� >> >> >> I agree. I use almost that exact definition. >> >> >> >> As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great >> insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. >> We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian >> feathers or display their tattoes and are only friendly to our own tribe >> or gang. So a liberal won't listen to a conservative and vice versa. >> It greatly simplifies thinking and speaking, and is a dispeller of >> doubt and tells us with some apparent certainty on who we are. >> >> >> OK, but that is not the root of the first person self, which can still >> exist even when completely amnesic. >> If not you make the first person "I" a social construct, which it is not. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> � >> So Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/14/2012 >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> *Time:* 2012-08-12, 10:47:23 >> *Subject:* Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain >> >> >> On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> � >> As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and >> mind: >> � >> brain牋 objective燼nd modular >> mind牋爏ubjective and unitary >> >> >> OK. You can even say: >> brain/body: � objective and doubtable >> soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable >> >> >> >> � >> The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. >> >> >> Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, >> but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong >> assumption like mechanism. >> >> >> >> � >> I� believe that the only subjective and unitary item in爐he universe >> is the monad.� It is the爀ye of the universe, although for us we >> can only perceive indirectly. >> >> >> I am open to this. The monad would be the "center of the wheel", or the >> fixed point of the doubting consciousness.� >> >> The machines already agree with you on this : ) >> (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) >> definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) >> >> See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally >> correct machine: >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html >> >> Bruno >> >> � >> � >> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/12/2012 >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 >> *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! >> >> On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or >> >>> unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the >> >>> total. >> >> >> >> This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point >> >> which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including >> >> mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, >> >> you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea >> >> of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be >> >> realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have >> >> stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think >> >> that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. >> >> >> > >> > With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, >> > I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his >> > "pandemonia" theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious >> > process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems >> > at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of >> > consciousness is to select from among the course of action >> > presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly >> > consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying >> > (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. >> > >> > The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian >> > process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution >> > is the key to any form of creative process. >> >> >> The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, >> like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should >> not contradict Daniel Dennett "pandemonia" or Fodor modularity theory, >> which are very natural in a computationalist perspective. >> Only sufficiently "big" part of the brain can have their own >> consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, >> like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) >> suggest. >> The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a >> splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing >> two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed >> Darwinian evolution as well, I think. >> Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It >> might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but >> creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post >> called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for >> that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict >> any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often. >> Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple >> (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It >> might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including >> biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can lead to >> creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and >> creativity might appear more early than we usually thought. >> >> I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are >> conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected. >> >> Bruno >> >> (*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0 >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.com.<+everything-list@googlegroups.com.> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ >> unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. <+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
