This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary pressures: A
teleological agent that is executing a violent plan against us is much more
dangerous than a casual accident. because the first will continue harming
us, so a fast reaction against further damage is necessary, while in the
case of an accident no stress response is necessary. (stress responses
compromise long term health)
That distinction may explain the consideration of natural disasters as
teleological: For example earthquakes or storms: The stress response
necessary to react against these phenomena make them much more similar
to teleological plans of unknown agents than mere accidents.
Hence, it is no surprise that the natural disasters are considered
as teleological and moral . For example, as deliberated acts of the goods
against the corruption of the people, or currently, the response of "the
planet" against the aggression of the immorally rich countries that deplete
2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:05:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> On 11/29/2012 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> The study showed that within 60 milliseconds, the right posterior
>>> superior temporal sulcus (also known as TPJ area), located in the back of
>>> the brain, was first activated, with different activity depending on
>>> the harm was intentional or accidental*. It was followed in quick
>>> succession by the amygdala, often linked with emotion, and the ventromedial
>>> prefrontal cortex (180 milliseconds), the portion of the brain that plays a
>>> critical role in moral decision-making.
>>> There was no such response in the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal
>>> cortex when the harm was accidental.
>> Seems like being able to tell the difference between an accident and free
>> will is a top priority for human consciousness. Under .06 seconds. That's
>> more than three times faster than it takes to recognize an emotion in a
>> human face.
>> Hi Craig,
>> This is interesting as it shows the importance of distinguishing
>> accidental from intentional acts. The former need to response as they
>> where, in a sense, unavoidable since there is not way to avoid such in the
>> future, but the latter can be avoided by some subsequent action. This seems
>> to point to a built in understanding of causality and probability in the
> Exactly. It seems to me that this relatively instantaneous awareness of
> the situation as a meaningful gestalt runs completely contrary to what we
> would expect in a comp world, where determinations of agency should be a
> long, esoteric computation. If free will were, after all, an illusion, then
> there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to
> cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at