On 5 Oct, 16:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Indeed Pat - Fritz Schumacher was such a disappointment because I
> associated him with 'Small is Beautiful' before realising none of the
> people I rather liked and who also liked the term had read that book!
> Habermas could barely say his name without spitting 'traitor'. I
> don't know what to say to Dawkers Lee - he is or was married to Lalla
> Ward (Romana) so you could try 'Professor Who'. His latest brand-
> spanking new argument is that 'selfish genes' (once understood not to
> be selfish as we understand the term) explain altruism. This
> 'argument' is little better than the suspicion some of us have
> whenever anyone does anything charitable - that they are in it for the
> selfish reasons of being regarded as good.
Exactly. But even THAT is a good enough reason to do altruistic
acts. Reward IS a good thing.
>One might equally suspect
> biology lecturers of writing academic journal papers simply to gain
> recognition, get out of teaching and marry actresses.
Yes, that thought has even occurred to me, i.e., who might I meet
AFTER my book has been written? Although, the 'guilt by association'
may well be enough to keep them ALL at bay. ;-)
>I once thought
> I had missed out on the actress bit, but once divorced I realised I
> had been well acted-upon. I think the best play with Dawkles will be
> to listen intently to the long monologue, smile in agreement and then
> say, 'Why do you think anyone would want to listen to such obvious
> matters Dickie. Do I look as dumb as someone who thinks you are
> saying his grandmother was a chimpanzee?' I'll then pop up with my
> 'Sun hat' on asking if there's any truth in the rumours he is bonking
> chimps in order to prove we are apes or to produce an English fast
> bowler with extraordinary strength like an Australian 'cousins'.
>
Have they discovered Australo-googlipithicus, yet? ;-)
> On 5 Oct, 15:43, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 Oct, 15:33, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If we changed the debate from consciousness to some other terms, what
> > > Pat says would also hold true - perhaps of a general individual trying
> > > to establish self in social context. A good example of play with
> > > language unseating a singular use of a term. I only met Dawkins once
> > > and was only able to test his knowledge of cricket (thin). He'd just
> > > written a book with 'Reweaving the Rainbow' in it which read like 'The
> > > Moon's a Balloon' without the wit and with all the name-dropping. I
> > > think I might like Dawkers if I really knew him, but he seems like an
> > > opportunist regurgitating the same old stuff from this distance (he
> > > might do better to wonder publicly why the majority population remains
> > > unknowledgeable enough to need his endless repeats).
> > > I remember buying EF Schumacher's 'Guide for the Perplexed' years ago
> > > - needless to say, it was perplexing and utter dross, moaning on about
> > > some Swedish revelations and a fat, jolly woman living only on daily
> > > Eucharist. We are undoubtedly all here to be so ripped-off from time
> > > to time. I would guess Pat we have been ripped off by much baser
> > > 'over-definition' than consciousness has suffered. As you know, this
> > > tunes me into wondering why basic politics is so pitiful ... (several
> > > wasted years of revelatory books later!) ... many religions have
> > > suggested there can be nothing fair or just until we make such a
> > > material condition of living. The questions should be about how to
> > > live in plenty now we know we can establish this (I suspect most still
> > > do not realise this for quite obvious reasons). Poverty is related in
> > > very nasty ways to motivation, and social position to poverty rather
> > > than ability (having discovered we are animals we might do better at
> > > noting this is true in many animal societies). We could also be
> > > conscious that 'leadership' tends to out in nasty ways and we can be
> > > conscious of this.
>
> > It all goes back to moving from a competition-based structure to
> > a cooperation-based structure, a social pradigm shift that REQUIRES
> > some top people (that is, people at the top) to lose their positions
> > and become, like the rest of us, mere mortals, rather than the gods
> > they think they are. In truth, the opposite is also true in that the
> > basest of us are lifted to the same level as are all the rest. No
> > more 'some animals are MORE equal'; rather, 'All Animals are Equally
> > Individual'. Read Maimonides' 'Guide for the Perplexed'; it's a FAR
> > better read!!!
>
> > >I am not sure in any of this what leads what or
> > > what causes what. Some tiny 'mental' shift might be enough - but this
> > > in turn may only arise at a certain 'material' point - perhaps there
> > > are thresholds? In my book. most of 'us' have died long before we get
> > > to 'travel'.
> > > Just to return to the Dawk - there have been how, why, who, whose,
> > > whats and other questions in the traditional models of philosophy long
> > > accepted. There is no argued case that 'how' dominates in science
> > > that holds sway, even in knowledge justification based in scientific
> > > findings and methods. I would probably want to dispense with god in
> > > epistemology more than him, because theories of everything tend not to
> > > explain much how if any. The argument here is more with the
> > > megalomaniac Hegel wanting (even claiming) that to know anything you
> > > have to know everything. Dawkins should be using his influence on
> > > foreign policy idiots, not chanting African bishops.
>
> > > On 5 Oct, 14:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Oct, 13:14, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > It's always possible we live in 'Delusionville' rather than as
> > > > > conscious, sentient beings. This would explain a lot of problematic
> > > > > nastiness like Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and the underperformance
> > > > > of Warrington Rugby League Football Club. However, as Roger Penrose
> > > > > points out, there seems no Earthly reason why evolution should have
> > > > > developed consciousness (assuming it has, as there is a potential
> > > > > chicken and egg here) as much complex happens other than in what we
> > > > > have named consciousness as an emergent property of human brains.
> > > > > Neural density is higher in parts of the brain we don't associate with
> > > > > consciousness as such an emergent property. After all, evolution
> > > > > tends to proceed by killing species off, job presumably done.
>
> > > > > So 'why' consciousness?
>
> > > > More importantly, Whose consciousness? If you say 'my consciousness',
> > > > you have already made a division/separation between your concept of
> > > > self and the consciousness--that relationship being that you consider
> > > > the consciousness 'yours'. So if the consciousness isn't you, as
> > > > evidenced by the separation made by considering it 'your
> > > > consciousness', whose is it? Once you've determined whose
> > > > consciousness it is you are discussing, its purpose might be more
> > > > readily available or more obviously discernable. ;-)- Hide quoted text
> > > > -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
