Charlie Rose had a program on the brain and emotions last night though it seemed to boil down to addictions. Maybe it is on-line. I think it is just another way of explaining behavior/habts/desires and though I sometimes am interested in Rose's topics, I think he is often obsequious- especially with celebrites- and way too liberal/biased.
On Apr 19, 9:56 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/19/2010 7:19 AM, rigsy03 wrote:> One can ascertain the future-somewhat- > based on probability but as the > > human species is prone to habit and delusion, it rarely takes this as > > an advantage beforehand but instead smugly watched events unfold and > > declares, "I KNEW this would happen!",etc. This is, imho, in part a > > protective element in our psyches or an early coping mechanism that > > refuses to abate or unsnarl. It is a form of denial, of course. > > My first and last instinct agrees with Slip, though Pat and RP's > statements obviously hold weight at least as much as causality. Someone > mentioned freedom as evolving from the exercise of decision making and > responsibility not too long ago. I find that agreeable, in the sense > most would mean 'free will': freedom to experience thought, expression, > feeling, action. That seems the fitting domain for the 'free will' term, > that it is experiential, it's truth is in it's consequences (like > sociology). Or democracy, or love they become real in participation. > > Some argue that morality or ethics would be rendered meaningless, I > would argue that determinism alone should be uninteresting to > relativistic beings except to the extent that what we do today will > affect our future(s). There are many 'What if's and they make life very > interesting and diverse with possibility. Some think that mortality > isn't just a question of time but life itself has a strong affinity to > it, emerging toward affiliation through self mastery. I think the > argument is still too narrow to exclude the possibility that an answer > will find us in very unexpected ways. > > What if our idea of time is based on a very limited conception of > absolute causality, and linear progression of events? That model seems > the most apparent to our innate experiences and technical observations, > but we also know that time as we know it is not a constant at every > place and time in our universe, space and time are a variable continuum. > What may lie beyond our Plank constant perhaps many (thousands or > millions) of orders in magnitude? I think a good policy is that the > slightest influence outside of a local phenomenon may exert > extraordinary divergence from an 'absolute' determinacy as much > complexity may arise from the simplest of systems. > > Just adding a few thoughts, nothing definitive the tone is for > convenience. I'm curious what you all think it would mean for the past, > present and future and if/how it fits your ideas. > > Still working on my response to psk, taking a while with it I know. > > -Ash > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- 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.
