[Ham] I must compliment you for posting one of the clearest expositions of epistemology that I've seen. While I disagree with most all of it, I appreciate that you clarified your position (and perhaps Pirsig's) in response to my comments without acrimony, a comportment that Arlo would do well to imitate.
[Krimel] I appreciate the kind thoughts, although it does appear that my explanation was sorely inadequate to correct your misunderstandings. I would also like to object that I have a history of being far more acrimonious than Arlo. [Ham]: All living organisms are made of inorganic and biological stuff, but such stuff is not the essence of cognizant awareness. [Krimel] I do not know what is meant by "essence of cognizant awareness" but whatever it is I am sure that inorganic and biological stuff are necessary for it to occur. You might argue that something else is also necessary but you haven't. > [Krimel] > But here is how intellect might arise out of society. > Human social responses are ours by virtue of our > evolutionary heritage. Primates in the main are social > creatures and part of being a social creature is interacting > with others. From most members of the primate family > the expression and the understanding of the expression > of emotion suffices. The physiology of emotion is > communicated through outward signs that are linked to > the emotional experience of the individual. Smiling, > frowning, open and closed body posture, the pitch of > vocalizations; these are all signals arising from and > pointing to the emotional tate of con-specifics. [Ham] All of that is true. However, it speaks of social responses -- observed "behavior" as opposed to subjective awareness. Even your analysis of emotional experience and communication is treated as exhibited gestures rather than as conscious feelings of the participants. It dismisses proprietary sensibility altogether. [Krimel] Well that was my point. I was trying to show how an intellectual level arises from a social level. Subjective responses have little to do with that. I do not dismiss proprietary subjective awareness, it just isn't relevant to the points I was making. But let me review for you. It is a fact that when I as an individual experience an emotion it has a physiological component. Emotions are involuntary responses. We cannot will ourselves to be happy or sad or frightened. A portion of our involuntary response is the expression of emotion. These expressions are controlled in large measure by the vagus nerve which activates among other things small muscular movements in the face and in the larynx. These change our expression and tone of voice. The only function this can serve is to convey our emotional states to others. We do not learn to do these things. They are built into us from the womb. They are as I said a form of memory encoded in us genetically. We are not individuals isolated and confined to our own little subjective worlds. We are born equipped to join in and participate with others in the a community. [Ham] Again, this is an anthropological perspective of man "as a social creature" based on evolutionary (genetic) history that ignores psychic development and the metaphysical relation of self to other. It suggests that "memory is preserved in DNA code" and that primitive man lacked recall to compare past and present, neither of which has scientific substantiation. [Krimel] The whole rigmarole about self and other was worked out at the slim mold stage of development. Colonies of slim mold can distinguish this colony from that. This is no biggie. But I did not mean to "suggest" that "memory is preserved in DNA code". I mean to state is without equivocation. I am sorry if I was unclear. DNA is the memory of the entire phylogentic history of a species. It specifies how to built a human or a rat or corn plant. DNA is not a memory of specific incidents, it is a memory of what works in building a baby that is going to be able to effectively interact in the environment it finds itself born into. Other members of the species (society) are always a major part of that environment. [Ham] That's a highly speculative assumption which, even if it could be verified, is no reason to dismiss subjective awareness. The knowing "I" of consciousness is so basic and self-evident to each of us that the attempt of philosophers to avoid it is incredulous to me. [Krimel] One more time only slowly t-h-i-s d-o-e-s n-o-t h-a-v-e a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g t-o d-o- w-i-t-h s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e. Nor is it speculation to say that humans have far greater spans of memory than any other creatures on this planet. [Ham] But what does this "account" avail us in the life experience? How do we as sentient beings benefit morally, spiritually or psychologically from knowledge about the evolution of the inanimate universe? What meaning or purpose is implied for man in an automatic process that is indifferent to his needs and values? [Krimel] At last you show your real concern. For you this has nothing to do with what makes sense rationally or what evidence is empirically available to support your "philosophy". It is 100% about what makes you FEEL better. You don't like what I am saying mostly because you don't understand it but also because to really get what I am saying you would have to change the way you FEEL about a whole lot of stuff. Frankly, I don't blame you but I don't think that Truth is about what feels good. In fact I don't think Truth is knowable at all but in the quest for Truth such truth as can be found is not dependant on warm fuzzy feelings. But to answer your question I think the existentialists that you hate so much have the only answer that makes sense. Each individual as a subjective entity is responsible for finding and creating their own meaning in life. That is a task that cannot be laid off on others or found hidden in some higher universal purpose. [Krimel]: > Intellection seems to be a word you made up, for reasons known > only to you 'cognition' is not good enough. But nevermind that > for a second, the intellectual level IS indeed "a repertory of > knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people > to latch onto it." > > Emotional expression is encoded genetically and is sufficient to > improve the reproductive success of most mammals (emotion is > a uniquely mammalian adaptation). [Ham] What evidence do you have that supports this? Do reptiles, fish and birds Not feel emotion? The neurology of emotion should not be confused with emotional expression. Again, this is something immanently sensed or "felt" by the creature, not a "behavior pattern" stored in the genes. I disagree entirely with this objectivist concept. [Krimel] There is little to suggest emotions in animals lower than mammals. Just watching their behavior for a while should give you plenty of evidence for this. But there is lots of evidence to show that mammals do have a rich emotional lives and there is plenty of evolutionary evidence to suggest why this is so. Mammals have far more developed nervous systems for regulating emotions and they have brain structures that are developed to register and express those emotions. Mammalian young have much longer periods of infant dependence on parents. Emotions in both young and old serve to bind parents to their offspring for long enough for the young to develop and thrive. Mammals have much larger and more developed areas in the midbrain which can be shown to produce emotional responses both objectively and subjectively. You can disagree all you want but the literature on this is exhaustive and conclusive. Darwin wrote a well thought out book on the expression of emotions in man and animals and more recently the work of Paul Ekman and Antonio Damasio spell out how human emotions are expressed both objectively and subjectively. I can't make you believe anything. You are free to persist in whatever error gives you comfort but please don't suggest that what I am saying is unsubstantiated by evidence because I will be happy to add more. I just seriously doubt if it will do any good. > [Krimel] > As our species evolved language as an elaboration of > emotional expression, we became better able to share > not only joint experiences of the present but distant > experiences of the past. We began to tell stories around > the fireside. Those stories became "common knowledge". > All societies at some stage in their history rely on an oral > tradition to preserve the shared memories of the past. > ...As such it can survive much longer than the life span > of the individual who encoded it. [Ham] You continue to describe the thought process as a collective phenomenon, whereas conceptualization, analysis, and valuation are functions of individual awareness. "Encoding" history and intelligence is something computers can do. Unlike electro-mechanical devices, man is cognizant of his reality and the Values that arouse his emotions. I submit that subjectivity is what man's existence is about, and objective reality is his creation. [Krimel] A thought process is not a collective phenomenon. I hope I have never suggested this. But the real problem you seem to have is failure to understand what I mean by encoding and decoding. So I will try, try again. Encoding at the subjective level begins with sensation. We are equipped with nerve cells that convert physical energy from the environment into neural impulses. This IS encoding. Sight turns light into vision. Hearing turns kinetic vibrations in the air into sound and so forth. This conversion of "information" from the environment into neural impulses is a form of encoding. We also encode our subjective experiences into language and we decode the spoken or printed words of others into subjective experiences of our own. Cognition is the way that these process "feel" to every individual who can manage it. [Ham]: > I'd say that experience is acquiring knowledge, > which is not possible without thought. [Krimel]: > This is just factually wrong. Many times the experience of > individuals changes their future repertoire of responses > without any thinking at all. Insects and fish can be classically > conditioned. This is where experience modifies even > autonomic responses. Procedural memory occurs when > we learn a new skill like chipping stone into tools, weaving > or riding a bicycle. None of these require thought, at least > not language mediated thought. In fact in this sense perhaps > MOST knowledge is acquired without thought. [Ham] What about individual freedom and the realization of value that are unique to human beings? [Krimel] I am not personally locked into a particular view of free will. My tendency is to see it as an illusion. At best I think it is of very little import. As I have said to you many times before, we are not free to act outside of certain genetic constraints. I cannot flap my arms and fly. I cannot memorize a phonebook. I cannot will myself to be in Paris. So there are many things I am not free to do. I am also not free to act in an environment that I am not in, so the environment itself controls much of my behavior. When I am in a courtroom I may be free not to stand when the bailiff says "All rise" but the more I choose to exercise that freedom that more I risk having all of my freedom's curtailed. I would also point out that in your "thesis" freedom is nothing more than an illusion. So I am really at a loss to see your problem. [Ham] Biological evolution, social adaption, and exhibited behavior seem to comprise your description of Man. If anyone wants to know what is meant by an objectivist approach to philosophy, this is perfect example. Instead of envisioning man as the free agent of value, you claim that value (Quality) is "wired into" man as a fixed code, along with the morality that directs his behavior.. Even conceptualization is predetermined as part of nature's "encoding" process. Regrettably, this triadic definition overlooks self-awareness, value realization, individual identity, freedom of choice, the ability to "remake" oneself and seek one's own destiny, human creativity in science, entrepreneurship and the arts, and a host of other attributes that distinguish man's persona and unique capabilities [Krimel] I am struck by how much you sound like a "humanist." The whole freewill, man striving for some higher self business, sounds like Maslow. That's nice and Maslow had some useful things to say in terms of life and living and therapy. But it is not taken very seriously from a scientific point of view. It is mainly a way of making us feel better about our situation. So I guess it all comes down to whether you are interested in figuring out a consistent understanding of the world around you or do you just want a bunch of terrific sounding gibberish to help you sleep at night. [Ham] Your assertion that man plays no part in creating the universe or directing the course of history essentially makes him a robot of nature. To deny man's aspiration to noble goals on the premise that it's indicative of "self-pity" and "vanity" not only demeans humanity and its record of achievement but reveals the nihilistic bent of a disillusioned soul. [Krimel] Man plays an enormous role in creating a universe of concepts to overlay on experience. You seem confused about this. Philosophy like science and religion is about constructing conceptual frameworks. They are judged by how well they work. You don't seem to be interested in how the world works you just want to feel happy about it. So fine knock yourself out. But hiding your head in the sand seems like a waste of time to me and frankly I don't need to the universe for have meaning or a source or a purpose. It is sufficient to me that I have them. I decided what they are. I am here to make more like me and to make the world a better place for them to live in. Seriously that takes up most of my time. [Ham] I sincerely hope that some event in your life will inspire you toward a more salutary worldview. [Krimel] While I think you would be better served by freeing yourself from some of the delusions that plague you, I am not optimistic. It is painful to throw away security blankets. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
