> > >Krimel: > > >We know that emotions are localized in the brain in the evolutionarily > > >significant parts of the midbrain where they are found in most mammals. > > >We also know that humans have evolved large areas in both hemispheres > > >of the brain that give us rational thought. Those areas in the neo- > > >cortex work for us by combining inputs from all over the brain. They > > >allow us to access our senses and our memories and to compare the past > > >with the present. The net effect is to help us rationally decide > > >whether to go with our automatic habits or our emotional inclinations > > >or to come up with something completely novel. It isn't emotions or > > >rational thought broken into pieces that matters it is the integration > > >and synthesis of this different modalities that get us through the > > >night.
> >Marsha > >I am curious about your use of the word 'We'. Who is this 'we'. In > >what group are you including yourself? Do you mean you, a > >neuroscientist, and your colleagues, or you, a plumber, and your > >barber? Where did you learn this information? Unless you've been > >conducting the actual experiments and can give a firsthand account, > >maybe you can point to the source of the information. > > > >[Krimel] > >We? > >I thought I was talking about the human family. By "we" I mean anyone > >with a brain sufficiently complex to access the intellectual level via > >the internet. > > > >If you need references: > > > >Here is a great place to start: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk > > > >For more detail > > http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-01Fall-2003/CourseH ome/index.htm > > > >These lectures are extraordinarily rich in information but the lecturer > >takes some getting used to. He has a boring voice but if you get past > >that his explanations of brain lesion study is quite good. > > > > >From the Teaching Company Robert Sapolsky has a set of lectures on > >neuroscience and behavior that are quite good. He is an excellent > > lecturer. These would be better to start with. But the MIT lectures are > > free, > >Also, as always, it is hard to beat Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" > > > >Right now I am reading Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" it is easy reading > >and somewhat like "Blink" > > > >There is a great series from the BBC call the "Secret life of the Brain." > >You can maybe find parts of it on Youtube. Also while you are looking > >there is a series by Robert Winston from BBC called "The Human Brain" > >which is good and he also has a longer series on "The Human Body" which > > is extraordinary. > > > >V R Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain is really good. I would say mind > >blowing. Here is Part 1 you are on your own for Part 2. > >http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292 > >Marsha: > >I've complained to you about this in the past. You talk as if you >have great knowledge backed by the authority of Science. As if the >implication of your scientific point-of-view lends automatic >credibility to your stories. It does not. Just like in the field of >QM there are most likely opposing views which you never >mention. And, as the Science Wars brought to light, there are some >inherent problems with the scientific method and scientific knowledge >in general. Both The Teaching Company's course, 'Science Wars: What >Scientists Know and How They Know It' and the CBC's IDEAS Series "How >To Think About Science" document many of the problems. Because of >the technical nature of science, which is constantly changing and >being challeged, you should definitely site sources so the validity >of such claims may be checked and alternative evidence and views may >be investigated. > >There's also the fact that you are an anonymous avatar with nothing >to lose. You can say whatever and if called on it, there's no skin >off your back. So have some consideration for we mere mortals who >actually have "skin in the game". > >Thank you for the additional information. I'll check it out. > >[Krimel] >I was trying to think of a word that captured my reaction to this comment >of yours. Ludicrous was the only thing that came to mind. This is not an >academic forum. Are you proposing hence forth that everyone here submit an >annotated bibliography with every post? Marsha: No, I am not. But if you are going to represent yourself as a spokesman for "the human family" and its scientific knowledge, you should supply more than a nice story. Scientific knowledge, as I mentioned previously, is volatile and scientist are often, as you mentioned, "unable to come to a consensus on the meaning". [Krimel] What I take from this is that your listening to all those lectures on the philosophy of science confirms the hypothesis that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. >[Krimel] >I really don't think there was anything in my original comment that is even >mildly controversial. If you do, then either ask a specific question or >frickin' Google it. Look it up for yourself. This is a forum about ideas, >concepts. Those ideas and concepts either work for you or they don't. You >can say why they don't work or propose alternate concepts but those ideas >do not stand or fall on the basis of who said them. As far as I can tell >there is no skin and no game here. Everything is entirely in black and >white,vshapes on a white screen; unless of course you have your default >fonts set to some other color. Marsha: You present specialized scientific information as though you were an expert and the information is established fact to a group of non-experts and then expect non-experts to chase down the accuracy of your propositions. It's a tactic; you are mostly bluster. [Krimel] So, let's review my options here. I can just pretend to be stupid and make mealy mouthed posts. Or I can over simplify things and be accused of talking down to people. Or I can try to back up a few things with layman's resources like Wiki and be accused of relying on Weakipedia. Or I can make statements and respond to questions about them with a list of resources, books, college level courses and television productions for a general audience and be accused of "bluster." Wait, I have tried all of those and still get bullshit responds like this. WTF? 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/
