At 05:35 PM 6/16/2009, you wrote:
> > > >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/Course
H
>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.
[Marsha]
I've also taken eight undergraduate classes in philosophy, but that
doesn't make me an expert, but yes it does count as an amount of
knowledge small enough to be classified as 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?
Marsha:
WTF is right! You created the options, not I.
Another example, why is your reading of James more accurate than
anyone else's? Because you insist that it is? Or is your insistence
just a tactic out of the '38 Ways to Win an Argument from Arthur
Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy' by Professor David Zarefsky.
I love you...
You have me convinced more than ever that Bo is correct that the
Intellectual Level is subject/object based, and the REALITY EQUALS
QUALITY needs to be lifted to a higher level.
[Krimel]
Look I love you too but this is ridiculous. Now instead of accusing me of
not citing sources, you blame me for offering up my opinion on what a source
says. As I recall, specifically when talking to Dave I have tried to
contrast my reading with his. If you want to join the fun, read it yourself
all the reference are out there.
Now out of the blue it's all about Bo.
"You can lead a girl to Sara Lawrence, but you can't make her think."
- Joseph Campbell
Krimel,
I have already explained my objections to you offering your ideas,
your beliefs, as 'scientific fact' with only the authority of the
term 'science' to justify them, when there may be many competing
explanations even within the scientific community itself. I asked
only that you provide source for your 'scientific fact', if you
cannot do this it is just your, a nameless avatar's, belief, and I am
a skeptic to the nth degree, and hopefully others are too.
I read your interpretation of James, and it may be one very good
explanation among many, but I've read no reasoning that makes your
interpretation any better than anyone else's. You present it as the
truth with great force of authority, but that is all, only a puff of
great wind. There may be as many interpretations are there are
people reading James, on what justification is your interpretation superior?
I did not state anything was about Bo, but the idea that the
intellectual level is lost in an endless battle of subject and object
reasoning. Science is about subjects discovering truth by dividing,
defining and knowing objects. A tool that may be useful, or harmful,
depending on the hearts of the individual's who use it.
Marsha
_____________
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
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/
