Greetings Economists,
On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:41 AM, ravi wrote:
This is a "paradox" only because narrow self-interest is defined as
"irrational".
Doyle;
irrational is just another way of saying emotions. They don't
understand emotion structure. They can't represent emotions by just
writing the words. Emotions are a kind of information production of
knowledge. One can say for example the limbic system, the amygdala
are centers of the activity that represents the emotion system. But
as you point out knowing that system cannot replace the fact that
different people feel differently.
It is not a reductionism to know where emotions structures are in the
brain. Roughly speaking this has been known before LeDoux wrote his
book. Representing emotions realistically is possible now with
various real time techniques. Which effectively opens a window on the
reality of what people do by bonding etc to something.
On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:41 AM, ravi wrote:
without resort to the extreme reductionism of studying chemical
activity in the brain. Rather, a broader idea of self-interest (and
accompanying game theoretical models) might demonstrate that a person
does benefit from both selfless behaviour and participating in a
system of morals.
Doyle;
There are two things about this statement. First by treating the
brain as a black box, the question of how things are embodied gets
fuzzed up. The broader idea may give us some information but not
compared to realistic depictions of emotion structure. Secondly, the
chemical study is secondary to brain imaging here. Seeing the blood
flow to brain regions is rapid if low resolution images of where
things are happening. These supplement the more fine grained fMRI
research which is has a low resolution of time change in the brain.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
