subject:"Re\: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows"



On Friday, December 14, 2012 12:34:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  

 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be 
 not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a 
 simple propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
 way, neither determined nor random. 


 Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it

 What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random 
 right? So it must be determined? So are you saying Free will is an 
 illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a 
 logically impossible way...

 Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you 
 are talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have 
 any more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author 
 of your words?

 The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and 
 it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will. 


 You're perhaps conflating the feeling with the physical processes 
 underpinning that feeling. I feel all sorts of things, but I don't feel 
 neurotransmitters and action potentials. No conclusion can be drawn from 
 what I feel about the physical processes. Consider that the ancient Greeks 
 did not even realise that the brain is the organ of thinking. So when I say 
 I feel my actions are free that means something, but it does NOT mean 
 that my brain processes are neither random nor determined.


You're assuming that the physical process is underpinning a feeling. I am 
saying that although it is counterintuitive, it will ultimately make more 
sense if you think of the physical process as the rendering or 
representation of that feeling in public space. The feeling is the actual 
presentation - it has meaning, purpose, content, life... the physical 
process associated with it is just a flatland slice which is publicly 
accessible at any given moment in time. The private feeling contains 
experiential richness from your entire life, it is inseparable from the 
totality of it, but the mechanical correlate is an entirely orthogonal 
presentation. It has no history, only archeology. It has no meaning or 
purpose, only conditions and positions. There is no life there, only layers 
and layers and layers of biochemical activity. These are the shapes 
associated not just with one person, but also with the entire history of 
evolutionary biology. By contrast the interior correlate references the 
entire history of anthropology, of culture, art, religion, philosophy, 
language, etc. The two views are related, but not directly - not 
mechanistically like everyone assumes, but in a mutual form-content single 
involuted surface type relation, only relying on metaphor to bridge the 
explanatory gap, not technological production.

I have considered everything that you are saying, and have done so for a 
long time. You don't realize that you are talking consciousness for granted 
when you visualize the brain, neurons, etc. You disqualify naive realism 
with a double standard, hypocritically selecting the thoughts we have about 
neurotransmitters and action potentials as separate from other kinds of 
thoughts and feelings that we have. You claim not to trust awareness, but 
then have absolute faith in your awareness of science. You have 
justifications based on consensus of experiment and observation - but this 
is a consensus of the same capacities which you call into question. 
Neuroscience, by your view, would have to be merely action potentials and 
neurotransmitter activity, nothing more. You have used the authority of 
your own psyche to question that authority absolutely. That's a 
contradiction and it is why we can never escape the primacy of 
consciousness.

 

  

 Since everything is either determined or random,


 It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are 
 varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and 
 possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to 
 explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency.


 I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what 
 I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being 
 manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is 
 entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom.


Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. 
Indeed, we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with 
different agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why 
would any process exist which creates an

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
  

 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be 
 not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a 
 simple propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
 way, neither determined nor random.


 Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional 
 vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to 
 conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing... 


 The dichotomy is intentional/unintentional, not 
 intentional/determined-or-random. 


They are the same thing.
 

 It could be intentional and determined, 


No, that equates free will with determinism. Intention means there is a 
teleological agent who is experiencing that they are causing the process to 
occur, regardless of the public correlation to other sub-personal and 
super-personal levels of causality. Intention is personal and it runs 
inside to outside.
 

 intentional and random, 


No. That equates doing something 'on purpose' with doing something 'by 
accident'. Our entire legal system is devoted to enforcing judgments, 
including the death penalty, based on the assumption that the two are 
mutually exclusive in principle. That doesn't make it a scientific fact, 
but it should be a hint that if science has no idea why it is an 
anthropological universal to consider it this way, then there must be more 
to it.
 

 unintentional and determined or unintentional and random.


They are identical. Determined (as in pre-determined by event or law) is 
always unintentional and random is virtually synonymous with unintentional. 
You could intentionally do something that seems random to you, but that's 
pretty shaky - unlikely really given human psychology. To the contrary, as 
psychologists in the 20th century found out, random responses can often 
reveal more about the psyche than intentional descriptions.

 

  

 This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are 
 ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are 
 intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible 
 importance*.


 Yes, that's what I have been saying. We care about whether something is 
 intentional or unintentional, and unless we are engaged in discussions such 
 as this we don't even consider whether the underlying physics is determined 
 or random. 


But you don't seem to know what intentional is, nor do you seem to 
acknowledge or care that you don't know.

Craig

 

 Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely 
 and see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your 
 back.

 Craig

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gtq8PwQyva4J.

 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bKP7fXtMfEwJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Alberto G. Corona

I may be between both of you.
I don´t think that the hate in progressives is constitutive or inherent.

I think that his hate of what is held a good beatiful and true is a
consequence of his belief in a more perfect ggood, bbeatiful and ttrue, and
our currently held concepts are an obstacle.

I put double initial letters because for the progressives there is no Good,
Beatiful and True, but a progress with no end.

Conservatives, like me, believe that God Beatiful and True exist, and our
lowecase conceptions reflect them.

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Alberto G. Corona

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything
held to be good, beautiful, or true.

Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth?
Progressives aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's exactly
what Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Alberto G. Corona
*Receiver:* everything-list
*Time:* 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
*Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain
study shows

You said it:
in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not
found in Darwin's idea

Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory
that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and
may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time
may not happen.

That� why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than �atural
selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of
themselves and their society according with its will.

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a
teleology before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.
�

I don`t find this�ncompatible�ith natural selection (or evolution, as
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized.
Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The
Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in
part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus
theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by
Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found
in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with
brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized
evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/**index.php?term=evolutionhttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution

So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely
because he understood that it is not teleological.
�

. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it
when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles.

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't
bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
�

You enjoy the fact that NS made female�yenas to behave in�ome
politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make
female humans behave �s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom.
That� funny.

I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a
left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone.
It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are
over 60 then you have an excuse.

Craig
�

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

doing

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
msg/everything-list/-/**sdpVQn09vMYJhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
googlegroups.com.

For more

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:14:01 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

I may be between both of you.
I don´t think that the hate in progressives is constitutive or inherent.

I think that his hate of what is held a good beatiful and true is a
consequence of his belief in a more perfect ggood, bbeatiful and ttrue, and
our currently held concepts are an obstacle.

I put double initial letters because for the progressives there is no
Good, Beatiful and True, but a progress with no end.

When should progress have ended? 1950? 1850? 200 BC?

Conservatives, like me, believe that God Beatiful and True exist, and our
lowecase conceptions reflect them.

Human beings like me have seen the evidence that Conservative attitudes
prevent progress and try to contribute to recovering progress from
regressive, fear-based oligarchies.

Craig

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Alberto G. Corona

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything
held to be good, beautiful, or true.

Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth?
Progressives aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's
exactly what Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

You said it:
in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not
found in Darwin's idea

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:

so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a
teleology before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made
of.
�

I don`t find this�ncompatible�ith natural selection (or evolution, as
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now
politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of
The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with
modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the
18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under
this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of
progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress
prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists
popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/**index.php?term=evolutionhttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution

So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely
because he understood that it is not teleological.
�

. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it
when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles.

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it
doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
�

You enjoy the fact that NS made female�yenas to behave in�ome
politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection
make
female humans behave �s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom.
That� funny.

I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a
left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in
stone.
It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are
over 60 then you have an excuse.

Craig
�

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

doing

--
Alberto.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Alberto G. Corona

2012/12/14 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:14:01 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

I may be between both of you.
I don´t think that the hate in progressives is constitutive or inherent.

I think that his hate of what is held a good beatiful and true is a
consequence of his belief in a more perfect ggood, bbeatiful and ttrue, and
our currently held concepts are an obstacle.

I put double initial letters because for the progressives there is no
Good, Beatiful and True, but a progress with no end.

When should progress have ended? 1950? 1850? 200 BC?

Dear Craig:

One thing is material progress and progress in knowledge. Another thing is
the progressive worldview. The second is what we are talking about, I guess.

I can not believe that you are so brainless as to mix both

Conservatives, like me, believe that God Beatiful and True exist, and our
lowecase conceptions reflect them.

Human beings like me have seen the evidence that Conservative attitudes
prevent progress and try to contribute to recovering progress from
regressive, fear-based oligarchies.

This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere
perfectly to my definition: Hate to the established and aim to his
destruction because it is an obstacle for something better that still don´t
exist. But no matter what is it, progress will bring it. That´s their core
believef.

That´s why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition
that fixes things once and for all.

Of course Craig, this is not against you. I love you. It is against the
progressive belief, which is a destructive one. Accept conservatism and be
happy ;). Just a joke.

Craig

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Alberto G. Corona

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything
held to be good, beautiful, or true.

Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth?
Progressives aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's
exactly what Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

You said it:
in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not
found in Darwin's idea

2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:

so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a
teleology before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made
of.
�

I don`t find this�ncompatible�ith natural selection (or evolution, as
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now
politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of
The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with
modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the
18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under
this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of
progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress
prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists
popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/**inde**x.php?term=evolutionhttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution

So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely
because he understood that it is not teleological.
�

. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it
when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles.

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it
doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
�

You enjoy the fact that NS made female�yenas to behave in�ome
politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection
make
female humans behave �s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom.
That� funny.

I think it's funny that you

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:54:39 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:




 2012/12/14 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:



 On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:14:01 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I may be between both of you.
 I don´t think that the hate in progressives is constitutive or inherent. 

 I think that his hate of what is held a good beatiful and true is a 
 consequence of his belief in a more perfect ggood, bbeatiful and ttrue, and 
 our currently held concepts are an obstacle.  


 I put double initial letters because for the progressives there is no 
 Good, Beatiful and True, but a progress with no end.


 When should progress have ended? 1950? 1850? 200 BC?

  
 Dear Craig:

 One thing is material progress and progress in knowledge. Another thing is 
 the progressive worldview. The second is what we are talking about, I guess.

 I can not believe that you are so brainless as to mix  both


If only I could believe that you had the equivalent capacity that you 
cannot have the one without the other.
 



 Conservatives, like me, believe that God Beatiful and True exist, and 
 our lowecase conceptions reflect them.


 Human beings like me have seen the evidence that Conservative attitudes 
 prevent progress and try to contribute to recovering progress from 
 regressive, fear-based oligarchies.

 This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere 
 perfectly to my definition: Hate to the established and aim to his 
 destruction because it is an obstacle for something better that still don´t 
 exist. But no matter what is it, progress will bring  it. That´s their core 
 believef.


Without it, there can be no progress. You want to enjoy the fruits of 
progress from past progressive efforts while denying those same efforts 
validity in your own time. That seems hypocritical to me, but then, my view 
of conservatism generally agrees with the recent study which found as 
follows:

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about 
 the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political 
 conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, 
 and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political 
 conservatism include:

- Fear and aggression
- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Need for cognitive closure
- Terror management

 *http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml* 


 That´s why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition 
 that fixes things once and for all.


That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the 
universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.
 


 Of course Craig, this is not against you. I love you. It is against the 
 progressive belief, which is a destructive one.  Accept conservatism and be 
 happy ;). Just a joke.



Haha. thanks, I love you all too. Is there a similar study by a 
conservative university which suggests that progressives have 'beliefs' 
which are destructive? Or are there any universities with a Conservative 
reputation which you would not be ashamed to mention? Most Conservative 
studies seem to be conducted by well funded hate groups, er, think tanks. 
;) Not really a joke, but intended without offense.

Craig 





 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  
 It's much simpler than that, I think.
 Progressives hate everything resembles anything 
 held to be good, beautiful, or true.


 Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

 Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth? 
 Progressives aren't artists or musicians?

 You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's 
 exactly what Progressives want to leave behind.

 Craig

   
  
 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
 12/13/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and 
 emotional,brain study shows

   You said it:
 in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not 
 found in Darwin's idea

 Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory 
 that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and 
 may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same 
 time 
 may not happen. 

 That� why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than �atural 
 selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of 
 themselves and their society according with its will.






 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona 
 wrote: 

 so awareness and intention are

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King


On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


That´s why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any
definition that fixes things once and for all.


That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing 
in the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.


HEY!

Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here!


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 1:21:52 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
   That´s why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition 
 that fixes things once and for all.
   

 That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in 
 the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.


 HEY!

 Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 


I never knew my views were so progressive until after seeing them demonized 
so often on this list. I try to avoid getting into politics online and have 
only ever responded to repeated trash-talking. The opposition should either 
refrain from throwing the first punch *every single time* or be ready to 
get back some of what they never stop dishing out.

Craig



 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/T6HjUpnyOQAJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread meekerdb


On 12/14/2012 5:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere perfectly to my 
definition: Hate to the established and aim to his destruction because it is an obstacle 
for something better that still don´t exist. But no matter what is it, progress will 
bring  it. That´s their core believef.


What nonsense.  A strawman man for Alberto to hate.  He wants to see every change as 
destruction and every change as motivated by hate.  Progress is by simple definition of 
the word going from the worse to the better.  Every conservative always supposes that they 
know the one Truth and so it cannot be improved upon; they are the true believers - and 
that applies to the political left Maoist/Communists as well as the political right 
Royalist/Papist/Fascists.  They all used their power to consolidate and gain more power.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King


On 12/14/2012 1:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, December 14, 2012 1:21:52 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


That愀 why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any
definition that fixes things once and for all.


That's because it is their job to represent the reality that
nothing in the universe is fixed once and for all - except the
universe itself.


HEY!

Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here!


I never knew my views were so progressive until after seeing them 
demonized so often on this list. I try to avoid getting into politics 
online and have only ever responded to repeated trash-talking. The 
opposition should either refrain from throwing the first punch *every 
single time* or be ready to get back some of what they never stop 
dishing out.


Craig


Dear Craig,

Can anyone other than you know exactly what it is that you are? No. 
Therefore whatever is said of you by some other is not true. It is when 
we think of everything as physical, thoughts become words, words become 
shouting matches, shouting matches become ... Such childish behavior! 
Childhood needs to end at some point. We are not just physical, we are 
much more and should reason as such.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 1:47:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 12/14/2012 1:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, December 14, 2012 1:21:52 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
   That´s why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any 
 definition that fixes things once and for all.
   

 That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in 
 the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself.


 HEY!

 Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! 
  

 I never knew my views were so progressive until after seeing them 
 demonized so often on this list. I try to avoid getting into politics 
 online and have only ever responded to repeated trash-talking. The 
 opposition should either refrain from throwing the first punch *every 
 single time* or be ready to get back some of what they never stop dishing 
 out.

 Craig

  Dear Craig,

 Can anyone other than you know exactly what it is that you are? No. 
 Therefore whatever is said of you by some other is not true. It is when we 
 think of everything as physical, thoughts become words, words become 
 shouting matches, shouting matches become ... Such childish behavior! 
 Childhood needs to end at some point. We are not just physical, we are much 
 more and should reason as such.


I agree. I'm not motivated by my personal investment so much as the 
one-sided disparagement of non-conservative positions on this list. There 
are only a few offenders, but they never fail to turn every discussion into 
an opportunity to inject some kind of knee-jerk political stereotype into 
the conversation. I would never do that, so I don't see why I should 
politely accept it being done by others. I try to let it pass most of the 
time,. but why should I have to always be the one?


-- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RVntCnxqpt0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Stephen P. King


On 12/14/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/14/2012 5:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere 
perfectly to my definition: Hate to the established and aim to his 
destruction because it is an obstacle for something better that still 
don´t exist. But no matter what is it, progress will bring  it. 
That´s their core believef.


What nonsense.  A strawman man for Alberto to hate.  He wants to see 
every change as destruction and every change as motivated by hate.  
Progress is by simple definition of the word going from the worse to 
the better.


Dear Brent,

So any change that makes things worse is, by definition, not 
Progressive and therefore people that propose them cannot be blamed. NICE!


  Every conservative always supposes that they know the one Truth and 
so it cannot be improved upon; they are the true believers - and that 
applies to the political left Maoist/Communists as well as the 
political right Royalist/Papist/Fascists.  They all used their power 
to consolidate and gain more power.


Brent
--


Hear Hear!

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
  

 I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what 
 I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being 
 manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is 
 entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom.


 Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. 
 Indeed, we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with 
 different agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why 
 would any process exist which creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. 
 By extension, that is the problem with mechanism and functionalism as well. 
 If you have a perfectly good computer which operates a robot navigating a 
 physical world whose purpose is to survive and reproduce, what would be the 
 advantage of generating an internal representation delusion to some made up 
 'person' program when the computer is already controlling the robot 
 perfectly well. It would be like installing an chip inside of your computer 
 to simulate an impressionist painter who actually paints tiny paintings for 
 a made up audience of puppets to think that they are looking at. Even then, 
 you still have the Explanatory Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO 
 CLOSER to closing the gap as now you have an interior 'model' which has no 
 mechanism for perception. You have just moved the Cartesian Theater inside 
 of biochemistry, but it still explains nothing about how you get from 
 endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see images through biophotons 
 rather than are simply informed of their quantitative significance directly 
 and digitally.



 You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary 
 side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would 
 have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. 


Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not 
evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of 
awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a 
outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own 
standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know 
something about. Intelligence is prejudice really.


 

  

 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZZvUYt_c5s8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary
 side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would
 have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved.


 Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not
 evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of
 awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a
 outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own
 standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know
 something about. Intelligence is prejudice really.

So that there can be no confusion, what I mean by intelligent
behaviour is behaviour such as looking for food or avoiding
predators. I take consciousness and awareness as synonymous. When
an animal looks for food I assume that it is aware. The question is,
why did animals not evolve to do this without awareness, since it
would have the same effect of propagating their genes either way? An
answer is that awareness necessarily occurs when the type of behaviour
that would lead us to suspect awareness occurs.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 7:51:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
  

 It could be intentional and determined, 


 No, that equates free will with determinism. Intention means there is a 
 teleological agent who is experiencing that they are causing the process to 
 occur, regardless of the public correlation to other sub-personal and 
 super-personal levels of causality. Intention is personal and it runs 
 inside to outside.


  That there is a teleological agent who is experiencing that they are 
 causing the process to occur, regardless of the public correlation to other 
 sub-personal and super-personal levels of causality is entirely consistent 
 with with the physical processes being either determined or random. 


Yes, the physical process is determined by the teleological agent, either 
the top level down, or the bottom level up. I don't know about 
random...maybe in the circumstances that are presented to the agents.
 

 I feel that I am such a teleological agent, but this feeling gives me no 
 clue as to what is happening in my brain. 


Your brain is carrying out your instructions. That is what is happening in 
the brain. And you are carrying out the instructions of collections of sub 
persons. That is what is happening in the brain also. Both.
 

 This is why, for most of human history, people did not in fact have any 
 idea as to what was happening in their brains.


And yet, they built civilization even without that knowledge. The human 
brain is nothing but the vehicle for a human experience. Without us, it is 
a worthless glob of tissue.
 

  

 intentional and random, 


 No. That equates doing something 'on purpose' with doing something 'by 
 accident'. Our entire legal system is devoted to enforcing judgments, 
 including the death penalty, based on the assumption that the two are 
 mutually exclusive in principle. That doesn't make it a scientific fact, 
 but it should be a hint that if science has no idea why it is an 
 anthropological universal to consider it this way, then there must be more 
 to it.


 You can do something on purpose even though the decision is driven by 
 probabilistic processes. 


There may not be any such thing as a probabilistic process. That is an 
analysis from a statistical perspective, not an ontological understanding. 
Flipping a coin has a 50/50 probability of heads, but there is an actual 
coin flipping with an actual outcome. That is the concrete reality. The 
observation of how frequent certain outcomes we care about occurs is not a 
force in the universe, it has no effects, it is just an understanding that 
we have about the reality.
 

 The legal system is based on the assumption that the person understands 
 what they are doing and could do otherwise. This is, as I keep saying, 
 entirely consistent with either a deterministic or probabilistic 
 explanation for brain activity. 


You aren't getting that the brain is a facade. It is a representation. It's 
reality derives solely from its relevance to our lives, and the lives of 
other participants in the universe on many many levels.
 


 If I am charged with a crime and I prove that I was sleepwalking at the 
 time I am likely to get off, because I was not aware of what I was doing 
 and because such behaviour is not affected by fear of punishment, either 
 for me or for other potential perpetrators who may learn of my punishment. 
 The judge does not care if my sleepwalking is caused by deterministic or 
 probabilistic processes in my brain, he only cares about the end result on 
 my behaviour.


Yes, what happens in the brain is only important if it undermines your 
ability to exercise sensible intentions.
 


 If I am charged with a crime and it turns out I knew it was wrong but did 
 it anyway because I didn't care and thought I could get away with it I am 
 likely to be punished. The punishment will be a deterrent to me in future 
 and to other potential perpetrators. The judge, jury and general public 
 neither know nor care if this deterrence operates through deterministic or 
 probabilistic brain processes, or for that matter even if it operates 
 through magical spiritual processes.


Right. That's why I said nobody cares about what the brain does. 
 

  

 unintentional and determined or unintentional and random.


 They are identical. Determined (as in pre-determined by event or law) is 
 always unintentional and random is virtually synonymous with unintentional. 
 You could intentionally do something that seems random to you, but that's 
 pretty shaky - unlikely really given human psychology. To the contrary, as 
 psychologists in the 20th century found out, random responses can often 
 reveal more about the psyche than intentional descriptions.

  
 Intentional means I do something because I want to do it, and if I didn't 
 want to do it I wouldn't have done it. This is entirely consistent with

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:12:24 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a 
 necessary 
  side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there 
 would 
  have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. 
  
  
  Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did 
 not 
  evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence 
 of 
  awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a 
  outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own 
  standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know 
  something about. Intelligence is prejudice really. 

 So that there can be no confusion, what I mean by intelligent 
 behaviour is behaviour such as looking for food or avoiding 
 predators. 


So amoebas then. Or T-cells.
 

 I take consciousness and awareness as synonymous. 


You can, but I separate them to make the more important distinction. 
Consciousness is multiple sets of awareness, by my meaning.

When 
 an animal looks for food I assume that it is aware. The question is, 
 why did animals not evolve to do this without awareness, since it 
 would have the same effect of propagating their genes either way? An 
 answer is that awareness necessarily occurs when the type of behaviour 
 that would lead us to suspect awareness occurs. 


So ribosomes then? Chlorophyll? They appear aware to me. Atoms, electrons.. 
They respond to collisions, they organize when they have the opportunity. I 
suspect awareness in every type of behavior. 

Craig
 



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M4R-nAMLlZoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 Intentional means I do something because I want to do it, and if I didn't
 want to do it I wouldn't have done it. This is entirely consistent with the
 decision being driven by either deterministic or probabilistic brain
 physics.


 No it isn't, because brain physics has to do with neurotransmitters and
 cells, not people, places, and things. Brain physics has no capacity to be
 'about' anything except itself, just as our lives can only be about our
 lives and not the function of our brain.

Cells and neurotransmitters do their thing and thoughts and feelings
follow. Destroy the the cells and you destroy the thoughts and
feelings.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread meekerdb

On 12/14/2012 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in
what I feel
that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being
manipulated
by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is
entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom.

Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion.
Indeed, we are
complex and have many competing aspects of our self with different agendas.
The
reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why would any process exist
which
creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. By extension, that is the
problem with
mechanism and functionalism as well. If you have a perfectly good computer
which
operates a robot navigating a physical world whose purpose is to survive and
reproduce, what would be the advantage of generating an internal
representation
delusion to some made up 'person' program when the computer is already
controlling
the robot perfectly well.

It is necessary that the computer, or any intelligent actor, have an internal
representation of itself in order to contemplate and plan its future actions and decide
whether it can successfully execute a plan and what the value of the result will be. This
evaluation of plans requires simulation of events including the actor; so the actor must
represent itself in the simulation and estimate what its internal states will be - will it
have satisfied some goals, will it be damaged or destroyed, will it gain or lose.

Brent

It would be like installing an chip inside of your computer to simulate an
impressionist painter who actually paints tiny paintings for a made up
audience of
puppets to think that they are looking at. Even then, you still have the
Explanatory
Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO CLOSER to closing the gap as now
you have
an interior 'model' which has no mechanism for perception. You have just
moved the
Cartesian Theater inside of biochemistry, but it still explains nothing
about how
you get from endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see images through
biophotons
rather than are simply informed of their quantitative significance directly
and
digitally.

You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary side-effect of
intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would have been no reason for
consciousness to have evolved.

--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-14 Thread meekerdb


On 12/14/2012 4:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 12/14/2012 1:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/14/2012 5:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere perfectly to my 
definition: Hate to the established and aim to his destruction because it is an 
obstacle for something better that still don´t exist. But no matter what is it, 
progress will bring  it. That´s their core believef.


What nonsense.  A strawman man for Alberto to hate.  He wants to see every change as 
destruction and every change as motivated by hate.  Progress is by simple definition of 
the word going from the worse to the better.


Dear Brent,

So any change that makes things worse is, by definition, not Progressive and 
therefore people that propose them cannot be blamed. NICE!


The word I used was progress not progressive, as Alberto used it above: But no matter 
what is it, progress will bring  it. That´s their core believef.


Brent



  Every conservative always supposes that they know the one Truth and so it cannot be 
improved upon; they are the true believers - and that applies to the political left 
Maoist/Communists as well as the political right Royalist/Papist/Fascists.  They all 
used their power to consolidate and gain more power.


Brent
--


Hear Hear!

--
Onward!

Stephen

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:50:34 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  Intentional means I do something because I want to do it, and if I 
 didn't 
  want to do it I wouldn't have done it. This is entirely consistent with 
 the 
  decision being driven by either deterministic or probabilistic brain 
  physics. 
  
  
  No it isn't, because brain physics has to do with neurotransmitters and 
  cells, not people, places, and things. Brain physics has no capacity to 
 be 
  'about' anything except itself, just as our lives can only be about our 
  lives and not the function of our brain. 

 Cells and neurotransmitters do their thing and thoughts and feelings 
 follow. Destroy the the cells and you destroy the thoughts and 
 feelings. 


Their thing is their 'thoughts' and 'feelings' upon which our thoughts and 
feelings depend, but their existence depends on our psychological well 
being also. It's mutual - bottom up and top down. Bottom up is a different 
dependency than top down though. Bottom up is about survival of the 
vehicle, while top down is about the signifying purpose. Equally important 
in one sense, but from an absolute sense, the signifying purpose is 
essential while the vehicle is the back door.

Craig
 



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jMlSxzQsIcsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Dear Craig,
You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of
developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated.
Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is
innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are
different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to
Eugenesism. But I can not see how  the idea that men are genetically
(innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism.

By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a
dolphin?) different from my specie,  you will agree that the fast moral
evaluation mechanism that you posted at the beginning of this discussion
comes as the result of something.  If you reject natural selection as the
process that conform the human psichology as an adaptation to the social
and phisical medium, What do you think that produced this remarcable moral
ability in humans (and only humans)  apart from natural selection. The god
of diversity? Gaia?  randomness?  State planned education?.

2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that
 there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are
 radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?.


 All species are only variations on the same organism.


 As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea
 horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This
 is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of
 coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural
 -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are
 victims of a heavy prejuice.


 I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you
 always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield
 any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social
 Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of
 evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the
 best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard
 always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs.


 I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to
 the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is
 inconvenient.


 It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense
 mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument,
 some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or
 character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might
 be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues
 because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the
 personality of those who I am debating with.


 And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a
 species-specific nature is worht the title of eugenesist.


 I don't understand, but it sounds like you are asking why I would say that
 ideas about inherent gender qualities rooted in immutable evolutionary
 truths are eugenic. If it isn't clear to you then there is nothing that I
 can tell you which will help you see.


 You can demote this at your please, keeping telling about spiritualism or
 that  there are partenogenetic frogs and there are  planets with no blue
 skies. There are frogs that sing, by the way. I don´t kniow if this would
 help to make a point in your argumentation.

 Both of us have have put clear our standpoints.


 Sure, although I think that your standpoint is from the 19th century and
 has been factually discredited since then.

 Craig

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Dear Craig,
 You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of 
 developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. 


Dear Alberto,

You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid 
doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others.
 

 Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is 
 innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are 
 different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to 
 Eugenesism. But I can not see how  the idea that men are genetically 
 (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism.


I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are 
innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous 
inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating 
intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a 
different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the 
sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord 
Hunchbacque.)

I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or 
which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most 
common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the 
direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd?


 By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you 
 a dolphin?) different from my specie, 


(FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to 
currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie )

you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at 
 the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. 


Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as 
more primitive than biology.
 

  If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human 
 psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you 
 think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only 
 humans)  apart from natural selection. 


I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of 
countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels 
simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the 
sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic 
and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I 
don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just 
that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that 
free will is an illusion.
 

 The god of diversity? Gaia?  randomness?  State planned education?.  


Sense.


Sensibly,
Craig
 


 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:



 On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that 
 there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are 
 radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. 


 All species are only variations on the same organism.
  

 As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea 
 horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This 
 is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of 
 coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural 
 -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are 
 victims of a heavy prejuice. 


 I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you 
 always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield 
 any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social 
 Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of 
 evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the 
 best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard 
 always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs.
  

 I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to 
 the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is 
 inconvenient. 


 It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense 
 mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, 
 some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or 
 character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might 
 be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues 
 because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the 
 personality of those who I am debating with. 
  

 And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a 
 species-specific nature is worht the title of eugenesist.


 I don't understand, but it sounds like

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Craig Weinberg 

What drives to totalitarianism is the lust for power.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 07:46:58
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows




On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Dear Craig,
You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of developments 
since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. 

Dear Alberto,

You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid 
doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others.
 

Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is innate 
drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are different 
because they are genetically (innately) different drives to Eugenesism. But I 
can not see how  the idea that men are genetically (innately) equal could could 
drive to eugenesism.

I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are 
innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous 
inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating intentional 
trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a different set of 
conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the sound of your name 
and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord Hunchbacque.)

I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or 
which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most common 
impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the direction 
that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd?




By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a 
dolphin?) different from my specie, 


(FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to 
currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie )


you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at the 
beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. 

Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as more 
primitive than biology.
 
 If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human 
psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you 
think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only humans)  
apart from natural selection. 

I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of 
countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels 
simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the sub-personal 
to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic and 
environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I don't know 
that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just that it is 
more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that free will is an 
illusion.
 
The god of diversity? Gaia?  randomness?  State planned education?.  

Sense.


Sensibly,
Craig
 



2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there are 
othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. What are 
two species to do one with each other?. 

All species are only variations on the same organism.
 

As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses will 
be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is guaranteed 
by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of coordinated genes. 
The people like you that accept the innate , natural -selection driven nature 
of animal behaviour but reject it form men are victims of a heavy prejuice. 

I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you always 
bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield any 
insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social Darwinism, which 
is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. 
Survival of the fittest means only survival of the best fit to ecological 
conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard always wins. Just ask the 
dinosaurs.
 
I don? know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to the 
bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is inconvenient. 

It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense mechanisms 
which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, some lash out 
personally, looking for some motive based on blood or character defect so they 
don't have to face the possibility that they might be wrong. It doesn't bother

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Alberto,

so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a
 teleology before life, like me. I don`t find this incompatible with natural
 selection


But it is. The big achievement of Darwinism (and the more complete version,
moden synthesis) was to explain the origin of biological complexity without
requiring some pre-existing, guiding intelligence. It follows directly from
lower levels of abstraction (physics-chemistry-biology). You might
disagree with Darwinism, and that's fine. But we're not talking about the
same thing anymore.


 (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it).


Natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the phenomenon. No
politics there, just scientific ontology.


 You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when
 we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. You enjoy
 the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some politically correct
 ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave
  as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That´t funny.


There I agree with you.



 .

 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 doing




 --
 Alberto.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a 
 teleology before life, like me.


Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.
 

 I don`t find this incompatible with natural selection (or evolution, as 
 left-leaning people likes to call it)


Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. 
Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The 
 Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in 
 part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus 
 theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by 
 Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found 
 in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with 
 brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because 
he understood that it is not teleological.
 

 . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when 
 we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. 


Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't 
bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
 

 You enjoy the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some 
 politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make 
 female humans behave  as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. 
 That´t funny.


I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a 
left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. 
It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are 
over 60 then you have an excuse.

Craig
 


 .

 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:

 doing




 -- 
 Alberto.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:43:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 What drives to totalitarianism is the lust for power.


People don't always know that they lust for power. They can also think that 
they are saving the world, or helping people restore their former glory. 
Nobody rolls out of be thinking 'I have a lust for power...it's time to 
become a totalitarian.'

 

  
  
 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript:
 12/13/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-12-13, 07:46:58
 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
 study shows

  

 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 

 Dear Craig, 
 You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of 
 developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. 


 Dear Alberto,

 You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to 
 avoid doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others.
  

 Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is 
 innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are 
 different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to 
 Eugenesism. But I can not see how  the idea that men are genetically 
 (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism.


 I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are 
 innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous 
 inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating 
 intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a 
 different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the 
 sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord 
 Hunchbacque.)

 I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or 
 which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most 
 common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the 
 direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd?

  
 By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you 
 a dolphin?) different from my specie, 


 (FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to 
 currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie )

  you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted 
 at the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. 


 Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as 
 more primitive than biology.
  

  If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human 
 psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you 
 think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only 
 humans)  apart from natural selection. 


 I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of 
 countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels 
 simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the 
 sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic 
 and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I 
 don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just 
 that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that 
 free will is an illusion.
  

 The god of diversity? Gaia?  randomness?  State planned education?.  


 Sense.


 Sensibly,
 Craig
  


 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona 
 wrote: 

 Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that 
 there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are 
 radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. 


 All species are only variations on the same organism.
  
  
 As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea 
 horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. 
 This 
 is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of 
 coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural 
 -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are 
 victims of a heavy prejuice. 


 I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you 
 always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield 
 any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social 
 Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of 
 evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the 
 best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard 
 always wins. Just ask the

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Alberto G. Corona

You said it:
in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not found
in Darwin's idea

Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that
explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may
not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may
not happen.

That´s why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than  natural
selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of
themselves and their society according with its will.






2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a
 teleology before life, like me.


 Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.


 I don`t find this incompatible with natural selection (or evolution, as
 left-leaning people likes to call it)


 Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized.
 Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

 Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The
 Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in
 part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus
 theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by
 Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found
 in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with
 brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


 So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because
 he understood that it is not teleological.


 . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it
 when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles.


 Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't
 bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.


 You enjoy the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some
 politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make
 female humans behave  as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom.
 That´t funny.


 I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a
 left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone.
 It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are
 over 60 then you have an excuse.

 Craig



 .

 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

 doing




 --
 Alberto.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Roger Clough

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

It's much simpler than that, I think.
Progressives hate everything resembles anything 
held to be good, beautiful, or true.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/13/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows


You said it:
in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not found in 
Darwin's idea



Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that 
explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not 
happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not 
happen.


That? why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than ?atural selection. 
They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and 
their society according with its will.











2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology 
before life, like me.

Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.
?

I don`t find this?ncompatible?ith natural selection (or evolution, as 
left-leaning people likes to call it)

Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. 
Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:


Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The Origin 
of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because 
evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological 
development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because 
it carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian 
belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and 
other biologists popularized evolution.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he 
understood that it is not teleological.
?

. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we 
are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. 

Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring 
awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
?
You enjoy the fact that NS made female?yenas to behave in?ome politically 
correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans 
behave ?s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That? funny.

I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left 
wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's 
something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 
then you have an excuse.

Craig
?



.


2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

doing





-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.






-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  
 It's much simpler than that, I think.
 Progressives hate everything resembles anything 
 held to be good, beautiful, or true.


Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed.

Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth? 
Progressives aren't artists or musicians?

You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's exactly 
what Progressives want to leave behind.

Craig

 
  
 [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript:
 12/13/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
  

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-12-13, 10:13:03
 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain 
 study shows

   You said it:
 in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not 
 found in Darwin's idea

 Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory 
 that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and 
 may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time 
 may not happen. 

 That� why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than �atural 
 selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of 
 themselves and their society according with its will.






 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 

 so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a 
 teleology before life, like me.


 Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of.
 �
  
 I don`t find this�ncompatible�ith natural selection (or evolution, as 
 left-leaning people likes to call it)


 Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. 
 Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term:

 Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The 
 Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in 
 part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus 
 theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by 
 Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found 
 in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with 
 brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution
 .

 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution


 So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because 
 he understood that it is not teleological.
 �
  
 . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it 
 when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. 


 Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't 
 bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence.
 �
  
 You enjoy the fact that NS made female�yenas to behave in�ome 
 politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make 
 female humans behave �s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. 
 That� funny.


 I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a 
 left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. 
 It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are 
 over 60 then you have an excuse.

 Craig
 �


 .

 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

 doing




 -- 
 Alberto.

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 

 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




 -- 
 Alberto.

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/KrxIG-s2MLgJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:


 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not
 much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple
 propensity to cause harm.


Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible
way, neither determined nor random. Since everything is either determined
or random, if something appears to be neither then that must be an
illusion. In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to
cause harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than
someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by
deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really
relevant.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
  

 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not 
 much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple 
 propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
 way, neither determined nor random. 


Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it

What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random 
right? So it must be determined? So are you saying Free will is an 
illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a 
logically impossible way...

Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you are 
talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have any 
more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author of 
your words?

The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and 
it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will. 
 

 Since everything is either determined or random,


It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are 
varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and 
possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to 
explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency.
 

 if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion. 


Illusions are a figment of expectation. What you call an optical illusion, 
I call a living encyclopedia of visual perception and optics. Something can 
only be an illusion if you mistakenly interpret it as something else.
 

 In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause 
 harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than 
 someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by 
 deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really 
 relevant.


If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be 
indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The 
prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of 
discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary 
control over their actions and random or deterministic unconscious physical 
processes.

Think about it,
Craig
 



 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NDStqkYX_M0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
  

 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not 
 much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple 
 propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
 way, neither determined nor random.


Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional 
vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to 
conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing... 

This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are 
ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are 
intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible 
importance*.

Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely and 
see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your back.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gtq8PwQyva4J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:


 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be
 not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a
 simple propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible
 way, neither determined nor random.


 Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it

 What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random
 right? So it must be determined? So are you saying Free will is an
 illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a
 logically impossible way...

 Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you are
 talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have any
 more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author of
 your words?

 The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and
 it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will.


You're perhaps conflating the feeling with the physical processes
underpinning that feeling. I feel all sorts of things, but I don't feel
neurotransmitters and action potentials. No conclusion can be drawn from
what I feel about the physical processes. Consider that the ancient Greeks
did not even realise that the brain is the organ of thinking. So when I say
I feel my actions are free that means something, but it does NOT mean
that my brain processes are neither random nor determined.




 Since everything is either determined or random,


 It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are
 varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and
 possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to
 explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency.


I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what I
feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being
manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is
entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom.




  if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion.


 Illusions are a figment of expectation. What you call an optical illusion,
 I call a living encyclopedia of visual perception and optics. Something can
 only be an illusion if you mistakenly interpret it as something else.


 In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause
 harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than
 someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by
 deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really
 relevant.


 If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be
 indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The
 prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of
 discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary
 control over their actions and random or deterministic unconscious physical
 processes.


That it is voluntary control has no bearing on the question of whether the
underlying processes are determined or random.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:


 If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be
 not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a
 simple propensity to cause harm.


 Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible
 way, neither determined nor random.


 Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional
 vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to
 conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing...


The dichotomy is intentional/unintentional, not
intentional/determined-or-random. It could be intentional and determined,
intentional and random, unintentional and determined or unintentional and
random.


 This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are
 ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are
 intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible
 importance*.


Yes, that's what I have been saying. We care about whether something is
intentional or unintentional, and unless we are engaged in discussions such
as this we don't even consider whether the underlying physics is determined
or random.


 Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely and
 see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your back.

 Craig

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gtq8PwQyva4J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-12 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there 
 are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. 
 What are two species to do one with each other?. 


All species are only variations on the same organism.
 

 As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses 
 will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is 
 guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of 
 coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural 
 -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are 
 victims of a heavy prejuice. 


I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you 
always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield 
any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social 
Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of 
evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the 
best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard 
always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs.
 

 I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to 
 the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is 
 inconvenient. 


It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense 
mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, 
some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or 
character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might 
be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues 
because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the 
personality of those who I am debating with. 
 

 And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a species-specific 
 nature is worht the title of eugenesist.


I don't understand, but it sounds like you are asking why I would say that 
ideas about inherent gender qualities rooted in immutable evolutionary 
truths are eugenic. If it isn't clear to you then there is nothing that I 
can tell you which will help you see.


 You can demote this at your please, keeping telling about spiritualism or 
 that  there are partenogenetic frogs and there are  planets with no blue 
 skies. There are frogs that sing, by the way. I don´t kniow if this would 
 help to make a point in your argumentation.

 Both of us have have put clear our standpoints.

 
Sure, although I think that your standpoint is from the 19th century and 
has been factually discredited since then.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are
falsifiablehttps://www.google.es/search?q=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiableoq=Craig%3A+The+evolutionary+Psychology+hypothesis+are+falsifiableaqs=chrome.0.57j58.640sugexp=chrome,mod=2sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8#hl=ensafe=offtbo=dsclient=psy-abq=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiableoq=evolutionary+Psychology+hypotheses++falsifiablegs_l=serp.3...8248.8713.5.9590.4.4.0.0.0.3.261.878.2-4.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.7ojIOs_e60Qpsj=1bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.fp=561e2e0a6415ac8dbpcl=39650382biw=1241bih=584

Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no consensus on
whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are falsifiable? I
have made my case, given examples, explained why evolutionary psych is so
seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, but why am I wrong?

Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long it
takes to recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find that
there is a clear difference. Which would outcome would evolutionary psych
favor? I could argue that it is clearly more important to identify a
stranger, as they may present a threat to our lives or an opportunity for
trade, security, information, etc. I could equally argue that it is clearly
more important to identify a friend so that we reinforce the bonds of our
social group and foster deep interdependence. I could argue that there
should be no major difference between the times because they are both
important. I could argue that the times should vary according to context. I
could argue that they should not vary according to context as these
functions must be processed beneath the threshold of conscious processing.

Evolutionary Psychology assumptions can generate plausible interpretations
for any outcome after the fact and offers no particular opinions before the
fact, and that opens the door for at least ambiguous falsifiability in many
cases.

Craig

2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:

On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary pressures:
A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan against us is much
more dangerous than a casual accident.

Only if there are teleological agents in the first place. There are some
people around here who deny that free will is possible. They insist (though
I am not sure how, since insisting is already a voluntary act) that our
impression that we are agents who can plan and execute plans is another
evolutionary consequence.

The problem with retrospective evolutionary psychology is that it is
unfalsifiable. Any behavior can be plugged into evolution and generate a
just-so story from here to there. If the study showed just the opposite -
that human beings can't tell the difference between acts of nature and
intentional acts, or that it is very slow, why that would make sense too as
a consequence of evolutionary pressure as well. You would want to be *sure*
that some agent is intentionally harming you lest you falsely turn on a
member of your own social group and find yourself cast out. This would
validate representational theories of consciousness too - of course it
would take longer to reason out esoteric computations of intention than it
would take to recognize something so immediately important as being able to
discern emotions in others face. That way you could see if someone was
angry before they actually started hitting you and have a survival
advantage. Evolutionary psychology is its own built in confirmation bias.
Not that it has no basis in fact, of course it does, but I can see that it
is psychology which is evolving, not evolution which is psychologizing.

because the first will continue harming us, so a fast reaction against
further damage is necessary, while in the case of an accident no stress
response is necessary. (stress responses compromise long term health)

Yes, but it's simplistic. There are a lot of things in the environment
which are unintentional but continue to harm us which we would be better
off developing a detector for. There is no limit to what evolution can be
credited with doing - anything goes. If we had a way of immediately
detecting which mosquitoes carried malaria, that would make perfect sense.
If we could intuitively tell fungus were edible in the forest, that would
make sense too.

That distinction may explain the consideration of natural disasters as
teleological: For example earthquakes or storms: The stress response
necessary to react against these phenomena make them much more similar
to teleological plans of unknown agents than mere accidents.

The study shows the opposite though. It shows that we specifically

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-11 Thread meekerdb


On 12/11/2012 11:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long it takes to 
recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find that there is a clear 
difference.


Yeah, we don't recognize the stranger.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:06:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 12/11/2012 11:04 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 Try it this way. Let's say we are measuring the difference in how long it 
 takes to recognize a friend versus recognizing a stranger and we find that 
 there is a clear difference.


 Yeah, we don't recognize the stranger.


Does somebody stop being a stranger just because we recognize seeing them 
more than once?

Craig


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AvpgKMEJQ7IJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

2012-12-11 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it.

in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there are
others that are evident. It depends on the context. for example , woman
have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive faster
than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that you can
guess why.

The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that
point at you may be a treat. it

2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no consensus
on whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are
falsifiable? I have made my case, given examples, explained why
evolutionary psych is so seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, but
why am I wrong?

Craig

2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary
pressures: A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan against us
is much more dangerous than a casual accident.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it.

It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that we
are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story land.
There are some species where the females are more aggressive (
http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html ) - does that
mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of
the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more
aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist
theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything
very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any
of these kinds of assumptions.

Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a function
of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky in
specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in sweeping
generalizations which credit evolution with particular psychological
strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive species-wide, and
sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly impossible to tell them
apart, especially thousands of years after the fact.

Craig

The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that
point at you may be a treat. it

2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

Your link is just a Google search which shows that there is no consensus
on whether they are falsifiable. Why do you think that they are
falsifiable? I have made my case, given examples, explained why
evolutionary psych is so seductive and compulsive as a cognitive bias, but
why am I wrong?

Evolutionary Psychology assumptions can generate plausible
interpretations for any outcome after the fact and offers no particular
opinions before the fact, and that opens the door for at least ambiguous
falsifiability in many cases.

Craig

2012/11/30 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com

On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:37:35 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

This speed in the evaluation is a consequence of evolutionary
pressures: A teleological agent that is executing a violent plan against
us
is much more dangerous than a casual accident.

Only if there are teleological agents in the first place. There are
some people around here who deny that free will is possible. They insist
(though I am not sure how, since insisting is already a voluntary act)
that
our impression that we are agents who can plan and execute plans is
another
evolutionary consequence.

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows



On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:41:04 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 You are mixing species. The human specie has his nature. The sea horse, as 
 fine as it is, has another. human males are more aggresive for the same 
 reason that sea horse females are aggressive too: the other sex does the 
 heavier effort in caring for the eggs and thus are the scarce resource for 
 which the other sex has to fight and is the less prone to risk taking, 
 something that is evident by a short game theoretical reasoning.  As simple 
 as that.


It's not that simple at all. Human males vary in their aggressiveness from 
individual to individual, family to family, culture to culture, and 
situation to situation. Had a comet wiped out Homo sapiens from one part of 
Africa which had more aggressive males, then we might now identify females 
with aggressiveness. Even in the last few years gender has changed 
significantly as males have become more feminized in certain ways and 
females have be come more masculine in certain ways. Certainly some of what 
you are saying has truth to it, but it's neither a reliable nor 
particularly important way to derive truth. It's a simplification which 
really is inseparable ultimately with eugenics - which I don't say to put 
the idea down as immoral, only to show that mechanistic views of 
anthropology are inherently and inevitably fallacious.
 


 I was not present in the holocene or whathever in the creatacic  during 
 the millions of years when sea horses switched slowly their male female 
 roles, but this reasoning can be done here and now with the same accuracy.


You make it sound like gender roles are something which exist as some kind 
of objective property. Gender is an invention of evolution. Its roles are 
situational and relativistic. Whether what is secreted by a gland is more 
egg-like or more sperm-like really has no inherent role attached to it. 
Males take care of the kids in some species and in some families. Sometimes 
nobody takes care of the kids.
 


 Evolution is not random . It has rules. 


The rules are called natural selection. They aren't rules though, they are 
consequences of actual experiences and conditions, some intentional, some 
unintentional.
 

 Evolutionary biology has made wonderful discoveries about animal 
 behaviour. E.O Wilson the founder of sociobiology predicted that if a 
 mammal would be found that has social insect organization (with a single 
 reproductive Queen) It would be in tropical humid climate and living in the 
 underground. Sorty after, a specie of rodent according with this 
 description was found.


I'm not knocking evolutionary biology, I'm knocking what Raymond Tallis 
calls Darwinitis - the compulsive application of generic evolutionary 
simplifications to all features of human consciousness. Just because we 
enjoy beautiful mates doesn't mean that the mating function can somehow 
generate beauty to optimize its activities.

Craig



 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:

 On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Yes, I  sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it.

 in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there are 
 others that are evident.  It depends on the context. for example , woman 
 have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive faster 
 than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that you can 
 guess why.


 It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that we 
 are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story land. 
 There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( 
 http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html  ) - does that 
 mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of 
 the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more 
 aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist 
 theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything 
 very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any 
 of these kinds of assumptions.

 Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a 
 function of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky 
 in specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in 
 sweeping generalizations which credit evolution with particular 
 psychological strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive 
 species-wide, and sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly 
 impossible to tell them apart, especially thousands of years after the fact.

 Craig



 The alignment detection is common in the animal kingdom: somethng that 
 point at you may be a treat. it


 2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:09:25 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are

Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows