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

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:15:02 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> I believe that life and consciousness and intelligence are inseparable
> because none can act without the others being involved.
>

Sense -> biological quality sense (life) -> animal quality sense (animal 
life) -> human quality sense (consciousness).

Intelligence is a subjective judgment. Any action which is deemed to 
improve efficiency or effectiveness will be deemed intelligent whether it 
is the consequence of intention or not. Machines can seem intelligent, but 
machines cannot seem to understand deeply (yet).

Craig
 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 
> 12/15/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-12-14, 19:37:50
> *Subject:* 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 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 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=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/-/9erI77TIIFsJ.
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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

I believe that life and consciousness and intelligence are inseparable
because none can act without the others being involved.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 19:37:50
Subject: 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  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.

-- 
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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stathis Papaioannou 

Anything alive must have consciousness to some degree,
so consciousness always was-- at least to a limited extent.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stathis Papaioannou 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 19:19:56
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study 
shows





On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg  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?onsistent?ith 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. 
?


-- 
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.

-- 
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

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 


Yes, amoebas and T-cells. Anything that has life must have
intelligence and awareness, although it might be of limited extent.  

Without life, it couldn't animate. Without awareness and inteligence
to understand that perception, it would not know where to go or 
what to do.
 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-14, 20:25:03
Subject: 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  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.

-- 
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

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, December 14, 2012 8:54:39 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2012/12/14 Craig Weinberg >
>
>>
>>
>> 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 
>>>


 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

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

2012/12/14 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> 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 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 

>
>
> 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=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 th

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

[Craig Weinberg]

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 >
>
>>
>>
>> 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 
>>>


 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 
>
>> doing
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Alberto.
>
  -- 
 You rece

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

[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 

>
>
> 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 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 

> 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.**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=en

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

[Craig Weinberg]

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 >
>
>>
>>
>> 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 
>>>
 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.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=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 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 m

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

[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 



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 

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

[Craig Weinberg]

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] 
> 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 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 

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

[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 



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 
me though, beca