Hi Mark,
Interconnected?
Marsha
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:52 PM, 118 wrote:
There is a way to make this, understandable. Language results from thinking,
thinking results from awareness, awareness results from dualism, dualism
results from quality, quality results from Quality, Quality
Hi Arlo,
Inserted ...
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Arlo Bensinger ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
So the previous social pattern isn't fossilized in all its glory in the
future biology, but it does preserve traces / shadows, which reinforce the
advantage on the next cycle, and so on.
[Arlo]
Of course, I could wonder how anything that lacks intrinsic nature could
possibly connect? What kind of connection would that be? (I can hear my
mother's words: Marsha, you think too much!) Undifferentiated, and
non-rational, and free from assimilation, discrimination, analysis and
For your information:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24120
Antonio Damasio:
Yeah, exactly, yeah and that we are... we are in fact this hodgepodge of
non-conscious and conscious processes with some part of our consciousness
trying to ride herd over this mess of non-conscious processes and
Joe,
Does this represent what you mean when you talk of emotions?
3:23 minutes
Fascinating!
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
Joe,
Does this represent what you mean when you talk of emotions?
3:23 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I
Fascinating!
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Thanks for that link Marsha,
Damasio is one of those brain / behaviour scientists I have a lot of
time for - very consistent with others Zeman / Austin / Sacks /
Ramchandran, now McGilchrist and more .
Whether you refer to those effects as emotion or not - the are the
Hi Ian,
What role do emotions play in consciousness?
5:50 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2yaozi0Gg
Damasio's theory of self is considered in the book
''The Two-tiered Illusion of Self' by Mari Albahari. Great
book! But I've also read of him through books published
from
Marsha asked
What role do emotions play in consciousness?
Well, our consciousness (the bundle of patterns that is us) are
conscious of them.
I feel my emotions therefore I am.
(What happens next depends on how you use your brain / body.)
BTW - I just blogged the clip you linked and also linked
BTW Marsha, the key word for me in that second Damasio clip is endorse.
Reminds me that free-will is best thought of as free-won't after
Dennett and Wegner.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1192
Thought of that way free-will is exactly what it appears to be - and
totally non-contentious I'd say -
Hi Ian,
I am in the no-self (anatta) camp, but like everything else there
are subtleties to consider: 'sense of self' which I know exists
and actual self which is missing. I feel my emotions therefore
I am. doesn't do much for me. How you use your brain / body
is only a consideration if
Ian.
No homunculus, no Will. How could it be otherwise. But there
is freedom as RMP has stated. And as far as I am concerned
it is found in the present moment/awareness. - With some interesting
adjustments, Albahari supports Damasio's case which supports
the Buddha's case.
The
I didn't say all Marsha, I listed the ones I respected,
And no (being consistent and coherent) I don't exempt these from the
narrative side of epistemology (even in science) - they all get it
too, and they are writers of anecdote-filled books, some of them much
repeated and apocryphal, if not
Have a good day!
On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
I didn't say all Marsha, I listed the ones I respected,
And no (being consistent and coherent) I don't exempt these from the
narrative side of epistemology (even in science) - they all get it
too, and they are writers
dmb said:
... conservatives don't just think their policies are better. They think
liberals are just plain evil.
MRB replied:
If that's true, they must be following the suit of the liberals, who for
several decades have helpfully told me I and my confreres hate the poor and are
Nazis
Hi dmb,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
I have always granted that most philosophers have traditionally linked the
concepts of free will and moral responsibility. I am saying that that link is
not necessary. It is not a logical
Another point on this topic
dmb said to MRB:
If the bombastic titles of books by conservatives are any indication,
conservatives think that liberals are just plain evil.
MRB replied:
Again, we are in the area of Frenchmen like to eat X. Generic labels rarely
cover what they're boomed as
dmb said to Steve:
... please explain how it is possible to have moral responsibility without some
kind of human agency? Go ahead. Explain how that would work. I'd really like to
see you try to make that case. Maybe you will finally realize what I'm saying
in the attempt to actually articulate
dmb says:
I've been trying to get you to respond to this criticism for a long time now
but it really seems that you don't understand the problem. You say here that
you will oblige me and explain once again, but I'm telling you that you
haven't explained it even once. If you think you've
dmb said:
...If we are not free to choose our actions, how can we be held responsible
for those actions? Put another way, how can there be moral responsibility
without some kind of human agency? I'm not asking about SOM or the MOQ. I'm
only asking about the simple logical connection between
On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi dmb,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Steve said:
I have always granted that most philosophers have traditionally linked the
concepts of free will and moral responsibility. I am saying
[Steve]
[dmb] wonders how we can have moral responsibility without free will, and
I wonder how you can have free will without conscious deliberation
about choices.
You're both right.
[Steve]
If we follow the extent to which notion of freedom as
following free will
1) We don't follow free
Hi dmb,
dmb said:
...If we are not free to choose our actions, how can we be held responsible
for those actions? Put another way, how can there be moral responsibility
without some kind of human agency? I'm not asking about SOM or the MOQ. I'm
only asking about the simple logical
dmb,
It didn't escape my notice that you still haven't responded to this
even though I've pointed out this oversight a couple times already...
Look, you have to deal with the fact that if you want to equate free
will with the capacity to follow DQ, you have to reconcile some things
that Pirsig
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 4:09 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Steve]
[dmb] wonders how we can have moral responsibility without free will, and
I wonder how you can have free will without conscious deliberation
about choices.
You're both right.
[Steve]
If we follow the extent to which
Steve said to dmb:
It didn't escape my notice that you still haven't responded to this even though
I've pointed out this oversight a couple times already...
Look, you have to deal with the fact that if you want to equate free
will with the capacity to follow DQ, you have to reconcile some
Sam Harris said:
...The great worry is that any honest discussion of the underlying causes of
human behavior seems to erode the notion of moral responsibility. If we view
people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about
morality? And if we remain committed to seeing
CNN BREAKING: Rating agency Standard Poor's says it has downgraded the
U.S. credit rating to AA+ from its top rank of AAA. [This is huge, folks.
The decades of statism are showing their logical consequences. Stand by for
rippling effects.]
MRB
http://www.fuguewriter.com
Moq_Discuss
Steve said to dmb:
Since the quoted text is from his article Morality Without Free Will, I
think you'd have a hard time convincing Sam that he is actually arguing that
free will is required for morality.
dmb says:
That is specious reasoning.
Steve:
What is absurd is to say that when Sam
29 matches
Mail list logo
