The study showed that within 60 milliseconds, the right posterior superior temporal sulcus (also known as TPJ area), located in the back of the brain, was first activated, with different activity depending on whether the harm was intentional or accidental. It was followed in quick succession by the amygdala, often linked with emotion, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (180 milliseconds), the portion of the brain that plays a critical role in moral decision-making.There was no such response in the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex when the harm was accidental.
--Hi Craig,
-- Onward! Stephen
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iHQxDcJClvkJ.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Hence, it is no surprise that the natural disasters are considered as teleological and moral . For example, as deliberated acts of the goods against the corruption of the people, or currently, the response of "the planet" against the aggression of the immorally rich countries that deplete the resources.
--
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/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ.
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.
Craig: The evolutionary Psychology hypothesis are falsifiable
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.
Brent
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ.
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.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ.
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 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.
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.
Evolution is not random . It has rules.
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.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/O-ReuewEZGgJ.
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.
2012/12/11 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
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.
There is no feminization nor masculinization other than we would see in any other specie responding to different situations.
Oh ah, I understand. This is not the right use of evolution, that is, on the left side of politics. Because I say, and natural selection says that men and women have a nature instead of having none -
so the leftist friends can engineer man at their arbitrary pleasure- , I´m being eugenesist (??) and a bad guy.
I see that the times when EO. Wilson was insulted, aggressively molested and expelled from universitary conferences are not over. Still the same rejection for the same ideological reasons.
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.
Gender is an invention of evolution?
the whole you are. Wether evolution is or not the invention of a Creator or not, evolution (natural selection) gave us a nature.
I´m sorry for the liberals, but this includes everything in you. You can reject to look straigh at it and look at the exceptions, some of them flawed, some of them easily explainable, but the science will stay in front of you waiting for you to look at it.
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.
They are called phisical, laws, game theory, computation science, evolutionary game theory, fitness landscapes, genetics, genetic drift, multilevel selection.... Of course the productos of evolution are historical, but the laws tell you what combinations of characteristics are not possible whatsoever.
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.
The appreciation of beauty is clearly an adaptation.
We perceive as beatiful what was adaptively relevant for our survival in the past.
This happens with our higher and lower capacities. For that matter we have a common architecture of the mind, and we share the same (adaptive) concepts so we can communicate in abstract ways about beauty, love, freedom, loyalty and so on.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/tC1atFpIG_YJ.
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-11, 16:03:57Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
"I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. To me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its source, a subjective agent. Human culture is nothing if not totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity itself - it抯 expression of character and creating stories with them. "
Thanks,
Craig
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ.
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.
--
Alberto.
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ.
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.
--
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/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ.
Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is whatthe word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
So evolution is teleological.
In other words, life is intelligent.
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?.
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 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.
And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a species-specific nature is worht the title of eugenesist.
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.
Hi Telmo,I agree with everything you said. However, a goal is something that can only be formulated in some kind of mind - it's a mental construct. So to say "life has a goal" makes no sense, *except* as the implicit statement that e.g. "we interpret that life's goal is to survive". All goals are interpretations... e.g, "the goal of a thermostat is to regulate the temperature" is still an interpretive statement, because there is a level of description of a thermostat that is perfectly valid yet yields no concept of regulation.
Hi Craig WeinbergAnything goal-oriented is teleological, which is whatthe word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
So evolution is teleological.In other words, life is intelligent.
"I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. To me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its source, a subjective agent. Human culture is nothing if not totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity itself - it� expression of character and creating stories with them. "
Thanks,
Craig
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ.
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.
--
Alberto.
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ.
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.
--
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/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.
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.
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?.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-12, 15:41:47Subject: Re: life is teleological
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/hDK6j1-sv60J.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-12, 15:43:15
Subject: Re: life is teleological
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OnQ3FmhUGq0J.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: 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磘 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磘 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--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.
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.
--
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/-/CHg1mTBpb2UJ.
Hi Craig WeinbergTeleology or intending from inside toward a goal is the science of final causation,to use Aristotle's term. Because from inside, it requires intelligence. Such is life.Or driving a car.Science or determinism deals with effective causation (pushing from outside).No self-directing intelligence is needed.
Hi Roger,
"I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. To me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its source, a subjective agent. Human culture is nothing if not totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity itself - it� expression of character and creating stories with them. "
Thanks,
Craig
--
Alberto.
--
Alberto.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-13, 08:59:50Subject: Re: Re: life is teleological
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RgfAHjh-LMwJ.
Hi Craig Weinberg
Since evolution is evolution of living creatures, who must have the desireto live and grow and mate,
it is goal-oriented, and thus at leastpartly teleological.
Teleonomy (I had to look it up) is defined as only "apparent" puposeful-ness.How do those that assign telonomy to evolution know that it is onlyapparent ? That sounds like a dodge to me.
Do you feel that your life is only "apparently" purposeful ?
I say that if life appears to be purposeful, it IS purposeful.
If you think you're having fun, you're having fun.
Hi Craig WeinbergWhat drives to totalitarianism is the lust for power.
2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
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, 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� 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--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ.
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.
--
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
(or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it).
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
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 (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it)
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
. 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-13, 09:13:10Subject: Re: Re: life is teleological
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/na1BaHI69V4J.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo MenezesReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-12, 14:21:04
Subject: Re: life is teleological
--
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Alberto G. CoronaReceiver: everything-listTime: 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磗 why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than 爊atural selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and their society according with its will.
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爄ncompatible爓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爃yenas to behave in爏ome politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave 燼s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That磘 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
�--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.
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.
--
Alberto.
To be purposeful you need a self or center ofconsciousness to desire that goal or purpose.The key word is desire. Stones don't desire.
Hi Alberto G. CoronaIt's much simpler than that, I think.Progressives hate everything resembles anythingheld to be good, beautiful, or true.
[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. CoronaReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03Subject: 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.
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
�--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ.
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.
--
Alberto.
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.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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.
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
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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.
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.com> 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.
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.com> 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 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.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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.com> 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.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
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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.com> 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...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.
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 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.
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.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/f6wZ8ukRPesJ.
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.
2012/12/14 Craig Weinberg <whats...@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.
"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.
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.
Hi Craig WeinbergEvolution is made by living beings. The "by"implies intelligence, however minimal. IMHO lifediffers from nonlife in that it has at least minimal intelligence(local control, autonomy, the ability to tell friend from foe,to mate, to search for light, to eat, to defecate, tocommunicate among its cells, to tell pleasure from pain,to move in the proper direction, etc. Eg Bacteria arevery busy little creatures who somehow managethrough intelligence (even though minimal) to survive.
On 13 Dec 2012, at 15:08, Roger Clough wrote:Hi Craig WeinbergEvolution is made by living beings. The "by"implies intelligence, however minimal. IMHO lifediffers from nonlife in that it has at least minimal intelligence(local control, autonomy, the ability to tell friend from foe,to mate, to search for light, to eat, to defecate, tocommunicate among its cells, to tell pleasure from pain,to move in the proper direction, etc. Eg Bacteria arevery busy little creatures who somehow managethrough intelligence (even though minimal) to survive.I agree on bacteria. Yet I think to introduce an artificial cut between all the organic machines, which are mainly billions years old sophisticated natural nanotechnology and the piece of wood in our hand. "Artificial machines" is an indexical: it is artificial for us, not for God or even Nature.
Then what is relevant for the mind and consciousness is the genuineness between numbers dreams and the number reality, as it is *very* rich.
Both the mechanist hypothesis, and data collect from observation suggests a multi-reality wave or matrix (worlds or dreams, ... this might be a question of vocabulary, or perhaps not).
Then when you listen to what the (mathematical) machine already says, you can decide that they are not zombie, despite still rather disconnected from reality there is already a thinking person there. That's what the logic of self-reference suggest.
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I think every generation tries to overthrow the old,
but it's not an individual psychology-based effort,
it's tribal, political, sociological, the tools with
which we identify and understand ourselves.
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.
-- Onward! Stephen
-- Onward! Stephen
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.
-- Onward! Stephen
-- Onward! Stephen
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.
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
--
-- Onward! Stephen
--
Stathis Papaioannou
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.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 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.
I feel that I am such a teleological agent, but this feeling gives me no clue as to what is happening in my brain.
This is why, for most of human history, people did not in fact have any idea as to what was happening in their brains.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 the decision being driven by either deterministic or probabilistic brain physics.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@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
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@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 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 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.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5954 - Release Date: 12/12/12
--
--
Stathis Papaioannou
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-13, 11:33:37
Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy 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 anythingheld 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. CoronaReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03Subject: 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.
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
--
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.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-14, 08:25:52Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudy shows
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/f6wZ8ukRPesJ.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-13, 12:05:38
|
immaterialism [ˌɪməˈtɪərɪəˌlɪzəm] n Philosophy
1. (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material
world exists only in the mind
2. (Philosophy) the doctrine that only
immaterial substances or spiritual beings exist See also idealism [3]
immaterialist
n |
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-15, 11:28:27Subject: Re: Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
--
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-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-14, 20:25:03
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
--
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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stathis PapaioannouReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-14, 19:19:56
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
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燾onsistent爓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.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That磗 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!
牋� Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here!-- Onward! Stephen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo MenezesReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-13, 11:30:40
Subject: Re: Re: life is teleological
Hi Roger,
To be purposeful you need a self or center ofconsciousness to desire that goal or purpose.The key word is desire. Stones don't desire.Ok, but what I'm saying is that purposefulness is not present in evolutionary processes.
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Telmo MenezesReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-12, 14:21:04
Subject: Re: life is teleological
Hi Roger,
Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is whatthe word means. And the goal of life is to survive.
So evolution is teleological.Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time.In other words, life is intelligent.Suppose I postulate that the goal of stars is to emit light. Are they intelligent? If not why? What's the difference?
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
"I submit that this Hyperactive Agency Detection Device is a weak hypothesis for explaining the subjective bias of subjectivity. To me, it makes more sense that religion originates not as mistaken agency detection, but rather as an exaggerated or magnified reflection of its source, a subjective agent. Human culture is nothing if not totemic. Masks, puppets, figurative drawings, voices and gestures, sculpture, drama, dance, song, etc reflect the nature of subjectivity itself - it抯 expression of character and creating stories with them. "
Thanks,
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/-/kWPAfLJdm1EJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
--
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/-/FYDu8tOgYScJ.
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TQH5ODB8QiEJ.
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 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 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 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.
Hi Craig WeinbergBy progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.Which means overthrowing the way the "good, the beautiful andthe true" are thought to be and commonly accepted as.
Thus onesubverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics.It's a form of social darwinism. The dynamics of social change.
As with Darwinism, some of these changes have been good.Einstein, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Van Gogh certainlybrought in good new things.But some are not so good. Nietzsche attemptedto overthrow morality completely, and the poets, novellists,screenwriters and other artists, etc, have had mixed results,especially to sexual morality and human decency. Nowyoung men think nothing of executing a kindergarten class.
Twelve-tone music is listenable for a while, but it really has nounity or beauty. And popular music has discarded beautifulmelodies and lyrics in favor of whining voices or those singing rap.
Now living together without marriage has become the norm foryoung people, and we have indiscriminate sex and pornography.These destroy the basic unit of human existence, the family.Homosexual marriage also invalidates the meaning of marriage.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]12/15/2012"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-15, 11:28:27Subject: Re: Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
On 12/15/2012 10:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
> Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
> I don't think so, because in that theory mind and
> brain are just different forms or aspects of some
> hard-to-define "stuff". I just can't see computer
> hardware being another aspect of its code.
Hi Roger,
Bruno advocates for Immaterialism, not Dual Aspect theory. DA
theory would apply to a computer if it can satisfy the requirements of
organizational and logical closure. Additionally, there is no such thing
as "stuff" or 'substance' in any non-relative sense in DA theory.
--
Onward!
Stephen
-- Onward! Stephen
Hi Stephen P. KingLiberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]12/15/2012"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Stephen P. KingReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That� 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
On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote:Sadly, so it seems.
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
-- Onward! Stephen
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:Hi Stephen P. KingLiberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.
-- Onward! Stephen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-12-14, 13:46:06
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
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磘 exist. But no matter what is it, progress will bring 爄t. That磗 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
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:19:10Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2pv1RPrPl58J.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:27:44Subject: Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows
--
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/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ.
It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply wrongheaded.
Unless you put yourself into the context with you are evaluating and then considering the facts as they stand with a set of universal ethical principles, then those judgements and implications cannot be seen as anything more than rationalizations to behave in one way or another.
We can rationalize any action to be good or bad. Rationalization, pushed too far, allows anything.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-15, 13:53:11Subject: Re: Leibniz is not an immaterialist. Reality is not an illusion.
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:41:08 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:Hi Stephen P. KingAs with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.
Leibniz doesn't, so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysicsis a double aspect type or close to that and was taken upby Kant, also a double-sperspective type. Modern neurophilosophyis said to be essentially Kantian. Leibniz is close toKant in double aspect about a thing:1) thing "in itself " as perceived mentally (as a monad) from your perspective as a phenomenon.2) thing "for itself," as it actually is physically without a perspective (as a scientist would treat it)For Kant, perception occurs through the joining of these two aspects.So the thing isn't an illusion, or hallucination.Any object as seen by you is only seenphenomenologically, that is, "in itself", as it appears inyour mind, from your perspective. But as withKant, matter it is not an illusion, it is a "for itself".You can still perform precise experiments on the object.So I can still stub my toe. I don't know about Bruno.
im ma te ri al ism (m-t r--lzm)
n.A metaphysical doctrine denying the existence of matter.
imma teri al ist adj. & n.
immaterialism [ m t r l z m]
n Philosophy1. (Philosophy) the doctrine that the material world exists only in the mind2. (Philosophy) the doctrine that only immaterial substances or spiritual beings exist See also idealism [3]immaterialist n
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]12/15/2012"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
I agree with Stephen, nice post.
I think that where my view improves on these is that I see every 'for itself' is also something else's 'in itself', on some level of description, and vice versal. Multisense realism points to that joining and sees it instead as a twisting, a pseudo-separation. In other words, all 'itselves' are nothing but the capacity to pseudo-separate 'for-ness' from 'in-ness', and that capacity is 'sense' participation, and it is the absolute ground of being.
Think of for-ness and is-ness as the collector and emitter, while the base is what makes those two pseudo-separated modalities into a monad-whole.
Maybe Berkeley would have had it right if he knew the extent of the sophistication of the microcosm. He was correct that there is no universally objective 'for itself' entities of matter, but rather for-ness is the underlap of all in-ness of any given participant.
Craig
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/-/a0Rb3KHJjawJ.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
"[By 1994] "Newt World" was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...]
[...]Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to "go negative" early and "never back off". They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because "important issues can be of limited value". The book suggests looking for a "minor detail" to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences: "Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money?" Mr. Gingrich has called the book "absolutely brilliant".Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document,
... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control", in which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example, it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay, sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors". (LA Times, 12/19/94, pages A31)"
-- Onward! Stephen
Hi Craig Weinberg
Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,which makes everything he did right.