most friends.
On Jan 11, 7:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bringing up Liz reminds me of common experiments in brain science
> rigsy. We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
> average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
> statistical reality - as in
> Ask a bride before walking down the aisle "How likely are you to get
> divorced?" and most will respond "Not a chance!" Tell her that the
> average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
> change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
> everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
> likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
> basically nil. How can we explain this?
>
> Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
> learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
> experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
> underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
> as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
> people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
> events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
> optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
> factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
> medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
> views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
> involved in people's optimistic predictions?
>
> We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
> people is unlikely to affect them!
>
> On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
> > things all over again but with different people.
>
> > How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
> > persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
> > great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
> > a Blackshirt" http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html).
>
> > I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
> > the dead ones!
>
> > On Jan 9, 4:37 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the new Eco book.
>
> > > I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
> > > placed again in all the
> > > decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
> > > circumstances, have made the same choices.
> > > There are no "If onlys" in my life.
>
> > > However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
> > > to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
> > > those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?
>
> > > I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.
>
> > > Malc
> > > On Jan 10, 2:10 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
> > > > His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
> > > > Prague Cemetary".
>
> > > > I respect deterministic forces-fate-weakness. I was rereading
> > > > "Robinson Crusoe" where there is a good deal of debate as Crusoe
> > > > adapts/accepts his circumstances- but that was the 18th C- still quite
> > > > religious. One must wrestle with accountability- it is so easy to
> > > > blame or deny.
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 3:33 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
> > > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in order to,
> > > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe that
> > > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are not.
>
> > > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in his
> > > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention to
> > > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and there is
> > > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
> > > > > required elements are found.
>
> > > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may be
> > > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
> > > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
> > > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>
> > > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
> > > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality. Even
> > > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
> > > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
> > > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could have been
> > > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed some eminent
> > > > > philosophers believe that free will and determinism can sit
> > > > > legitimately together – the so called Such is the nature of a myth.
>
> > > > > We can only suppose that such an idea must appear rational to us in
> > > > > order to give it legitimacy. After all, our ideas of virtuous
> > > > > behaviour, responsibility and justice are founded on the idea of free
> > > > > will; that we are responsible for our actions and must accept our
> > > > > responsibilities. Yet, there is no doubt that free will defies the
> > > > > tenets embodied in modern physics, the idea of cause and effect. It
> > > > > seems to be extremely difficult for us to accept that some things just
> > > > > are.
>
> > > > > I am interested in this dilemma because if we eventually discover, if
> > > > > we have not already, that determinism is beyond dispute how should we
> > > > > react? How could we possibly recreate our society to live with such a
> > > > > 'truth'?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário