decisions besed on much stronger
genetically sucessful forces. Education doesn't work because it is
only tinkering with reason. Too many
of our evolved mechanisms became ingrained during the mega years we
were hunter-gatherers. Clearly rathional
thinking as a persuasive tool is just no good. Advertisers know this.
I suppose we are going to have to beat the advertisers at their own
game.
Environmentalists seem to have something moving with this fear of
global warming stuff.
On Jan 12, 3:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nietzsche got somewhere near your last statement James - going on to
> say art was the solution to nihilism. I don't go for sociobiology
> much myself to be honest - I just think much we think is specially
> human turns out not to be as what we know increases.
> The brain science of the last 20 years has established that
> rationality usually comes after decision (remember that stuff on
> interviews being decided in the first 30 seconds?).
> They've sort of taken that down to the blink of an eye. Test after
> test shows that people won't go against the established flow even when
> simple perception should tell them what the truth is.
> My interests are in the area of why we can't get more rational
> alternatives into systems of choice for more widespread decision.
> Education has broadly failed and I suspect it's really part of the
> propaganda-influence system. One assumes free will is free of that
> kind of trance? But, of course, a rational system once understood,
> requires no agent's decision as solutions become obvious and all one
> could do in free will would be to let this happen or do something
> wrong. Most people deny adverts work on them but have homes full of
> the products. My grandson wants an I-phone - despite hardly using
> his current mobile - and claims this is nothing to do with the adverts
> in which adolescents with them look cool and happy!
> The original thread question is a good one .
>
> On Jan 12, 1:28 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It almost sounds like pseudo-ethics as opposed to eugenics (mostly
> > considered pseudoscience, though I'm not buying into that 100%). Like
> > Kid Rock says, "You get what you put in, and people get what they
> > deserve." With the cultural mythos set, centralization of sanctioned
> > institutions and the erosion of family units to bleed the maximum per
> > watt of human potential (there's a performance measure for ya Neil :p
> > ) per individual. But in a world with no actual agency for alternative
> > outcomes, it would seem that words like "potential" and all the
> > classical virtues turn to dust. Being skeptical never went so far as
> > to say that it is all without meaning..
>
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Existentialism wandered into over-emphasis on the individual as surely
> > > as fascism and its 'greater leader' dunnage. I can see what you mean
> > > in regard of our more academic learning - though there is good
> > > evidence now that kids have math concepts before they begin to be
> > > taught them. Animals of all kinds pass on learning in their
> > > communities. Our aluminium foil space flight reminds me a bit of some
> > > plant reproductive mechanisms where the seed is tossed out on a wing
> > > and a prayer (sycamores etc.) - we may have got here in spore form.
> > > Some algae seem to climb on each other's "backs" before they are
> > > whipped into the air from a foaming sea and onto the jetstream. One
> > > of my own speculations is we may have once been part of a greater
> > > civilisation that could not defeat problems in speed of light travel
> > > (space has friction) and so seeded itself into the world we know much
> > > as dandelions blow in the wind here. Maybe god is some remnant of
> > > them, all they could do for our comfort?
>
> > > On Jan 11, 9:10 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Loved Hancock. Yes, IQ tests are obviously culturally based.
>
> > >> On Jan 12, 5:17 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I grew up with Hancock's Half Hour - he was a brilliantly pessimistic
> > >> > comedian! Killed himself. I rather like the gnostic pessimism that
> > >> > creation is a mistake - one can still build an optimistic life based
> > >> > on this. I don't go for it myself - the idea is best read in Rosak's
> > >> > "Flicker" which made me laugh my Hancock off.
>
> > >> > Mal - there's some evidence lizards are getting smarter because of
> > >> > global warming (seriously). Even amoeba are highly adapted creatures
> > >> > that have "learned". Bushmen in Africa have very low average IQ - but
> > >> > are we going to pit our IQ against their local intelligence in
> > >> > surviving in their backyard without our civilized stuff? Their
> > >> > intelligence is fitted to their conditions - indeed it's likely
> > >> > "intelligence" in our sense is linked to not living where the (bad)
> > >> > infectious diseases are. Much we attribute to "genes" and individual-
> > >> > ethnic superiority concerns geography, climate and a lot more.
>
> > >> > Without getting into eternal-TOE stuff we are presumably free to
> > >> > deconstruct rigsy's glob - though I wonder how many can really make
> > >> > this choice or have made a choice not to bother. I guess the big
> > >> > problem of going with such glob-flow is when it's fascist or contains
> > >> > "religious reasons" to make women walk about in black bags or have to
> > >> > suffer "churching" and the like. Greek epistemology didn't get to
> > >> > grips with much we now see as freedom. For that matter, we find what
> > >> > look like refined, rationalised human mistakes like slavery in some
> > >> > ant practice and our bodies are evidence we assimilated other life
> > >> > forms like the Borg in our evolution. Science is making "gene-
> > >> > splicing" a reality.
> > >> > I guess we have be able to choose between fictions and at bottom I
> > >> > like the idea of being able to live in choice. Some fictions prevent
> > >> > this on a grand scale. The real issues emerge when one realises that
> > >> > one wants to insist women don't wear black bags and you might have no
> > >> > right to tell them not to. In practice much changes when coercive
> > >> > authority-hegemony is removed. At this point I don't consider the
> > >> > individual as the site of freedom and tend to believe existentialism
> > >> > hapless.
>
> > >> > On Jan 11, 12:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > By the time one is walking down the aisle the trap has been laid. :-)
> > >> > > It's like joining the army and hoping you don't get killed or maimed
> > >> > > for life, perhaps, or that your being a soldier will bring everlasting
> > >> > > peace to our world. Eventually-hopefully- one reasons out the past and
> > >> > > comes to some understanding- but that's hindsight rather than
> > >> > > foresight. If we live in a liberal country, we might "get over IT".
>
> > >> > > I do think we absorb a glob of wishful thinking promoted by religion
> > >> > > and culture at an early age and as malcymo says, optimists are more
> > >> > > fun than pessimists and likely to have similar friends- or ones that
> > >> > > share your delusions. Heaven help the truth-teller! "Sit down! You're
> > >> > > Rocking the Boat!" (Guys and Dolls)
>
> > >> > > On Jan 10, 12:56 pm, 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário