Hayabusarider as to your request for references to: "Also "compartment thinking" and its physiological basis for liberalism vs. conservatism. I think I would find them facinating. Thanks." I suppose I'll have to confess that I am the world's leading authority in that field since I just invented it. I was just doing what Elledan tausht me. Take a fact there and there and stir, presto, a new theory. When I said not to take my last two ideas for what you wish, I meant that as a clue that I was goofing around. I usually try to do so though in a way that stimulates thought. It does sound good as a theory, though, I have to admit. 
linuxboy, we seem to use the word logic in conversation and take it to stand for something, and we all seem to have some sense of what is being said when we say that women are less logical on average than men so I just use the word to trigger whatever it is that it triggers. I wouldn't be oppossed to defining it, but I would probably just tell you what I feel it means
If I'm not mistakened you are taking a somewhat, is it bacti yoga? approach to understanding. The fortress of reason, the circles within circles, what I call the problem of the eye seeing itself, the nature of knowledge, epistomology, etc, are all about the mind seeing the limits of mind and maybe then comming to an end, ceasing the mental struggle and allowing life to happen with the inevitable, I think, spontaneous restart of heart function and the entering of the kingdom of heaven as a child or something like that.
<B>
</B>
linuxboy, we seem to use the word logic in conversation and take it to stand for something, and we all seem to have some sense of what is being said when we say that women are less logical on average than men so I just use the word to trigger whatever it is that it triggers. I wouldn't be oppossed to defining it, but I would probably just tell you what I feel it means
If I'm not mistakened you are taking a somewhat, is it bacti yoga? approach to understanding. The fortress of reason, the circles within circles, what I call the problem of the eye seeing itself, the nature of knowledge, epistomology, etc, are all about the mind seeing the limits of mind and maybe then comming to an end, ceasing the mental struggle and allowing life to happen with the inevitable, I think, spontaneous restart of heart function and the entering of the kingdom of heaven as a child or something like that.
<B>
</B>
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Moonbeam- Goofing around? I was too. As they say, it's all good. Would be interesting to know if there are discernable neurological patterns which can predict such leanings. I hope not, because of the obvious reason that some might "select" for such things. Nasty consequences.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Asimov- yes I have, but before most ATOTers were a gleam in their parents eye. For some reason I have always remember the Mule. Powerful, but tragic creature.
Dang, Hayabusarider, I got the wrong series. I meant to mention the Dorsai series, dummie that I am. You mentioned selecting offspring for various traits. The Dorsai worlds are populated with people of different types on different worlds. There's a touchy feely world, a faith world a military world, a business world, etc. Here we all live together.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Thanks Moonbeam. I have not read that series, but I will put it on my Borders shopping list for next week. Sounds good.
I hope you can find them. maybe a library too. Gordon Dickerson sp? If possible start at the beginning. I seem to recall it wasn't too easy to figure out what the beginning was. It features the military world, strategy, deep convoluted plot, fantastic stuff. There's a guy like the mule, too, a tragic superman. Probably my favorite books.
<< JellyBaby, What genetics does do is make us all human, with some possible exceptions like another Bundy by the name of Ted, whom I suspect, like other serial killers, may actually not be human in the usual sense That humanness and what it grants us as potential, I think, is far and away more signifigant than the differences you point out. I first heard that claim from somebody who had recovered some rather meaningful portion of his potential, as it appeared to me, so it's not a claim for which there's much widespread evidence. Something you may just wish to file as a maybe.
"Go ahead; Dazzle us with your amazing intellect, make us feel like the insignificant critters we are."
Elledan, if ever I could ask for evidence of my constant claim that we hate ourselves and don't know it, your statement there fills the bill. In the first place I'm not exactly sure what an intellect is. I don't think I am one and if I can be described in part as one than I'm probably not much of one. What I do know, though, is that I was made to feel stupid as a child and that that made me desparately want to hide it. I really didn't learn to read until the fourth grade and I remember painfully being taught subtraction in the fifth grade by another student at the teachers command. I was, howerer, even in the first grade a troublemaker, and flunked the 2nd grade.
I was, however, perhaps because I believed in God and knew I could hide nothing from Him, unmerciful in my self analysis. It seems to me that I punctured multiple dilusions that others lived by rather early, but who can say. The important point is that I'm rather aware of myself, I think, when I feel a need to impress anybody, and I don't think it's a big part of my purpose to impress you with my intellect. My intentions toward you are much more sinister and threatening. I rather like you. I do like you although I don't know you well. You are young and full of yourself and you talk about something that I have in great quantities, enough to drive to distraction some of the people around me, namely curiosity. We also share a lack of faith in a religion, but in different directions.
But since I have been sensitized to recognize in myself what I would have rather not, perhaps more than is usual, I am, I think, rather sensitive to when others are similarly engaged. One common trip, to deal with emotional pain, is the Mr Spock route, the attempt to rise above emotion. You do that in spades, I think, and it makes me sad. By denying your feelings, you cut yourself off from the true source of animal joy, the feeling of being alive, of running around like a puppy dog and licking the world because it tastes wonderful. You do it, I think, to distinguish yourself, again because there is present those bad feelings you are trying to asuage, and because you truly think that emotion can really be transcended by a powerful mind.
The most powerful mind I ever met said he almost never thought, he did everything by feeling. The difference was that he didn't feel bad about himself. He had dug it all up and thrown it away. The things you call emotions are those of self hate. They are lies that we have been taught. The great capacity we have is to emphasize, to know what another experiences because we have experienced it. Some use that to make others feel bad because they feel bad and feel a need to hurt. Some use it to identify with the other and share their strength with those who could maybe use it. It may not be logical, but it is loving. If you can find a better way to feel alive, let me know.
How do you feel? >>
Thank you for the analysis, Mr. Freud, but you're completely wrong about me. As usual
I don't deny my emotions. I know that they're there and I know what they can be used for. But unlike other Humans, just acting on instinct (emotions and desires) is impossible for me, for I've taught myself to use logic, which is a habbit you don't easily get rid of.
<< Unlike other animals, we are concious. >>
Hmm... such an ignorant statement is enough to make anyone's skin crawl.
We don't even know the true capacity of the brains of other animals. Some of them might be (partially) conscious.
I personally favour the theory on 'staged' consciousness, whereby a new level of complexity in certain parts of the brain increases the level of consciousness.
Thank you for the analysis, Mr. Freud, but you're completely wrong about me. As usual
I don't deny my emotions. I know that they're there and I know what they can be used for. But unlike other Humans, just acting on instinct (emotions and desires) is impossible for me, for I've taught myself to use logic, which is a habbit you don't easily get rid of.
Ehehehehehe. My posts in this thread have been useless drivel until this one for the reason that I was feeling my old friend ennui creep up on me again. But this one is sincere (unless it's not. hehe). Elledan, let's get into what's behind all these words that make up your self. On a forum, it's so difficult to do since words do not determine mental states. Behaviors point to them but they too are inadequate for knowing and understanding. With that in mind, I admit that from a prima fascie glance, your responses are based on pure logic and reason; that much you seem to admit and perhaps even esteem but I think I'm guilty of using this to divine mental states, which is a big no no in my outlook.
Then you claim something like this and boy oh boy does my mind take a wild trip. You say that acting on instinct is impossible. I say that you have made this unlikely, probably by exercise and discipline. That does not mean it is impossible and I happen to think (as does apparently MB with his long-winded post) that you are going about it in a somewhat limited fashion. Erm... Oh yes, the whole isntinct thing. You don't deny your emotions directly. But what happens when you experience them? Likely, your mind immediately goes into thinking and analysis state, as is preferred by you out of habit. What happens when there is no logical progression and you just are, in yourself, being that in the emotional state and not experiencing logic, that is, not experiencing thought? And then even going so far as acting on it.
Habits are interesting things. As soon as you commit to one, you automatically restrict your full self and the full possibilities of your potential. In neurobio terms, myelination to speed up action potential and protect against perturbation and attentuation of signal/current, in vertebrate animals (recall invertebrates do not use myelin for this task), commits one to a path of developing this skill until it is the likely method taken in ANY situation.
The problem with this habit is that it will be a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of stimuli. This is not too bad as it provides a sort of pause between stimulus and response but it also prevents you from being in that mental state as say, a religion fanatic, or a mystic. You may claim that this is not desirable/illogical and I claim that this person has experiences and a certain existence and that I should experience the world from his/her perspective WHILE maintaining logic, in the form of wisdom.
So MB may have been wrong. And I may be as well. But knowing from observation, if you do experience emotion and if you do love, not in some abstract scientific way but if you love and are in the state of love (don't start with the whole seratonin stuff please, ignore your "logic") then you certainly don't show it. Your clear cut method of absolute abstraction and adherance to the de jure epistemic facts of the world around you certainly are great BUT that doesn't get to the de facto metaphysical backings which are really unavoidable, no matter how hard we try to avoid them. And in this, logic relies on itself. In this, one needs to use one's faculties completely. That is very difficult if the knee-jerk reaction is logic.
So what I'm trying to say is that you probably do feel emotion and may even enjoy it. But you sure as hell don't use it on these boards. That tends to make me think that it is in a state of decline from suppression and that it is in a state of atrophy. One day you may wake up and find that logic is not good enough. Do you want to spend much, much time to regain that which is lost and may be irrevokably lost because of developmental choices and that good 'ole myelination process?
I certainly think that one cannot feed on bread alone and that one should feel AND practice using the entirety of one's being and to experience many many sorts of people, even the ones who seem to be put off by sheer intellect and logic. Different genetic determinations produce different people. And to keep the 'ole ego down, one must be hit a few times to know what it means to be hurt and where no matter what you do, the cold logic just won't give a damn that you're in such pain that you cry out to have nobody answer. And nobody will answer if the knee-jerk reaction is so abnormal that is puts people off.
eh, I'm babbling. My intent was to say that I cannot know who you are but that your actions and words certainly do paint a picture and that picture ain't too pretty. Also, I happen to think that a mouth directly speaks of what's in ones being entirely. If all you have is this, then you are lamentably lost (I think). But you say you have much more, and yet you don't show it. Somethin don't add up here. See what I mean?
Cheers !
I don't deny my emotions. I know that they're there and I know what they can be used for. But unlike other Humans, just acting on instinct (emotions and desires) is impossible for me, for I've taught myself to use logic, which is a habbit you don't easily get rid of.
Ehehehehehe. My posts in this thread have been useless drivel until this one for the reason that I was feeling my old friend ennui creep up on me again. But this one is sincere (unless it's not. hehe). Elledan, let's get into what's behind all these words that make up your self. On a forum, it's so difficult to do since words do not determine mental states. Behaviors point to them but they too are inadequate for knowing and understanding. With that in mind, I admit that from a prima fascie glance, your responses are based on pure logic and reason; that much you seem to admit and perhaps even esteem but I think I'm guilty of using this to divine mental states, which is a big no no in my outlook.
Then you claim something like this and boy oh boy does my mind take a wild trip. You say that acting on instinct is impossible. I say that you have made this unlikely, probably by exercise and discipline. That does not mean it is impossible and I happen to think (as does apparently MB with his long-winded post) that you are going about it in a somewhat limited fashion. Erm... Oh yes, the whole isntinct thing. You don't deny your emotions directly. But what happens when you experience them? Likely, your mind immediately goes into thinking and analysis state, as is preferred by you out of habit. What happens when there is no logical progression and you just are, in yourself, being that in the emotional state and not experiencing logic, that is, not experiencing thought? And then even going so far as acting on it.
Habits are interesting things. As soon as you commit to one, you automatically restrict your full self and the full possibilities of your potential. In neurobio terms, myelination to speed up action potential and protect against perturbation and attentuation of signal/current, in vertebrate animals (recall invertebrates do not use myelin for this task), commits one to a path of developing this skill until it is the likely method taken in ANY situation.
The problem with this habit is that it will be a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of stimuli. This is not too bad as it provides a sort of pause between stimulus and response but it also prevents you from being in that mental state as say, a religion fanatic, or a mystic. You may claim that this is not desirable/illogical and I claim that this person has experiences and a certain existence and that I should experience the world from his/her perspective WHILE maintaining logic, in the form of wisdom.
So MB may have been wrong. And I may be as well. But knowing from observation, if you do experience emotion and if you do love, not in some abstract scientific way but if you love and are in the state of love (don't start with the whole seratonin stuff please, ignore your "logic") then you certainly don't show it. Your clear cut method of absolute abstraction and adherance to the de jure epistemic facts of the world around you certainly are great BUT that doesn't get to the de facto metaphysical backings which are really unavoidable, no matter how hard we try to avoid them. And in this, logic relies on itself. In this, one needs to use one's faculties completely. That is very difficult if the knee-jerk reaction is logic.
So what I'm trying to say is that you probably do feel emotion and may even enjoy it. But you sure as hell don't use it on these boards. That tends to make me think that it is in a state of decline from suppression and that it is in a state of atrophy. One day you may wake up and find that logic is not good enough. Do you want to spend much, much time to regain that which is lost and may be irrevokably lost because of developmental choices and that good 'ole myelination process?
I certainly think that one cannot feed on bread alone and that one should feel AND practice using the entirety of one's being and to experience many many sorts of people, even the ones who seem to be put off by sheer intellect and logic. Different genetic determinations produce different people. And to keep the 'ole ego down, one must be hit a few times to know what it means to be hurt and where no matter what you do, the cold logic just won't give a damn that you're in such pain that you cry out to have nobody answer. And nobody will answer if the knee-jerk reaction is so abnormal that is puts people off.
eh, I'm babbling. My intent was to say that I cannot know who you are but that your actions and words certainly do paint a picture and that picture ain't too pretty. Also, I happen to think that a mouth directly speaks of what's in ones being entirely. If all you have is this, then you are lamentably lost (I think). But you say you have much more, and yet you don't show it. Somethin don't add up here. See what I mean?
Cheers !
<< Unlike other animals, we are concious. >>
Hmm... such an ignorant statement is enough to make anyone's skin crawl.
Not that ignorant. The assertion that brain states in a human are inherently different from another is not that ignorant, it has decent basis knowing anatomy. Now whether this thing that differs is called "consciousness" is another question altogether, although it could be. It's enough to make anyone's skin crawl but it IS logical
We don't even know the true capacity of the brains of other animals. Some of them might be (partially) conscious.
I certainly think this is a possibility, but no really good reason to use the word ignorant. See, that's another example of what I was talking about. Logically, sure that may seem ignorant but that wasn't pure logic talking, eh. Pure logic would say, possibly uninformed and not ver likely but not ignorant and not deserving reaction. See? Your word choice stems from something (read some philosophy of language ideas), and the fact that you attack people instead of gently discussing tells me it's a psychological ego function, which to me speaks of immaturity. See how your words alone tell so much about you to the average person? And to the non-average people as well. If you do indeed have some sort of emotional state, then how is it logical to use only logic in explanation and in action? There's something missing here, I think.
I personally favour the theory on 'staged' consciousness, whereby a new level of complexity in certain parts of the brain increases the level of consciousness.
Certainly possible and even likely. Still...words...
Cheers !
Dang, I think Elledan just got spanked by linuxboy. OK time for the good cop:
Elledan what humans can do with their emotions and desires is monsterous. To seek to transcend that is wonderful. You mean by what you say something good and I understand it very well. I am you, if you don't mind me saying so. I see the damage that lack of intelligence, lack of thought, selfishness, hate jealousy, greed etc do too. What I would like to get across to you as somebody who feels pretty much the same way, but who may have lived a bit longer and or gotten some good spankings from incredible people, is that the answer to the destruction that emotion causes is not to make it an enemy. I'm saying we were hurt as children and we don't want to remember, so we close the door to the one place we can be alive. To disassociate from our feelings, not to realize that we too are filled with rage, hate, hurt, grief, and deep sorrow, we are what we hate, is to push back forgiving ourselves for being human. I can't give you my experience, but I can tell you that discovering what you feel is the most astonishing event I you can imagine. It is completely mindblowing when you get back to the source of an emotion. You wouldn't in your wildest dreams imagine that THAT was at the heart of it what ever it is that THAT turns out to be. Ah well anyway,
Elledan what humans can do with their emotions and desires is monsterous. To seek to transcend that is wonderful. You mean by what you say something good and I understand it very well. I am you, if you don't mind me saying so. I see the damage that lack of intelligence, lack of thought, selfishness, hate jealousy, greed etc do too. What I would like to get across to you as somebody who feels pretty much the same way, but who may have lived a bit longer and or gotten some good spankings from incredible people, is that the answer to the destruction that emotion causes is not to make it an enemy. I'm saying we were hurt as children and we don't want to remember, so we close the door to the one place we can be alive. To disassociate from our feelings, not to realize that we too are filled with rage, hate, hurt, grief, and deep sorrow, we are what we hate, is to push back forgiving ourselves for being human. I can't give you my experience, but I can tell you that discovering what you feel is the most astonishing event I you can imagine. It is completely mindblowing when you get back to the source of an emotion. You wouldn't in your wildest dreams imagine that THAT was at the heart of it what ever it is that THAT turns out to be. Ah well anyway,
<< Unlike other animals, we are concious. >>
Simplicity for the sake of keeping the debate on track, ok? That's a different ballpark with an equally infinite capacity for theory and interpretation.
Anyway, I apologize that your being the definitive oracle of what's-what slipped my mind. Clearly we're not worthy to even speak in the presence of such a great thinker, as such in the future I will make a point to try to remember to never challenge the universal truths that you emit, oh magnificent sir.
Simplicity for the sake of keeping the debate on track, ok? That's a different ballpark with an equally infinite capacity for theory and interpretation.
Anyway, I apologize that your being the definitive oracle of what's-what slipped my mind. Clearly we're not worthy to even speak in the presence of such a great thinker, as such in the future I will make a point to try to remember to never challenge the universal truths that you emit, oh magnificent sir.
Well, as one who has received severe spankings over a lifetime , I'll appeal to the analytical side in you, Elledan.
You wouldn't in your wildest dreams imagine that THAT was at the heart of it what ever it is that THAT turns out to be. Ah well anyway,
Language is necessary for truth conditions. Truth conditions are necessary for logic. Therefore language is necessary for logic. If language is necessary for logic, what is language? Language consists of a character symbolizing syntax and a semantics. In other words, it is the mental state representation broken down into indexicals and demonstratives. But what is that stuff made of. That is, what is the mental state and how can we describe thought using language (thought). Well, we can use a logic system. But what's that you say, aren't we doomed to circularity? Not necessarily, but excellent objection.
You see, the character symbolizing doesn't talk to me about semnatics, and consequently about mental states. Since that is true (HeHe), language can't really be used to describe that part that contributes to character+mental state to really make up language. I'll call that the ineffable part of language. This problem is not too nice for philosophers of mind and the closest resolution they have come up with is functionalism, which still doesn't account for different contents, but I digress. That ineffable part of language is so much a part of us that efforts should be made to know what it is. I think that when art is experiences, we know directly what it is since it forms the basis of logic and thus cannot really BE understood within the confines of logic ALONE. I also claim that a conditioned logic response actually takes away from knowing what this ineffable sort of language foundation is. It is however something in us and we know it's there; but using language defeats it. It also poses severe problems for epistemology in general but let's not get into it right now...
Main point is that this approach that MB talks about allows us to dig so far back that we recognize what the basis of language is. We KNOW what it means to know that. That THAT is there and is THAT. Does that make sense (EHeHeHeHe )? And that's why I say this is important and that's also why I tend to gravitate toward emphasizing this point in almost any sort of discussion we engage in. The problem is that we do that and for some odd reason you leave .
Right... but... oh I think that's pretty much it. Just wanted to make some sort of argument since you seem to like that.
Cheers !
post scriptum:
Anyway, I apologize that your being the definitive oracle of what's-what slipped my mind. Clearly we're not worthy to even speak in the presence of such a great thinker, as such in the future I will make a point to try to remember to never challenge the universal truths that you emit, oh magnificent sir.
It is about time somebody recognized this inevitability. *bows down to greatness*. ALL HAIL
, I'll appeal to the analytical side in you, Elledan.You wouldn't in your wildest dreams imagine that THAT was at the heart of it what ever it is that THAT turns out to be. Ah well anyway,
Language is necessary for truth conditions. Truth conditions are necessary for logic. Therefore language is necessary for logic. If language is necessary for logic, what is language? Language consists of a character symbolizing syntax and a semantics. In other words, it is the mental state representation broken down into indexicals and demonstratives. But what is that stuff made of. That is, what is the mental state and how can we describe thought using language (thought). Well, we can use a logic system. But what's that you say, aren't we doomed to circularity? Not necessarily, but excellent objection.
You see, the character symbolizing doesn't talk to me about semnatics, and consequently about mental states. Since that is true (HeHe), language can't really be used to describe that part that contributes to character+mental state to really make up language. I'll call that the ineffable part of language. This problem is not too nice for philosophers of mind and the closest resolution they have come up with is functionalism, which still doesn't account for different contents, but I digress. That ineffable part of language is so much a part of us that efforts should be made to know what it is. I think that when art is experiences, we know directly what it is since it forms the basis of logic and thus cannot really BE understood within the confines of logic ALONE. I also claim that a conditioned logic response actually takes away from knowing what this ineffable sort of language foundation is. It is however something in us and we know it's there; but using language defeats it. It also poses severe problems for epistemology in general but let's not get into it right now...
Main point is that this approach that MB talks about allows us to dig so far back that we recognize what the basis of language is. We KNOW what it means to know that. That THAT is there and is THAT. Does that make sense (EHeHeHeHe
)? And that's why I say this is important and that's also why I tend to gravitate toward emphasizing this point in almost any sort of discussion we engage in. The problem is that we do that and for some odd reason you leave . Right... but... oh I think that's pretty much it. Just wanted to make some sort of argument since you seem to like that.
Cheers !
post scriptum:
Anyway, I apologize that your being the definitive oracle of what's-what slipped my mind. Clearly we're not worthy to even speak in the presence of such a great thinker, as such in the future I will make a point to try to remember to never challenge the universal truths that you emit, oh magnificent sir.
It is about time somebody recognized this inevitability. *bows down to greatness*. ALL HAIL
Hey EngineNr9 if the Porpoise Antidemamation league catches site of that "Unlike other animals, we are concious" blunder, you're gonna be in a real world of sh!t.
<< Dang, I think Elledan just got spanked by linuxboy. OK time for the good cop:
Elledan what humans can do with their emotions and desires is monsterous. To seek to transcend that is wonderful. You mean by what you say something good and I understand it very well. I am you, if you don't mind me saying so. I see the damage that lack of intelligence, lack of thought, selfishness, hate jealousy, greed etc do too. What I would like to get across to you as somebody who feels pretty much the same way, but who may have lived a bit longer and or gotten some good spankings from incredible people, is that the answer to the destruction that emotion causes is not to make it an enemy. I'm saying we were hurt as children and we don't want to remember, so we close the door to the one place we can be alive. To disassociate from our feelings, not to realize that we too are filled with rage, hate, hurt, grief, and deep sorrow, we are what we hate, is to push back forgiving ourselves for being human. I can't give you my experience, but I can tell you that discovering what you feel is the most astonishing event I you can imagine. It is completely mindblowing when you get back to the source of an emotion. You wouldn't in your wildest dreams imagine that THAT was at the heart of it what ever it is that THAT turns out to be. Ah well anyway, >>
You can't even begin imagine my way of reasoning.
I can not explain it, because no language is suitable, no words defined enough, to even make a start. I've started to realize that there's no way for me to explain my reasoning to anyone but myself. This is more than just frustrating... I can't express myself, I can't explain, I can't show, I can't do anything but give hints about what I really mean.
<<
<< Unlike other animals, we are concious. >>
Hmm... such an ignorant statement is enough to make anyone's skin crawl.
Not that ignorant. The assertion that brain states in a human are inherently different from another is not that ignorant, it has decent basis knowing anatomy. Now whether this thing that differs is called "consciousness" is another question altogether, although it could be. It's enough to make anyone's skin crawl but it IS logical
>>We don't know even nearly enough to even begin estimating what enables a brain to develop consciousness.
<<
We don't even know the true capacity of the brains of other animals. Some of them might be (partially) conscious.
I certainly think this is a possibility, but no really good reason to use the word ignorant. See, that's another example of what I was talking about. Logically, sure that may seem ignorant but that wasn't pure logic talking, eh. Pure logic would say, possibly uninformed and not ver likely but not ignorant and not deserving reaction. See? Your word choice stems from something (read some philosophy of language ideas), and the fact that you attack people instead of gently discussing tells me it's a psychological ego function, which to me speaks of immaturity. See how your words alone tell so much about you to the average person? And to the non-average people as well. If you do indeed have some sort of emotional state, then how is it logical to use only logic in explanation and in action? There's something missing here, I think. >>
Your point is?
<<
I personally favour the theory on 'staged' consciousness, whereby a new level of complexity in certain parts of the brain increases the level of consciousness.
Certainly possible and even likely. Still...words... >>
It's only logical.
<< So MB may have been wrong. And I may be as well. But knowing from observation, if you do experience emotion and if you do love, not in some abstract scientific way but if you love and are in the state of love (don't start with the whole seratonin stuff please, ignore your "logic") then you certainly don't show it. >>
'love' is part of the procreation process. The word you're looking for is 'affection'.
<< Your clear cut method of absolute abstraction and adherance to the de jure epistemic facts of the world around you certainly are great BUT that doesn't get to the de facto metaphysical backings which are really unavoidable, no matter how hard we try to avoid them. >>
Sometimes we have to assume things, but once we base these assumptions on what we already know, it's not metaphysical.
<< And in this, logic relies on itself. In this, one needs to use one's faculties completely. That is very difficult if the knee-jerk reaction is logic. >>
Logic relies on the ability to analyze and to judge. Your reasoning is flawed.
<< So what I'm trying to say is that you probably do feel emotion and may even enjoy it. >>
I feel it. I experience limited pleasure.
<< But you sure as hell don't use it on these boards. >>
My emotional state does not differ.My reaction only changes with the acquirement of new knowledge and new insights.
<< That tends to make me think that it is in a state of decline from suppression and that it is in a state of atrophy. One day you may wake up and find that logic is not good enough. Do you want to spend much, much time to regain that which is lost and may be irrevokably lost because of developmental choices and that good 'ole myelination process? >>
I don't see how anything is lost. From what I've seen, my current mental state is beyond that of most Humans.
Blocking out your emotions to exercise pure logic is both impossible, not to mention unhealthy. It's like trying to plug a leak in the Hoover damn with your finger.
That is unless you're Data from Star Trek, which by the way, I was wondering, are you?
From what I've seen, my current mental state is beyond that of most Humans.
That is unless you're Data from Star Trek, which by the way, I was wondering, are you?
From what I've seen, my current mental state is beyond that of most Humans.
<< Elledan,
Did you order that book yet?
It is scholarly discussion of this matter. >>
I read the examples offered on the page you linked to. My current budget doesn't allow the purchase of this book, though.
<< Blocking out your emotions to exercise pure logic is both impossible, not to mention unhealthy. It's like trying to plug a leak in the Hoover damn with your finger. >>
Clearly you don't understand it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter