Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[existlist] THE SUPERMAN

Expand Messages
  • drQ
    and you believe emotions and thinking are in separate compartments of the brain!!! and everything in life is so compartmentalized and understandable and we
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      and you believe emotions and thinking are in separate compartments of the
      brain!!! and everything in life is so compartmentalized and understandable
      and we simply exist to rear like all primitive species!!! and the female can
      only exists within the solidarity of the group! unlike u the
      individualized.. the highly evolved... You've been reading alot of Nietzsche
      ’s "SUPERMAN", it seems!

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bhvwd <valleywestdental@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:38 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Obvious agreement


      > How odd you should agree. The female survival strategy is one of
      > cooperation, communication, group solidarity. But then can you
      > divorce what you feel from what you think? Can you understand that
      > some others do not feel the needs you so conveniently acceed to?I
      > speak of this volatile subject because those of us who do not
      > entertain group identity are tired of being portrayed as
      > neanderthals.Emotion is the primative brain function not personal
      > intellectual identity.
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • eduard at home
      drQ, If I may give my 2 cents here ... Understanding is a matter of comparisons and associations. I can understand how a clock works because I can visualize
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        drQ,

        If I may give my 2 cents here ...

        "Understanding" is a matter of comparisons and associations. I can understand how a clock works because I can visualize the process and hear the tic-toc bit. The brain, however, does not have eyes or ears, or any senses that would allow such comparison. To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like asking if a conveyor belt is aware of the packages it is moving from point A to point B.

        eduard

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "drQ" <dr-q@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:14 PM
        Subject: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN


        > and you believe emotions and thinking are in separate compartments of the
        > brain!!! and everything in life is so compartmentalized and understandable
        > and we simply exist to rear like all primitive species!!! and the female can
        > only exists within the solidarity of the group! unlike u the
        > individualized.. the highly evolved... You've been reading alot of Nietzsche
        > �s "SUPERMAN", it seems!
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: bhvwd <valleywestdental@...>
        > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:38 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Obvious agreement
        >
        >
        > > How odd you should agree. The female survival strategy is one of
        > > cooperation, communication, group solidarity. But then can you
        > > divorce what you feel from what you think? Can you understand that
        > > some others do not feel the needs you so conveniently acceed to?I
        > > speak of this volatile subject because those of us who do not
        > > entertain group identity are tired of being portrayed as
        > > neanderthals.Emotion is the primative brain function not personal
        > > intellectual identity.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        > >
        > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • drQ
        And I did learn something from you, eduard! ... From: eduard at home To: Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:02
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 1 3:29 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          And I did learn something from you, eduard!


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: eduard at home <yeoman@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:02 PM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN


          > drQ,
          >
          > If I may give my 2 cents here ...
          >
          > "Understanding" is a matter of comparisons and associations. I can
          understand how a clock works because I can visualize the process and hear
          the tic-toc bit. The brain, however, does not have eyes or ears, or any
          senses that would allow such comparison. To ask whether the brain
          understands itself, is like asking if a conveyor belt is aware of the
          packages it is moving from point A to point B.
          >
          > eduard
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "drQ" <dr-q@...>
          > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:14 PM
          > Subject: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN
          >
          >
          > > and you believe emotions and thinking are in separate compartments of
          the
          > > brain!!! and everything in life is so compartmentalized and
          understandable
          > > and we simply exist to rear like all primitive species!!! and the female
          can
          > > only exists within the solidarity of the group! unlike u the
          > > individualized.. the highly evolved... You've been reading alot of
          Nietzsche
          > > ’s "SUPERMAN", it seems!
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: bhvwd <valleywestdental@...>
          > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:38 PM
          > > Subject: [existlist] Obvious agreement
          > >
          > >
          > > > How odd you should agree. The female survival strategy is one of
          > > > cooperation, communication, group solidarity. But then can you
          > > > divorce what you feel from what you think? Can you understand that
          > > > some others do not feel the needs you so conveniently acceed to?I
          > > > speak of this volatile subject because those of us who do not
          > > > entertain group identity are tired of being portrayed as
          > > > neanderthals.Emotion is the primative brain function not personal
          > > > intellectual identity.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          > > >
          > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          > >
          > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          >
          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • eduard at home
          drQ, Thankyou ... eduard in Canada ... From: drQ To: Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:29 AM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 1 3:43 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            drQ,

            Thankyou ...

            eduard in Canada

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "drQ" <dr-q@...>
            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:29 AM
            Subject: Re: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN


            > And I did learn something from you, eduard!
          • Mattlzpf@aol.com
            In a message dated 7/31/03 1:15:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dr-q@just.edu.jo writes:
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 2 12:28 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 7/31/03 1:15:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dr-q@...
              writes:

              << and you believe emotions and thinking are in separate compartments of the
              brain!!! and everything in life is so compartmentalized and understandable
              and we simply exist to rear like all primitive species!!! and the female can
              only exists within the solidarity of the group! unlike u the
              individualized.. the highly evolved... You've been reading alot of Nietzsche
              ’s "SUPERMAN", it seems! >>


              You'd be more inclined to call it "Overman", had you read a shred of it!
            • Mattlzpf@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/31/03 4:03:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yeoman@videotron.ca writes:
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 2 12:34 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/31/03 4:03:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                yeoman@... writes:

                << To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like asking if a conveyor
                belt is aware of the packages it is moving from point A to point B. >>

                If the brain is the conveyor belt, what is point B?

                --MATT_C
              • eduard at home
                Dear --MATT_C, You analyze too much, or perhaps you should have asked what is point A eduard ... From: To: Sent:
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 2 12:44 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear --MATT_C,

                  You analyze too much, or perhaps you should have asked what
                  is point A

                  eduard

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <Mattlzpf@...>
                  To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:34 AM
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN


                  > In a message dated 7/31/03 4:03:20 PM Eastern Daylight
                  Time,
                  > yeoman@... writes:
                  >
                  > << To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like
                  asking if a conveyor
                  > belt is aware of the packages it is moving from point A to
                  point B. >>
                  >
                  > If the brain is the conveyor belt, what is point B?
                  >
                  > --MATT_C
                  >
                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                  Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                  > Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders
                  to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your
                  brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
                  > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
                  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/ACsqlB/TM
                  > ----------------------------------------------------------
                  -----------~->
                  >
                  > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                  >
                  > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Knott
                  ... Classic Duard...no one does anything correctly but you. You still haven t addressed the brain/mouse/elephant issue on which you again made a this is
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 2 3:13 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > You analyze too much

                    Classic 'Duard...no one does anything correctly but you.

                    You still haven't addressed the brain/mouse/elephant issue on which you again made
                    a "this is obvious" proclamation, but were, apparently, completely wrong -- unless I
                    misunderstand. In your scientific study of the brain and self-awareness, how do we
                    explain the lack of self-awareness in the elephant that has a brain some 4+ times the
                    size of ours?

                    I am wondering if any portion of the Superman (as defined by N. not Duard) is
                    perceived as something which might as well be: I am better than you dwarves because
                    my self-deception is better than yours. For some reason I don't know that this
                    interpretation is valid even in translation on the web.

                    "You analyze too much" is some type of insult, indeed...It says someone took the time
                    to be interested, read, understand and respond with an interesting perspective rather
                    than make up McFacts.

                    McGod, McPhilosophy, McFact, McAnalysis, McSolitude...the latter probably born from
                    not being able to manhandle the will of everyone else as happens in McWorld.

                    While my perspective isn't valid, le 'D's interaction might not suffer from a little more
                    analysis (without the Mc). As of now it seems McValid.

                    While I know this is a little far for you to read into a response: to liken the brain to a
                    conveyor belt suggests there is a destination. The belt moves packages, as you
                    suggested, from point A to B. If the question of this comparison (or as we were calling
                    them, analogy) in your words:

                    "To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like asking if a conveyor belt is aware
                    of the packages it is moving from point A to point B."

                    suggests you had some idea for what point A and point B represent in mind...but your
                    belt in the strain of weight didn't get us there. A conveyor belt is generally perceived
                    as not having the ability to reason or draw conclusion -- though I know McWorld has
                    a wholly different perspective on the brain, as we have seen from the mouse/
                    elephant/awareness episode -- and to liken the brain to this belt is to either a)
                    suggest the brain has no capacity to reason (which I can see as something you might
                    like to defend), or b) the belt does. We would all be glad and could probably sleep
                    better at night if you would expound -- to our collective delight -- upon what points
                    A and B represent in this analogy. In light of your McScience, which suggests we know
                    how the brain works (as we know it is indeed the source of our unique self-awareness
                    because of its massive volume--which apparently has been measured incorrectly for
                    centuries, but has been corrected in your laboratories), it would be inconsistent to say
                    the 'brain knows knott what it does'. We all know SuperDuard could not be
                    inconsistent. We would all like to share in your greater knowledge. If, in your words:

                    " 'Understanding' is a matter of comparisons and associations."

                    and the brain does not have this capacity because it cannot reason, then what is it
                    that some of us think with?

                    Bottoms Up
                    A Downt Sittonitt Corporation
                  • eduard at home
                    Booknott, I appears to be a slow Saturday, and I don t really feel like going out and mowing the lawn, so I might as well try to provide a response to your
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 2 6:47 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Booknott,

                      I appears to be a slow Saturday, and I don't really feel
                      like going out and mowing the lawn, so I might as well try
                      to provide a response to your pointless email ...

                      The purpose of the "You analyze too much" was an attempt to
                      draw out more discussion on the subject. Unfortunately, I
                      forgot that Booknit might be watching from under his rock.

                      As to the brain/mouse/elephant issue, once more you saw fit
                      to go out the context of the subject. I hate to point this
                      out, but we are speaking about human brains, which perhaps
                      may not include your own. You can list as many brains as
                      you wish, with all the statistics of weight, etc., but it
                      gets us no closer to the fact that the evolution of humans
                      to have a larger brain provides an ability for
                      self-awareness.

                      I grant that to make an analogy of a conveyor belt suggest a
                      destination, it also implies a starting point. I am
                      surprised that you did not extend your message to also
                      complain about the latter.

                      In any case, it is apparent that it is necessary to hold you
                      by the hand whilst explaining the analogy. The brain in
                      total process thought to the extent of providing us with
                      some sort of a conclusion in response to stimuli. But
                      within itself the brain merely transfers electrochemical
                      signals from one synapse to another. It does not have some
                      sort of incorporated observer to monitor what it is doing
                      and comment on the process as it takes place. But perhaps
                      this is different for Bookduck.

                      eduard

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Knott" <god@...>
                      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:13 AM
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD


                      > > You analyze too much
                      >
                      > Classic 'Duard...no one does anything correctly but you.
                      >
                      > You still haven't addressed the brain/mouse/elephant issue
                      on which you again made
                      > a "this is obvious" proclamation, but were, apparently,
                      completely wrong -- unless I
                      > misunderstand. In your scientific study of the brain and
                      self-awareness, how do we
                      > explain the lack of self-awareness in the elephant that
                      has a brain some 4+ times the
                      > size of ours?
                      >
                      > I am wondering if any portion of the Superman (as defined
                      by N. not Duard) is
                      > perceived as something which might as well be: I am better
                      than you dwarves because
                      > my self-deception is better than yours. For some reason I
                      don't know that this
                      > interpretation is valid even in translation on the web.
                      >
                      > "You analyze too much" is some type of insult, indeed...It
                      says someone took the time
                      > to be interested, read, understand and respond with an
                      interesting perspective rather
                      > than make up McFacts.
                      >
                      > McGod, McPhilosophy, McFact, McAnalysis, McSolitude...the
                      latter probably born from
                      > not being able to manhandle the will of everyone else as
                      happens in McWorld.
                      >
                      > While my perspective isn't valid, le 'D's interaction
                      might not suffer from a little more
                      > analysis (without the Mc). As of now it seems McValid.
                      >
                      > While I know this is a little far for you to read into a
                      response: to liken the brain to a
                      > conveyor belt suggests there is a destination. The belt
                      moves packages, as you
                      > suggested, from point A to B. If the question of this
                      comparison (or as we were calling
                      > them, analogy) in your words:
                      >
                      > "To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like
                      asking if a conveyor belt is aware
                      > of the packages it is moving from point A to point B."
                      >
                      > suggests you had some idea for what point A and point B
                      represent in mind...but your
                      > belt in the strain of weight didn't get us there. A
                      conveyor belt is generally perceived
                      > as not having the ability to reason or draw conclusion --
                      though I know McWorld has
                      > a wholly different perspective on the brain, as we have
                      seen from the mouse/
                      > elephant/awareness episode -- and to liken the brain to
                      this belt is to either a)
                      > suggest the brain has no capacity to reason (which I can
                      see as something you might
                      > like to defend), or b) the belt does. We would all be glad
                      and could probably sleep
                      > better at night if you would expound -- to our collective
                      delight -- upon what points
                      > A and B represent in this analogy. In light of your
                      McScience, which suggests we know
                      > how the brain works (as we know it is indeed the source of
                      our unique self-awareness
                      > because of its massive volume--which apparently has been
                      measured incorrectly for
                      > centuries, but has been corrected in your laboratories),
                      it would be inconsistent to say
                      > the 'brain knows knott what it does'. We all know
                      SuperDuard could not be
                      > inconsistent. We would all like to share in your greater
                      knowledge. If, in your words:
                      >
                      > " 'Understanding' is a matter of comparisons and
                      associations."
                      >
                      > and the brain does not have this capacity because it
                      cannot reason, then what is it
                      > that some of us think with?
                      >
                      > Bottoms Up
                      > A Downt Sittonitt Corporation
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                      Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                      > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson,
                      Canon or Lexmark
                      > Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to
                      the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/sO0ANB/LIdGAA/ySSFAA/ACsqlB/TM
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------
                      -----------~->
                      >
                      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                      >
                      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • Zithromax
                      Stephen Jay Gould s explanation of brain-to-weight ratio is that creatures evolved with large brains, then dwarfism occured when food supplies were scarce.
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 2 7:05 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Jay Gould's explanation of brain-to-weight ratio is that creatures evolved with large brains, then dwarfism occured when food supplies were scarce. Gould shows data that dwarf animals retain a high brain-to-weight ratio. From there, further evolution would be necessary to utilize the additional brain mass for sophisticated thought processes.

                        This is a lot of speculation on Gould's part. You can tie everything into a theory of evolution, theistic creation, or scientific determinism if you are fanatic enough about whatever theory you hold to. None of that really has much to do with existentialsm. I think that Scientific Determinism is really quite opposed to existentialism as it is conventionally understood.

                        Zith
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: eduard at home
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 9:47 AM
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD


                        Booknott,

                        I appears to be a slow Saturday, and I don't really feel
                        like going out and mowing the lawn, so I might as well try
                        to provide a response to your pointless email ...

                        The purpose of the "You analyze too much" was an attempt to
                        draw out more discussion on the subject. Unfortunately, I
                        forgot that Booknit might be watching from under his rock.

                        As to the brain/mouse/elephant issue, once more you saw fit
                        to go out the context of the subject. I hate to point this
                        out, but we are speaking about human brains, which perhaps
                        may not include your own. You can list as many brains as
                        you wish, with all the statistics of weight, etc., but it
                        gets us no closer to the fact that the evolution of humans
                        to have a larger brain provides an ability for
                        self-awareness.

                        I grant that to make an analogy of a conveyor belt suggest a
                        destination, it also implies a starting point. I am
                        surprised that you did not extend your message to also
                        complain about the latter.

                        In any case, it is apparent that it is necessary to hold you
                        by the hand whilst explaining the analogy. The brain in
                        total process thought to the extent of providing us with
                        some sort of a conclusion in response to stimuli. But
                        within itself the brain merely transfers electrochemical
                        signals from one synapse to another. It does not have some
                        sort of incorporated observer to monitor what it is doing
                        and comment on the process as it takes place. But perhaps
                        this is different for Bookduck.

                        eduard

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Knott" <god@...>
                        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:13 AM
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD


                        > > You analyze too much
                        >
                        > Classic 'Duard...no one does anything correctly but you.
                        >
                        > You still haven't addressed the brain/mouse/elephant issue
                        on which you again made
                        > a "this is obvious" proclamation, but were, apparently,
                        completely wrong -- unless I
                        > misunderstand. In your scientific study of the brain and
                        self-awareness, how do we
                        > explain the lack of self-awareness in the elephant that
                        has a brain some 4+ times the
                        > size of ours?
                        >
                        > I am wondering if any portion of the Superman (as defined
                        by N. not Duard) is
                        > perceived as something which might as well be: I am better
                        than you dwarves because
                        > my self-deception is better than yours. For some reason I
                        don't know that this
                        > interpretation is valid even in translation on the web.
                        >
                        > "You analyze too much" is some type of insult, indeed...It
                        says someone took the time
                        > to be interested, read, understand and respond with an
                        interesting perspective rather
                        > than make up McFacts.
                        >
                        > McGod, McPhilosophy, McFact, McAnalysis, McSolitude...the
                        latter probably born from
                        > not being able to manhandle the will of everyone else as
                        happens in McWorld.
                        >
                        > While my perspective isn't valid, le 'D's interaction
                        might not suffer from a little more
                        > analysis (without the Mc). As of now it seems McValid.
                        >
                        > While I know this is a little far for you to read into a
                        response: to liken the brain to a
                        > conveyor belt suggests there is a destination. The belt
                        moves packages, as you
                        > suggested, from point A to B. If the question of this
                        comparison (or as we were calling
                        > them, analogy) in your words:
                        >
                        > "To ask whether the brain understands itself, is like
                        asking if a conveyor belt is aware
                        > of the packages it is moving from point A to point B."
                        >
                        > suggests you had some idea for what point A and point B
                        represent in mind...but your
                        > belt in the strain of weight didn't get us there. A
                        conveyor belt is generally perceived
                        > as not having the ability to reason or draw conclusion --
                        though I know McWorld has
                        > a wholly different perspective on the brain, as we have
                        seen from the mouse/
                        > elephant/awareness episode -- and to liken the brain to
                        this belt is to either a)
                        > suggest the brain has no capacity to reason (which I can
                        see as something you might
                        > like to defend), or b) the belt does. We would all be glad
                        and could probably sleep
                        > better at night if you would expound -- to our collective
                        delight -- upon what points
                        > A and B represent in this analogy. In light of your
                        McScience, which suggests we know
                        > how the brain works (as we know it is indeed the source of
                        our unique self-awareness
                        > because of its massive volume--which apparently has been
                        measured incorrectly for
                        > centuries, but has been corrected in your laboratories),
                        it would be inconsistent to say
                        > the 'brain knows knott what it does'. We all know
                        SuperDuard could not be
                        > inconsistent. We would all like to share in your greater
                        knowledge. If, in your words:
                        >
                        > " 'Understanding' is a matter of comparisons and
                        associations."
                        >
                        > and the brain does not have this capacity because it
                        cannot reason, then what is it
                        > that some of us think with?
                        >
                        > Bottoms Up
                        > A Downt Sittonitt Corporation
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                        Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                        > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson,
                        Canon or Lexmark
                        > Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to
                        the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/sO0ANB/LIdGAA/ySSFAA/ACsqlB/TM
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------
                        -----------~->
                        >
                        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                        >
                        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >


                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT




                        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • eduard at home
                        Zith, I agree ... A comparison of brain weights, or brain-to-weight ratios has nothing to do with Existentialism. What we were trying to discuss was human
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 2 7:23 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Zith,

                          I agree ... A comparison of brain weights, or
                          brain-to-weight ratios has nothing to do with
                          Existentialism. What we were trying to discuss was human
                          self-awareness, in relation to Tom Clark and Naturalism, at
                          least until Bookdoc got into the act.

                          The originating email was that of Mary Jo which contained a
                          URL for a Naturalist site. My opinion was that a Naturalist
                          view of human thinking is not Existentialist, since it does
                          not take into account the subjective, and this in turn lead
                          to the comment on self-awareness.

                          eduard

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Zithromax" <zithromax@...>
                          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:05 AM
                          Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD


                          > Stephen Jay Gould's explanation of brain-to-weight ratio
                          is that creatures evolved with large brains, then dwarfism
                          occured when food supplies were scarce. Gould shows data
                          that dwarf animals retain a high brain-to-weight ratio.
                          From there, further evolution would be necessary to utilize
                          the additional brain mass for sophisticated thought
                          processes.
                          >
                          > This is a lot of speculation on Gould's part. You can tie
                          everything into a theory of evolution, theistic creation, or
                          scientific determinism if you are fanatic enough about
                          whatever theory you hold to. None of that really has much
                          to do with existentialsm. I think that Scientific
                          Determinism is really quite opposed to existentialism as it
                          is conventionally understood.
                          >
                          > Zith
                        • Mary Jo Malo
                          I think Tom Clark would disagree that Naturalism and Subjectivity aren t compatible. Even if you accepted his view about Free Will, you could still argue
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 2 8:55 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think Tom Clark would disagree that Naturalism and Subjectivity
                            aren't compatible. Even if you accepted his view about Free Will, you
                            could still argue Subjectivity. The paper on Death, Nothing and
                            Subjectivity was the topic(s) I suggested for discussion anyway.

                            Isn't existentialism about an individual's personal view of his place
                            in this life?

                            Doesn't the fact that a person can observe his own thoughts and
                            actions, in other words be self aware, intrigue? One can explain this
                            activity anyway one chooses, but I find it fascinating.

                            Isn't our point of view, our observation point, our perspective
                            really all about ourselves anyway? Our egos or self interest are not
                            necessarily bad, just a reflection of our true nature, individual,
                            unique, alien if you will. Don't all of our problems in life stem
                            from our inability to communicate with one another? When the chips
                            are down, we all want what we want when we want it.

                            Mary Jo

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                            > Zith,
                            >
                            > I agree ... A comparison of brain weights, or
                            > brain-to-weight ratios has nothing to do with
                            > Existentialism. What we were trying to discuss was human
                            > self-awareness, in relation to Tom Clark and Naturalism, at
                            > least until Bookdoc got into the act.
                            >
                            > The originating email was that of Mary Jo which contained a
                            > URL for a Naturalist site. My opinion was that a Naturalist
                            > view of human thinking is not Existentialist, since it does
                            > not take into account the subjective, and this in turn lead
                            > to the comment on self-awareness.
                            >
                            > eduard
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "Zithromax" <zithromax@s...>
                            > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:05 AM
                            > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD
                            >
                            >
                            > > Stephen Jay Gould's explanation of brain-to-weight ratio
                            > is that creatures evolved with large brains, then dwarfism
                            > occured when food supplies were scarce. Gould shows data
                            > that dwarf animals retain a high brain-to-weight ratio.
                            > From there, further evolution would be necessary to utilize
                            > the additional brain mass for sophisticated thought
                            > processes.
                            > >
                            > > This is a lot of speculation on Gould's part. You can tie
                            > everything into a theory of evolution, theistic creation, or
                            > scientific determinism if you are fanatic enough about
                            > whatever theory you hold to. None of that really has much
                            > to do with existentialsm. I think that Scientific
                            > Determinism is really quite opposed to existentialism as it
                            > is conventionally understood.
                            > >
                            > > Zith
                          • Mattlzpf@aol.com
                            What is point B? I asked this question because I think that the analagy is a bad one and shouldn t be made. I didn t ask about point A because it seems clear
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 2 9:21 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              What is point B? I asked this question because I think that the analagy
                              is a bad one and shouldn't be made. I didn't ask about point A because it
                              seems clear that point A is the incoming information to the brain. That's why
                              I'm wondering, what is point B?--given of course, that the conveyor belt is the
                              brain. Perhaps what you mean Eduard is that point A and B are irrelevant
                              because a conveyor belt has no self-realization. Again, you are really going to
                              have to explain this analogy in heavy detail in order to draw a similarity
                              between a conveyor belt and a brain, if this is your theory. Please help us out
                              with this one.
                              The proposed question below actually would involve a much better
                              discussion about the subject, if you would like to simply respond to it, this string
                              could get interesting.

                              --MATT_C
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                              If, in your words:

                              " 'Understanding' is a matter of comparisons and associations."

                              and the brain does not have this capacity because it cannot reason, then what
                              is it
                              that some of us think with?
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                            • Zithromax
                              Mary Jo, I think that the article is interesting and was a good contribution for discussion. I think I agree with you that Mr. Clark would admit that we each
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 2 9:37 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary Jo,

                                I think that the article is interesting and was a good contribution for discussion. I think I agree with you that Mr. Clark would admit that we each perceive reality in a subjective way. I imagine he would dismiss these perceptions and vehemently defend an unshakeable objective reality to which we all bend a knee as its helpless fleshy robots. If I had to summarize his article in one sentence it would be: "Don't worry nothingness is not a something, you really will not experience the nothingness when you die."

                                Respect for individualism does not imply that all modes of interpreting reality are covered by the umbrella of existentialism (as it is conventionally understood). You can be a Naturalist, as Tom's site defines it, who happens to like a lot of things about existentialism, but not all. The idea of personal responsibility as held forth by Sartre and his buddies is really subverted by this post-modernist view of human kind as focal point on which external forces act. The more you talk about human beings as a collection of forces, or marginalized, or victims of their environment, or genetically destined, the more you open up a world of excuses. When Sartre talks about responsibility he's not talking about something abstract. He's talking about something concrete - for example you reading this email, thinking about it, drawing your own conclusions, and acting upon them. It's real concrete responsibility and free will, with no loop holes for external forces, genetic scripting, or environmental pressure.

                                Regards,

                                Zith
                                (Borrowing heaviliy from Robert C. Solomon in the above paragraph).

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Mary Jo Malo
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:55 AM
                                Subject: [existlist] Tom Clark


                                I think Tom Clark would disagree that Naturalism and Subjectivity
                                aren't compatible. Even if you accepted his view about Free Will, you
                                could still argue Subjectivity. The paper on Death, Nothing and
                                Subjectivity was the topic(s) I suggested for discussion anyway.

                                Isn't existentialism about an individual's personal view of his place
                                in this life?

                                Doesn't the fact that a person can observe his own thoughts and
                                actions, in other words be self aware, intrigue? One can explain this
                                activity anyway one chooses, but I find it fascinating.

                                Isn't our point of view, our observation point, our perspective
                                really all about ourselves anyway? Our egos or self interest are not
                                necessarily bad, just a reflection of our true nature, individual,
                                unique, alien if you will. Don't all of our problems in life stem
                                from our inability to communicate with one another? When the chips
                                are down, we all want what we want when we want it.

                                Mary Jo

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
                                > Zith,
                                >
                                > I agree ... A comparison of brain weights, or
                                > brain-to-weight ratios has nothing to do with
                                > Existentialism. What we were trying to discuss was human
                                > self-awareness, in relation to Tom Clark and Naturalism, at
                                > least until Bookdoc got into the act.
                                >
                                > The originating email was that of Mary Jo which contained a
                                > URL for a Naturalist site. My opinion was that a Naturalist
                                > view of human thinking is not Existentialist, since it does
                                > not take into account the subjective, and this in turn lead
                                > to the comment on self-awareness.
                                >
                                > eduard
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: "Zithromax" <zithromax@s...>
                                > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:05 AM
                                > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: THE SUPERDUARD
                                >
                                >
                                > > Stephen Jay Gould's explanation of brain-to-weight ratio
                                > is that creatures evolved with large brains, then dwarfism
                                > occured when food supplies were scarce. Gould shows data
                                > that dwarf animals retain a high brain-to-weight ratio.
                                > From there, further evolution would be necessary to utilize
                                > the additional brain mass for sophisticated thought
                                > processes.
                                > >
                                > > This is a lot of speculation on Gould's part. You can tie
                                > everything into a theory of evolution, theistic creation, or
                                > scientific determinism if you are fanatic enough about
                                > whatever theory you hold to. None of that really has much
                                > to do with existentialsm. I think that Scientific
                                > Determinism is really quite opposed to existentialism as it
                                > is conventionally understood.
                                > >
                                > > Zith


                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT




                                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • eduard at home
                                Mary Jo, Perhaps I got into the wrong article. What I read seemed to focus upon scientific explanation of thought, from an observer point of view. I think
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 2 10:26 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mary Jo,

                                  Perhaps I got into the wrong article. What I read seemed to
                                  focus upon scientific explanation of thought, from an
                                  observer point of view. I think that Existentialism looks
                                  only at the subjective side of things.

                                  eduard

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Mary Jo Malo" <alcyon11@...>
                                  To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:55 AM
                                  Subject: [existlist] Tom Clark


                                  > I think Tom Clark would disagree that Naturalism and
                                  Subjectivity
                                  > aren't compatible. Even if you accepted his view about
                                  Free Will, you
                                  > could still argue Subjectivity. The paper on Death,
                                  Nothing and
                                  > Subjectivity was the topic(s) I suggested for discussion
                                  anyway.
                                  >
                                  > Isn't existentialism about an individual's personal view
                                  of his place
                                  > in this life?
                                  >
                                  > Doesn't the fact that a person can observe his own
                                  thoughts and
                                  > actions, in other words be self aware, intrigue? One can
                                  explain this
                                  > activity anyway one chooses, but I find it fascinating.
                                  >
                                  > Isn't our point of view, our observation point, our
                                  perspective
                                  > really all about ourselves anyway? Our egos or self
                                  interest are not
                                  > necessarily bad, just a reflection of our true nature,
                                  individual,
                                  > unique, alien if you will. Don't all of our problems in
                                  life stem
                                  > from our inability to communicate with one another? When
                                  the chips
                                  > are down, we all want what we want when we want it.
                                  >
                                  > Mary Jo
                                • Knott
                                  The only interest I have is in addressing this is that I am awestruck by the intense lack ... The implication is that humans are special because of large brain
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 2 5:19 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The only interest I have is in addressing this is that I am awestruck by the intense lack
                                    of coherence:

                                    > I hate to point this out, but we are speaking about human brains

                                    As you seem to fail to remember what you say...You said:

                                    > There is nothing special about humans... The only
                                    > thing that might be considered special is their
                                    > self-awareness, but this is only a result of large brain
                                    > size.

                                    The implication is that humans are special because of large brain size. That is indeed
                                    about human brains. Yippee. However, there is a suggestion of comparison: large in
                                    comparison to what? A table? no. One would think you meant OTHER Brains of NON-
                                    HUMANS. Non humans would include mice and elephants. If this is not a likely
                                    comparison from your statement, I would be glad to know why. You also suggested
                                    this largess was the vehicle for human's unique self-awareness...and that would also
                                    suggest in comparison to other species.

                                    Please clarify what the comparison was if not meant in this way.

                                    I provided the listing, because you were, as usual, McFacting: this I'll define as
                                    creating your own cheesy facts that have no basis in reality (as most people know it).
                                    Man does not have a distinctly large brain (especially in your case) and this does not,
                                    in itself, pose any reason for suggesting unique self-awareness.

                                    Frankly, thinking self-awareness to be unique is myopic. But who cares. You injoy
                                    broadcasting all the wrong information like you know what it really is, and are
                                    apparently afraid, both of admitting you are wrong and that you may not know
                                    everything. It is what you do best.

                                    All I know is I can't know anything -- except that any fact is absolute. I am wrong in
                                    discussing with you, wrong in having an opinion, wrong in accepting facts, wrong in
                                    continuing, wrong in bothering, wrong in caring, wrong in attempting, wrong in being
                                    wrong. Yet, I am curious why you are so damned to be right on every occassion such
                                    that the rose you come to blossom as smells the woods like dank cow shit after the
                                    rain. All i can conclude is that you really think you are god, or superman, or
                                    something. I find this a bit interesting, in a similar way to how I am drawn to mass
                                    murderers and other social bilge. I cannot for the life of me fathom the depths of a
                                    cognition so estranged from my own...I am fascinated with dwarves and oddballs of
                                    all sort. I wonder at you like I guess many people do when passing by a horrific
                                    accident on the highway, slowing down enough just to say "Eeeeww!"

                                    I would be glad to understand you on just one occassion. But I fear I have before me
                                    another unreliable narrator.

                                    Quilling Donquixote
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.