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

Re: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN

Expand Messages
  • Mattlzpf@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/31/03 4:03:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yeoman@videotron.ca writes:
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
    • 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 2 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
      • 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 3 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
        • 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 4 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
          • 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 5 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
            • 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 6 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
              • 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 7 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
                • 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 8 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
                  • 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 9 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
                    • 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 10 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
                      • 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 11 of 16 , Aug 2, 2003
                        • 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.