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

Re: [existlist] THE SUPERMAN

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.