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

Re: What power to charm or harm?

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    eduard, Biochemical algorithms are not the same as mental scripts which are at the conscious level of thought. As you say, mental scripts are socially formed.
    Message 1 of 43 , Jan 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      eduard,

      Biochemical algorithms are not the same as mental scripts which are at the conscious level of thought. As you say, mental scripts are socially formed. Algorithms are genetic and affected by environment.

      If one is prone to depression and pessimism, it may be genetic, environmental, or a combination. What I'm saying is that you can't separate algorithms from scripts and an entire environment of other people and forces of nature.

      I use the word environment to mean one's entire body, other people, and all of nature. We are not robots interconnected by a mainframe. We are flesh and blood subject to the vagaries and mysteries of nature.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > "but how do you describe that which has the power to shape, harm, or charm them?"
      >
      > I am not sure of your meaning here, but will try an answer.
      >
      > The "them" is the substrate of algorithms, or "mental scripts" in my terminology. A mental script might be ...
      >
      > (1) I see the catch in your joke ... the wealthy pompous man who is protesting the uncleanness of the city, slips on a peel of the banana he has just finished eating.
      > (2) In order to make you aware of this, I open my mouth and laugh .... "ha ha ha ha".
      >
      > So what is the "that" which had the power to cause this script??
      >
      > The answer is complex. All sorts of things are occurring [or has occurred] here.
      >
      > (1) In this culture we do not look kindly upon the pompous, especially the wealthy. Thus I have learned a mental script that has a negative value in regard to the pompous.
      > (2) You are trying to tell a joke. Your behaviour, physical signals and the circumstance indicate this. I have learned a mental script that one should react to people who are telling jokes.
      > (3) In this culture, the mental script for reacting to a joke is to laugh. Perhaps in other cultures it is to rub noses.
      >
      > The "that" is our programming that has been installed prior to the joke. In other cultures or circumstance there may be a different set of mental scripts. Your joke might not go over too well at an assembly of millionaires. Some people might not think it is funny for someone to be injured by falling. In some cases, my mental script to react may cause laughter even though I don't really see the catch in your joke. Your signal and circumstance may be sufficient in themselves to cause laughter. The value of the neural output is not necessarily dependent upon an equal value of all inputs.
      >
      > My point is that the scripts are the result of our learning and experience. So there is nothing mysterious going on here. The "that" are simply those things that are the subject of learning of mental scripts. I think that some of these are memes or reactions that are part of human evolution. We are evolved to live in groups and in order to ensure survival of the group, we have acquired scripts related to such as empathy, rapport and sympathy. I don’t think they are genetic, but rather taught in childhood. You are part of the group and are apparently trying to tell a joke. It is appropriate on my part, as another member of the group, to laugh. Because I don't want to make you unhappy.
      >
      > There isn’t some kind of external power that is causing me to laugh. What happens is all in the brain.
      >
      > eduardathome
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 10:59 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] What power to charm or harm?
      >
      > eduard,
      >
      > I allude to Camus' absurdist philosophy as a wager opposed to Pascal's because must depend on one another and ourselves, because that's in front of us. I suppose respect for immensity of the universe can replace religious awe, but this too only emphasizes that we're alone here together in a vast cosmos and dependent on one another in one fashion or another. I can accede to your scientism of a biochemical substrate of algorithms as natural structures, but how do you describe that which has the power to shape, harm, or charm them? Human sentients are clearly not independent self-regulating machines. Thought affects and is an effect of the substrate. They are co-dependent.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • eduardathome
      My only point is that the idea of the apple does not reside within the apple, as you suggested. eduard ... From: Mary Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:07
      Message 43 of 43 , Jan 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        My only point is that the idea of the apple does not "reside" within the
        apple, as you suggested.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 11:07 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: What power to charm or harm?

        eduard,

        When referring to anatomical differences of receptors, I forgot to specify
        sense organs which are variously configured and influence perception. My
        point is that anatomical variations determine how and what we perceive, yet
        despite these differences some of us are able to grasp the notion an object
        represents and further develop the truth about it.

        An apple is not just an apple; it represents an agricultural and commercial
        history, cultural mythology and symbolism, scientific, nutritional and sense
        properties, relationship with the environment, etc. Furthermore it
        represents how an immediate appearance is mediated as an object for the
        observer and developed into a complex truth.

        The brain is as essential to thought as the objects of thought, including
        itself.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > Mary,
        >
        > The receptors do not project anything. That is why they are called
        > "receptors". I used the example of the Greeks to show how off the mark
        > people were in ages past. The reason is indeed holistic for reason that
        > one
        > tends to use mechanisms that are used in other processes. Since "seeing"
        > is
        > not understood, one can envision [to use the term] how this might be
        > similar
        > to the sense of touch.
        >
        > The receptors have a molecule which changes shape when impacted by a
        > photon
        > of light. The change causes a electrochemical signal that is sent to the
        > brain. Different molecules react to different frequencies of light. The
        > short frequencies are seen as blue, the long frequencies as red and the
        > median frequencies as green. But the eye doesn't actually "see" in
        > specific
        > frequencies. It sees with a certain efficiency so it is up the brain to
        > work out which colour is really out there.
        >
        > Where the "anatomically" difference comes into play is where people have a
        > lack of a certain receptor which may make them say green-red colour
        > confusers. Or perhaps blue-yellow confusers. If they lack colour
        > receptors
        > [the cones] entirely, they will see the world in monotone greys, using
        > only
        > the brightness receptors [the rods]. There are other factors which can
        > effect vision ... we have 3 colour receptors whereas birds have 4 and some
        > fish up to 10 ... but generally most people have the same appropriate
        > equipment and therefore as humans we can establish a colour coding for
        > lights and paints for which there is a general consensus.
        >
        > "How is this different from saying our idea about what we're perceiving
        > shapes what we see but doesn't prevent us from developing new ideas about
        > it?"
        >
        > I am not sure of the meaning of your question. My response was to your
        > previous email in which you said, "I suggest there is the power of an idea
        > residing in objects themselves which works together with the brain." I
        > disagree that the idea of an apple resides in the apple. The idea of the
        > apple resides entirely in the brain. And to go to part of your question,
        > we
        > can develop new ideas about the apple. We can do so, because the idea
        > resides in the brain, not in the apple. My idea of an good eating apple
        > is
        > that of a Pink Lady with the Gala apple coming second. I could not do so
        > if
        > the idea was in the apple itself. Sometimes we apply an idea and end up
        > munching into a wax apple.
        >
        > The other argument against the idea residing in the apple [the object] is
        > because the apple changes over time from an unfertilized flower, to a bud,
        > to a rip fruit and then falling to the ground to rot. I don't believe
        > there
        > is any mechanism or means by which the apple can change its idea even if
        > we
        > were to accept that it has its own idea.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:39 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: What power to charm or harm?
        >
        > You misread me, eduard. I didn't say knowledge that the brain thinks has
        > been around since antiquity; secular thought has. I don't know if
        > philosophy
        > has ever been a large part of the general view as you call it. And yes,
        > neural plasticity and brain re-scripting are new.
        >
        > For me a mental script involves thinking, but a neural program does not.
        > These however are both ideas. I reduce thinking to ideas; you reduce it to
        > neurons. Where we differ doesn't seem all that significant to me, so I'll
        > leave it for now. I don't feel pressed to make you agree with or
        > understand
        > what I think.
        >
        > In any case, several of our scripts intersect where it comes to agreeing
        > the
        > world of humans requires some changes. I don't think either of us has
        > articulated a compelling enough reason to change our scripts, or our ideas
        > about observer and observed.
        >
        > In some strange way, the notion that rays were the cause of vision is
        > interesting. There was some intuition about light and connection between
        > observer and observed happening back there. It was more holistic. Also,
        > the
        > reason sense perceptions differ from person to person is because the
        > receptors which 'project' the rays anatomically differ. It says the brain
        > receives from what it projects. How is this different from saying our idea
        > about what we're perceiving shapes what we see but doesn't prevent us from
        > developing new ideas about it?
        >
        > Mary
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.