|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2002 : 06:04:34 [Permalink]
|
Certainly I've said the right thing when angry, and I've said the wrong thing when angry. It seems to me that anger had little to do with whether what I said was right or wrong? Or is that something in the limbic system that I don't understand? (0:
quote:
Plus, I do think that anger can serve us--even in debate. It has served me. Returning to my born again co-worker, during a couple of discussions, I lost my patience, and said a few things in anger. Well, those things needed to be said. However, normally, I would not have said them. I knew I would have hurt his feelings.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 12:21:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I don't mean to belittle, but this is most silly. Your knowledge of brain physiology is woefully incomplete. I taught a Physiological Psych class as an undergrad and I have neither heard nor read anything that would support these conclusions, much less as steadfast as you make them here. You seem to have found the specific delimiting lines between emotions in order to make this statement: "Determination is often confused with anger." If you don't mean to imply that these are mutually exclusive feelings, then mea culpa, but it sure appears that you are saying one can't be both determined and angry, which isn't even a logically supported statement, much less an experimentally supported one.
I thought that was exactly what I said. People tell me that anger drives them to do good things. I tell them that their decision to do things along with their determination to do those things are what drives them.
I don't see how this precludes anger being involved in the decision making process. As a coach, I find that getting angry can get results that passiveness can't.
quote:
Their anger is separate. Anger is simply the denial of what is going on.
This is simply not right. Emotions are not discrete elements that can be isolated and their effects observed. When I get angry at my players, it's because I am actually emotionally angry that they are not listening, not that I have carefully considered that anger would be the appropriate response.
quote:
quote:
You seem to have the mistaken impression that emotions are entirely consciously controllable. I'd suggest you get a good book about the limbic system and we can discuss further.
You're right about studying more, but I think I'm talking more about how our ideas about anger are a matter of culture. We think we're supposed to be angry so we're angry as Slater pointed out.
Ok so far, but understand this is not the same as what you were saying before.
quote:
People say things like, he deserves my anger, I have a right to be angry, etc. Anger is largely a matter of perception, and perception is largely controllable consciously. That is, the interpretation of our senses.
I don't know what definition of 'perception' you employ, but I suspect you are equivocating. Perception can be interpretation but it is also recognition. I can say with some confidence that we don't have full conscious control over what we recognize. I say with much less confidence that emotions are more related to recognition than interpretation, but I think there is good reason to think so.
quote:
If you think someone is trying to kill you, you get angry. If you're glad to die, you don't get so angry. If you find out you're mistaken about what you thought, something else happens. Again, certainly if a tiger springs, you have certain feelings if you perceive that happening, but that's something different than calling someone a moron, isn't it?
This seems like a mishmash of ideas. I don't see how this furthers your argument. All the things you seem to want to attribute to conscious control would be overwhelming. Consciousness tends to be serial rather than parallel. There are many fewer processes that are consciously controlled than you think.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 12:33:55 [Permalink]
|
I see. So if you see an "enemy" you have no conscious control of that perception?
quote:
This seems like a mishmash of ideas. I don't see how this furthers your argument. All the things you seem to want to attribute to conscious control would be overwhelming. Consciousness tends to be serial rather than parallel. There are many fewer processes that are consciously controlled than you think.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 12:58:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
This seems like a mishmash of ideas. I don't see how this furthers your argument. All the things you seem to want to attribute to conscious control would be overwhelming. Consciousness tends to be serial rather than parallel. There are many fewer processes that are consciously controlled than you think.
I see. So if you see an "enemy" you have no conscious control of that perception?
Really, I don't see how this follows from your argument, but I would argue that "enemy" can carry a non-conscious component in that the label can be consciously applied as a response to a visceral emotion.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 13:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Can you put that in English?
quote:
Really, I don't see how this follows from your argument, but I would argue that "enemy" can carry a non-conscious component in that the label can be consciously applied as a response to a visceral emotion.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 13:33:38 [Permalink]
|
What happened to "The Purpose of Evangelical Skepticism" ?
That was at least interesting.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 13:47:00 [Permalink]
|
And you wanted to add what to make it interesting?
quote:
What happened to "The Purpose of Evangelical Skepticism" ?
That was at least interesting.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 13:55:04 [Permalink]
|
Anyway, as I was saying back on page 2, I don't agree that, like Skepticism/Science, religion trys to fill in gaps in human knowledge. It seems to me that it is Religion's purpose to deny that there are any gaps. It promotes ignorance over knowledge in order to achieve domination over the population.
It's quite ironic that one of their catch phrases is, "The truth shall set you free." But, of course, the TRUTH and the FACTS are not the quite same thing.
Prehaps that could be a catch phrase for "Evangelical Skepticism"
THE FACTS SHALL SET YOU FREE |
|
|
|
smartblonde57
New Member
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 14:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anyway, as I was saying back on page 2, I don't agree that, like Skepticism/Science, religion trys to fill in gaps in human knowledge. It seems to me that it is Religion's purpose to deny that there are any gaps. It promotes ignorance over knowledge in order to achieve domination over the population.
It's quite ironic that one of their catch phrases is, "The truth shall set you free." But, of course, the TRUTH and the FACTS are not the quite same thing.
Prehaps that could be a catch phrase for "Evangelical Skepticism"
THE FACTS SHALL SET YOU FREE
Now that we're somewhat back on topic, it appears to me that, while religion does indeed seem to promote ignorance, it does so under the guise of filling in all those gaps. Religion has handy-dandy answers to all the Great Questions. It just can't prove any of them (in a tangible sense), so it encourages people to have blind faith. People fall for it because it's easier to believe what you're told than it is to dig for your *own* answers.
As for the issue of evangelical skepticism, I see it as a two-sided issue. First, it's a waste of time to preach to the hard-core True Believers, be they TBs of UFOs, astrology, God, or whatever; it's like teaching a pig to sing. OTOH, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, some believers might believe only out of ignorance, and by educating these people re: critical thinking, we may help them pull their heads out of the sand.
=====
-- Mary
E-mail: smartblonde57@yahoo.com
Personal website: http://www.smartblonde57.com |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 19:58:47 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, you haven't answered my questions. Contrary to your claims, I have answered yours, and your apparently willingness to ignore those answers does not change that.quote:
So the only reason to call other people "morons" is to insult. The only reason to insult is to attempt to build yourself up. Case closed.
If you are pretending that this is derived from something I said, then these are the words you are trying to put in my mouth. If not, you have failed to specify the basis for these sweeping statements about others' thoughts and motives. You ignored the other reasons I gave for using this kind of language. You have failed to support these 2 statements with anything other than your own claims and pronouncements.
quote:
What are the words that you want to put in your mouth?
You have obviously confused your intentions with my desires. This is not unusual among presumptuous authoritarians.
quote:
You haven't accomplished anything by putting this label on people.
another authoritarian pronouncement. quote:
You have shown that you are bitter and angry.
and another, based on more clairvoyance.
quote:
So what? So are a lot of other people. What did you add to the world?
I added a summary of destructive actions, and an opportunity for discussion that would not otherwise have existed. This does not have to meet with your approval. It also appears that we are clarifying the role of language in skeptical activism, which is also a worthwhile contribution.quote:
If you're just having fun amongst friends, then fine, I'm not finding fault. If you think you're doing something constructive, then I respectfully disagree. It appears that you wish to make yourself look big at the expense of people with whom you disagree.
It appears that way if you conciously ignore every other possibility that has been discussed here and presume to know more about my mental and emotional state than I do. This is significant only if you regard your own skewed perceptions as universal. Yet another authoritarian claim, this time an ad hominem attack that you so decry in others.
quote:
Your analogy about evil misses my point. To say that someone's actions are "evil", (while the word seems archaic and religious) simply means they are destructive. To say that someone is "evil" is another matter. That stops thought. You don't have to think about anything or try to solve any other problem than making sure that the Archangel Michael kills Lucifer.
This is a false distinction. How is it possible for a word to stop "thought" anyway? Authoritarian rhetoriticians might hope for this, but it doesn't happen in real life. Characterizing a person as "evil" is not a premise in a formal syllogism. It can only be a summary of their actions, there is no distinction from a characterization of their actions if the facts are there to warrant it. This stops thought only if you very badly want it to.
quote:
The world is more complex than that.
This is also relevant to the claim that "evil" simply means "destructive"
In summary: In typical authoritarian post-modern fashion, you have made an issue of the word "moron" in isolation from its context, used this as a basis for attacking me personally, disregarded all rebuttal, and attempted to support all this with a series of statements and claims that were supported only by your own presumed authority. Continue to tell me about my mental state and emotional health if you like, but don't presume to have anything other than your own absurdly inflated sense of authority to justify it.
Edited by - piltdown on 01/11/2002 20:19:44 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 21:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown, my good man, you haven't done anything but spout gibberish and then tell me that you've said something. I've attacked no one. It's you that feel the need to build yourself up with ad hominem attacks.
quote:
Gorgo, you haven't
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 21:29:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Piltdown, my good man, you haven't done anything but spout gibberish and then tell me that you've said something. I've attacked no one. It's you that feel the need to build yourself up with ad hominem attacks.
You've lost it, Gorgo. This is really your most ridiculous statement yet, and that is saying a lot. Like your hero, Noam the hatemonger, you really are obsessed with your own authority, and some imagnary obligation for everyone to accept it. BTW, I have read Chomsky. It is typical of you to assume that anyone who happens to be familiar with the subject would automatically agree with you.
Back in the 80s, Professor Chomsky helped a great deal with a problem we were having with creation-nuts here in Texas. I was very grateful, and tended to overlook his descent into conspiracy-nuttery. No more, the authoritarian left has committed suicide since 9-11 and Chomsky had the misfortune to be its leading icon at the time. 40 years of revolutionary progress buried in the ashes of the World Trade Center and the caves of Afghanistan. You and Chomsky will still find people to believe you, mostly the same people who believe that microwave ovens can broadcast mind-control beams on behalf of the CIA. Woo-woo world here we come!
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2002 : 23:22:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Piltdown, my good man, you haven't done anything but spout gibberish and then tell me that you've said something. I've attacked no one. It's you that feel the need to build yourself up with ad hominem attacks.
Are you commenting on some personal e-mail that you are getting from Piltdown? Something the rest of us don't see? Because your comments have nothing to do with what has been posted.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 00:08:22 [Permalink]
|
I have a moral duty to. Moses Maimaides (sp?) said:
quote:
When a man sins against another, the injured party should not hate the offender and keep silent... But it is his duty to inform the offender...
(Based on Leviticus 19:17)
If one observes that a person committed a sin or walks in a way that is not good, it is a duty to bring the erring man back to the right path and point out to him that he is wronging himself by his evil courses.... He who rebukes another, whether for offenses against the rebuker himself or for sins against God, should administer the rebuke in private, speak to the offender gently and tenderly, and point out that he is only speaking for the wrongdoer's own good...
Somthing like that. Also, I owe it to my country and to my species to keep fundamentalists and fuzzy thinking from screwing up the world. And, I owe it to Carl Sagan, whose books introduced me to skepticism and the scientific method.
Is this rational? Certainly protecting my country and species is, they carry my genes and all. But it is not wholly rational to want to do this, and I am willing to accept that morality is partly axiomatic.
(Pretend this is a witty Latin phrase, okay?) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2002 : 06:34:09 [Permalink]
|
Look. For what ever reason, I think you 're speaking Hebrew and you think I'm a nut. I don't care. I don't have the time or energy to decipher it all. If you think I've insulted you, I apologize. You're doing what you think is right and that's all any of us can do. That's all that I'm doing and I wish you well. I'm sure you're a nice guy and if we met, I'd probably honestly be impressed with your (and probably Slater's and Rubysue's) wit and wisdom. I don't mean that facetiously. The internet is a weird place and it distorts our (or at least my) perceptions.
I'm sorry that I can't properly explain my earlier remarks. If I did at the time, I do not now mean them to be insulting. I do not take back what I said, as I think it is your interpretation of what I said that is insulting and not what I said that is insulting. Somehow you and I have different perceptions of what rude behavior is, and I'm learning to understand that I don't need to understand why other people do what they do and think what they think.
You remarks and Rubysue's remarks about Chomsky are unwarranted. Because I like what he says does not mean that I am a cultist, nor any of us conspiracy theorists. That is your perception, and your perception, in my opinion is wrong. Rubysue has made unfounded statements about lying and so forth and that is noteworthy, though not criminal.
I am out of this thread, I thank you all for whatever patience, small or great, that it took for you to allow me to be a part of it.
quote:
quote:
Piltdown, my good man, you haven't done anything but spout gibberish and then tell me that you've said something. I've attacked no one. It's you that feel the need to build yourself up with ad hominem attacks.
You've lost it, Gorgo. This is really your most ridiculous statement yet, and that is saying a lot. Like your hero, Noam the hatemonger, you really are obsessed with your own authority, and some imagnary obligation for everyone to accept it. BTW, I have read Chomsky. It is typical of you to assume that anyone who happens to be familiar with the subject would automatically agree with you.
Back in the 80s, Professor Chomsky helped a great deal with a problem we were having with creation-nuts here in Texas. I was very grateful, and tended to overlook his descent into conspiracy-nuttery. No more, the authoritarian left has committed suicide since 9-11 and Chomsky had the misfortune to be its leading icon at the time. 40 years of revolutionary progress buried in the ashes of the World Trade Center and the caves of Afghanistan. You and Chomsky will still find people to believe you, mostly the same people who believe that microwave ovens can broadcast mind-control beams on behalf of the CIA. Woo-woo world here we come!
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
