Stillbirth of reason: Altruism

[anthony]

If "Eva" was half as smart as she THINKS she is she would be twice as smart as she actually is.

You seem to think we're under deadly attack fighting for our lives, Tony. Insofar as she really has nothing to contribute to a discussion of intellectual substance, she's no more than an empty pinata we can hack away at without wearing blindfolds. I'd say she's the other side of the coin from Greg, who can only keep repeating himself though yet to wear himself out. As a fountainhead of whatever she'll eventually wear herself unless she uses ratiocination as a tool to learn new things instead of dominating a discussion with what's already between her ears. I say let her gush. I see her as a paratrooper who has just landed sort of stagering around getting her bearings. Nobody knows her yet, and she hardly knows us or this place. Really. All this contretempts obscures her. She is outside our comfort zone, as is Greg, let's see if she can expand the size of the circle we like to sit in.

--Brant

nice crack, btw: (and) If you were half as . . . (just front running Eva)

Heh! Brant, you believe Jules looks anything like me? (Not half as handsome, for starters).

I've got no gripe with opposition btw. Bring it on, it tests me and I might advance from there. But stomp all over consciousness - which means principles, which means conviction, which means integrity- to my mind -and I get tetchy.

If I think someone's principles are dead wrong, is one thing.

To assert there is no such thing as personal principle - is another entirely. Intellectual nihilsm, or skepticism. So I may rib Greg or strongly disagree with him, but admire him for the strength of holding his convictions, and for possessing "soul" (as I consider consciousness).

Soul-less individuals depress/bore me.

[Brant Gaede]

Opps! I quoted Jules thinking I was quoting Tony. (Now the hellfire begins--because of my mistake: WWI again, millions dead.)

--Brant

my f___u_

[Jules Troy]

Ahhh haha Brant blunder of the century! Lol it was a good rib though!!

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

But stomp all over consciousness - which means principles, which means conviction, which means integrity- to my mind -and I get tetchy.

end quote

Glad you brought that to mind. A weakened or absent volitional consciousness, philosophically sometimes called hard or soft determinism, and scientifically induced amoralism called “hard wiring” all negate the concepts of blame, conviction, integrity, truth, justice. If it was determined, then no ONE was to blame. Judge, you can’t assign blame to me and put me in jail. . . it had to happen . . . the devil made me do it . . . my genes made me do it . . . my upbringing made me do it . . . it was not my fault I was programmed at birth!

[eva matthews]

Here are some of the comments Kahneman made about System 1 and System 2--and they are right in the first chapter of the goddam book (Thinking Fast and Slow).

Part 1 is called "Two Systems" - This part contains Chapter 1.

Part 2 is called "Heuristics and Biases" - This deals with the mental shortcuts of System 1 (heuristics). The different heuristics are dealt with mostly in the chapters of this section.

And there are three other sections to the book that intermingle the heuristics and discuss them from different lenses. I don't recall if new heuristics were introduced in those sections because I was not counting heuristics when I first went through this book.

The following quotes are from Chapter 1:

The labels of System 1 and System 2 are widely used in psychology, but I go further than most in this book, which you can read as a psychodrama with two characters.

When we think of ourselves, we identify with System 2, the conscious, reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices, and decides what to think about and what to do. Although System 2 believes itself to be where the action is, the automatic System 1 is the hero of the book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings that are the main sources of the explicit beliefs and deliberate choices of System 2. The automatic operations of System 1 generate surprisingly complex patterns of ideas, but only the slower System 2 can construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps. I also describe circumstances in which System 2 takes over, overruling the freewheeling impulses and associations of System 1.

. . .

System 1 and System 2 are so central to the story I tell in this book that I must make it absolutely clear that they are fictitious characters. Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in the standard sense of entities with interacting aspects or parts. And there is no one part of the brain that either of the systems would call home. You may well ask: What is the point of introducing fictitious characters with ugly names into a serious book? The answer is that the characters are useful because of some quirks of our minds, yours and mine. A sentence is understood more easily if it describes what an agent (System 2) does than if it describes what something is, what properties it has. In other words, “System 2” is a better subject for a sentence than “mental arithmetic.” The mind—especially System 1—appears to have a special aptitude for the construction and interpretation of stories about active agents, who have personalities, habits, and abilities.

. . .

Why call them System 1 and System 2 rather than the more descriptive “automatic system” and “effortful system”? The reason is simple: “Automatic system” takes longer to say than “System 1” and therefore takes more space in your working memory. This matters, because anything that occupies your working memory reduces your ability to think. You should treat “System 1” and “System 2” as nicknames, like Bob and Joe, identifying characters that you will get to know over the course of this book. The fictitious systems make it easier for me to think about judgment and choice, and will make it easier for you to understand what I say.

System 1 and System 2 certainly are virtual-like terms of convenience. Try fictitious characters without any one part of the brain they can call home. All you have to do is read. It's right there in front of you. If that doesn't describe virtual-like, I don't know what does. And if a fictitious character designating a part of the mind is not a term of convenience, then we are not speaking English.

After this crap, my enthusiasm for you just evaporated.

Ah... it doesn't matter. I'm bored with this shit now. I thought you had something, I thought I saw something, but I was mistaken. I'm sorry I wasted our time.

Enjoy the forum and please stay within the posting guidelines.

Michael

You wrote:

>>Systems 1 and 2 are not heuristics (that is if I remember what I studied). They are virtual-like divisions of convenience<<<

...which is clearly in error, as I duly corrected. System 1 is 'heuristic', as developed in the 70's.

You then went on to say that the two systems were 'virtual'. I disagreed, writing that 'virtual' would indicate lack of experimental data. Much of this, in fact is that which Kahnemabn offers himself, ie non-Bernoullian behavior.

In passing, note that since the seventies, countless other researchers have employed the 'heuristic vs reason' model to derive results on their own. Yet what Kahneman says is true: the holy rail of places within the brain have yet to be found, if ever they will.

So if Kahneman wants to describe this lack in literary terms, that's fine. He's writing for a well-informed public and, ostensibly under the advice of his editor, is searching for the 'just right' metaphor.

But if you want to call this 'virtual', then I disagree, because within the context of research, the word means 'no data'. In other words, one proceeds with data-discovery without the expectation of ever finding brain places from which the data arises. In this context, to label data conclusions 'virtualities' would be to indulge in metaphysical nonsense.

As far as the correct philosophical use, you might want to consult Deluze's 'virtual vs actual', which describes the imaginary nearly-there to concrete , lived existence.

EM

[tmj]

Im going to assume typo, but 'holy rail' strikes a fancy , when speaking of the seat of the mind( I think this is the subject matter ) , the elusive third rail of the electrical system of the brain.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

...which is clearly in error, as I duly corrected. System 1 is 'heuristic', as developed in the 70's.

Blah blah blah...

Facts are hard things to morph like words are.

System 1 is a group of heuristics. It is not a heuristic itself. But I'm not going to waste more time showing quotes from the guy who did this to a person who refuses think.

No interest whatsoever in playing the word games of people with self-image problems.

Eva, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.

Go play with people who like this shit.

Michael

[Peter]

Whoa Michael! This is just my opinion and its contents are not endorsed by any members of management nor is it meant to imply the sanction of the owners. Our “Living Room” occasionally goes a step beyond “toleration,” in its complexity.

If someone starts a thread (though on someone else’s property) there is a personal compulsion to see that your brain child is nurtured. And likewise, Michael “invites” someone across their property line and the only lien on that “semi domain” of the invitee (Eva in this case) is that they stick within the guidelines.

Beyond that, the tenant, landlord, and client relationship is governed by the personal reader’s functioning. We can read or not read. If we read and complain but continue to read we are seeing some value in the thread and its participants. If we read the thread but skip over some posts then we are gaining a value and ignoring what is not of value (or worth the grief.) And a reader may un-enroll from the thread at the push of a button or unlink a person entirely by going to your profile page and pushing more buttons. I have just described a microcosm of “Capitalism” and a free society. As well as an oasis for ‘the nattering class,’ of which I proudly belong.

[eva matthews]

...which is clearly in error, as I duly corrected. System 1 is 'heuristic', as developed in the 70's.

Blah blah blah...

Facts are hard things to morph like words are.

System 1 is a group of heuristics. It is not a heuristic itself. But I'm not going to waste more time showing quotes from the guy who did this to a person who refuses think.

No interest whatsoever in playing the word games of people with self-image problems.

Eva, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.

Go play with people who like this shit.

Michael

You wrote:

>>Systems 1 and 2 are not heuristics (that is if I remember what I studied). They are virtual-like divisions of convenience<<<

I wrote, "which is clearly in error, as I duly corrected. System 1 is 'heuristic', as developed in the 70's"

Whether or not 'heuristic' means .'system of' or 'in itself' is clearly irrelevant as is, of course, your psychobabbilish assesment of me as having 'self-image problems'.

What is relevant is your explanation of what's cited in >>> <<<.

This, you're free to explain (blah, blah, blah), or not.

.Factually speaking, you're likewise free to morph your citation into anything coherent enough to warrant consideration.

Otherwise, it's indeed plain shit with no further interest on my part with said word games or what you have to say.

EM

[Brant Gaede]

Nutz. Time for you two to stop talking. If you don't I know how it will end. Michael knows how it will end. Eva will find out.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Otherwise, it's indeed plain shit with no further interest on my part with said word games or what you have to say.

Eva,

Good.

Go away and play your games with people like you.

Nothing is stopping you and I'm in no mood to tolerate your bad vibes around here.

I am not like you.

I thought I was, but I made a mistake.

Michael

[Peter]

Hello America. This is Jeff Brant reporting from OL’MFEROPOL, Okraine – My advice to the two sides is none of my business but “Nutz. Time for you two to stop talking. If you don't I know how it will end. Michael knows how it will end. Eva will find out.”

Meanwhile, Germany's Angela Merkel delivered a rebuke to Czar Eva on Sunday, telling her that a planned University Kids - backed referendum on whether the Okraine should join Evaland was illegal and violated the Okraine's constitution. Czar Eva defended breakaway moves by pro-lab rat leaders in the Okraine, where Evaland’s forces tightened their grip on the Okrainian region by seizing another border post. As thousands staged rival rallies in Okrainia, street violence flared in SebastOpol, when pro-Evian activists and Cossacks attacked a group of Okrainians. As Czar Eva said to the Okrainian leader, Michael, “This, you're free to explain (blah, blah, blah), or not.”

Czar Eva declared a week ago that Evaland had the right to invade the Okraine to protect Evian citizens, and his parliament has voted to change the law to make it easier to annex territory inhabited by Evanian double speakers. Merkel also regretted the lack of progress on forming an "international contact group" to seek a political solution to the Okraine crisis and said this should be done urgently.

On Thursday, Merkel said if a contact group was not formed in the coming days and no progress was made in negotiations with Evaland, the European Union could hit them with sanctions such as travel restrictions, asset freezes, shunning and blocking their posts entirely.

Thank you Jeff Brant from Reuters. Reporting live, from our studios this is Diane Sawyer, from ABC News. So, how are Czar Eva’s readers responding? She would characterize it as “Blah, Blah, Blah.” Is irritation rising? Definitely. As a veteran newsperson I am just curious about her method of picking an arcane subject that she may or may not be expert in and then attempting to crucify her respondents. What does she have to gain? . . . . RRRRRRR! This is a civil defense alert. This is not a drill.

[Brant Gaede]

Hello America. This is Jeff Brant reporting from OL’MFEROPOL, Okraine – My advice to the two sides is none of my business but “Nutz. Time for you two to stop talking. If you don't I know how it will end. Michael knows how it will end. Eva will find out.”

Meanwhile, Germany's Angela Merkel delivered a rebuke to Czar Eva on Sunday, telling her that a planned University Kids - backed referendum on whether the Okraine should join Evaland was illegal and violated the Okraine's constitution. Czar Eva defended breakaway moves by pro-lab rat leaders in the Okraine, where Evaland’s forces tightened their grip on the Okrainian region by seizing another border post. As thousands staged rival rallies in Okrainia, street violence flared in SebastOpol, when pro-Evian activists and Cossacks attacked a group of Okrainians. As Czar Eva said to the Okrainian leader, Michael, “This, you're free to explain (blah, blah, blah), or not.”

Czar Eva declared a week ago that Evaland had the right to invade the Okraine to protect Evian citizens, and his parliament has voted to change the law to make it easier to annex territory inhabited by Evanian double speakers. Merkel also regretted the lack of progress on forming an "international contact group" to seek a political solution to the Okraine crisis and said this should be done urgently.

On Thursday, Merkel said if a contact group was not formed in the coming days and no progress was made in negotiations with Evaland, the European Union could hit them with sanctions such as travel restrictions, asset freezes, shunning and blocking their posts entirely.

Thank you Jeff Brant from Reuters. Reporting live, from our studios this is Diane Sawyer, from ABC News. So, how are Czar Eva’s readers responding? She would characterize it as “Blah, Blah, Blah.” Is irritation rising? Definitely. As a veteran newsperson I am just curious about her method of picking an arcane subject that she may or may not be expert in and then attempting to crucify her respondents. What does she have to gain? . . . . RRRRRRR! This is a civil defense alert. This is not a drill.

Peter, I can't tell if this is over or under my head.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

^ ^ ^

Who is Tsarina Eva?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whoa Michael!

Peter,

We are friends, so let's talk about it.

If this were a mere disagreement of ideas, I would not be suddenly hostile. But it occurs to me that the noise to signal ratio on Eva's interactions is way too high for fun and interest, which are standard characteristics of OL. Oh... I guess train wrecks are fun at first, but they sure get boring real quick.

Snark seems to be an end for this young lady, not a means. It is a way of being, not a tool of persuasion or dismissal. (I'm going by what I have read. She may be different without a computer monitor in front of her.)

I'm sure there is a good person underneath all that ugliness in her words, but I have a forum to run. The quantity of flame wars around her--which she prompts and fosters--is impressive if your thing is flame wars. But the purpose of OL is not flame wars.

I'm not banning her, but I am no longer justifying her "sassiness." And now I will be looking more closely at her discussions with others on OL. (What she does elsewhere is not my concern.)

I want to be fair, but I will not make the same mistake in this case I made with that dude who flooded this place with plagiarism. All he did was flame war people, too, and I faced down the entire forum defending him back then. I kept saying he would change and so forth. This was online and off, even with Barbara. Then look what happened.

I think enough has run with this girl to get a taste of the discussion style we can expect from her. And nobody else on OL is doing that crap except for sporadic short-lived flare-ups.

So let's just say my "heuristic" is kicking in.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

So let's just say my "heuristic" is kicking in.

end quote

Michael, I am not butting into your administrative duties, and only you the moderator, know what is best. When my naval officer Dad was on shore duty he always had a cup labeled the “discussing shore leave cup” or “said the ‘f’ word cup”, where the office workers had to put some silver coinage if they said some dreaded thing. If I ever get kicked off OL, I would not mind a way to buy my way back on board. Or if I am sentenced to 5 posts a day I would prefer to pay the fine and be unlimited in posting. Not that I ever will need censure. Oh, oh, Ba’al is whispering, “Don’t give him any ideas! He will take away our good bunks and put us near the stairwell.”

I have thought the same as Michael about my aptly named “Czar Eva,” so to answer Brant and Bob, if was simply fun for me to concoct from a Reuter’s story, a tale with a moral (buried somewhere inside.)

After his/her/its rant about my parents Eva was placed on my “nuisance” list too. Smiling all the way to the quay, Peter.

[Jules Troy]

Does this mean I don't have to be a fissile anymore?

[Peter]

Jules Troy wrote:

Does this mean I don't have to be a fissile anymore?

end quote

As Lucy on Peanuts said, “Feel free to wander about the country. Just don’t disturb the bears, because everything doesn’t cost five cents.”

[Jules Troy]

Lol!

[anthony]

I put it down to the weather you've all been suffering.;) Cabin fever, I know something about (after ops that saved an eye).