Re: would you vote for this man?

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:05:37 MDT

  • Next message: Chuck Kuecker: "Re: delay?"

    On Monday 01 September 2003 02:30, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
    > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Samantha Atkins wrote:
    > > [big snip] If we are unable to get beyond our
    > > emotional baggage sufficiently that part of IA will be seriously limited.
    >
    > I think there are two aspects to this (a) emotional reactions; and (b)
    > experiences with a high emotional content. Basic survival mechanisms
    > would seem to place an emphasis on both -- you have to be able to respond
    > quickly (with emotion) under some circumstances; and you have to be able
    > to balance emotional experiences which may have conflicting indications
    > with respect to the promotion of survival. Dealing with (a) has to do
    > with how one manages debate -- (one can contrast the "style" of the
    > British parliment with the U.S. Senate for example). Dealing with (b)
    > has to wrestle with how one legitimately "balances" the significance
    > of various personal (self and other) experiences.
    >

    Isn't it being able to act beyond and even contrary to basic survival
    mechanism programming that is required if we are to in any sense transcend
    our evolutionariy heritage? So that they are tied to such mechanisms, if
    true which I am not convinced is the case, merely says the job is hard not
    that it is unnecessary.

    > I think (a) we may be able to refine while (b) may be much more difficult
    > to deal with -- I think this goes to the heart of why Greg said that
    > it seemed pointless to engage in political debates -- they are rooted
    > in personal experiences and you cannot simply wave a magic wand and
    > make those "disappear".
    >

    But personal experiences as such are not terribly relevant to actually
    resolving political questions rationally. Are you saying that they are so
    bound by personal experience that we cannot rationally discuss these things?
    If so then this is a strong argument for developing some intelligence other
    than humans and not believing that humans will transcend their conditioning.

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:14:23 MDT