Neuro-Cooperation TYPO

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 19 19:22:24 EST 2002


Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>YIKES! it's extermely-very-much-more than i'd, as of my prior post,
>integrated.
>
>"Altruism" is nothing less than Lof-of-Truth, taken-Pure.

should've been:

"Altruism" is nothing less than Love-of-Truth, taken-Pure.

'moving toward' Truth.

i know, i know... "What is truth?"

that which is mapped by the one-way flow of energy from order to disorder
that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T], with respect to which there
is no physical to the contrary.

our nervous systems are functional be-cause they're 'engineered' in accord
with WDB2T.

they 'blindly' and automatically 'seek' to 'climb' the energy gradient that
is WDB2T, via TD E/I-minimization.

the only problem is the 'blind'-automation, which is removed through an
understanding of how and why nervous systems process information via
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization.

there's no 'magic' in-it. the understanding, itself comes to physically
exist within nervous systems in the form of physically-real microscopic
trophic modifications ["biological mass"; AoK, Ap5] within nervous systems.

but what the understanding does seems like 'magic'.

lifts folks up above experientially-defined 'boundaries', and all the
Savagery deriving in their actually-nothing-ness.

anyway, it wasn't actually a "YIKES!". it was a "Flash!!!+++***"... just the
annotation that i use in my notes to signify recognition of this or that
'implosion' in my own understanding.

sometimes, my love (or lof :-) of play 'sneaks-up' on me.

Sorry.

k. p. collins

>
>"Altruism" =Sees= Truth, and =Acts= upon that which it Sees.
>
>'come hell or high water'
>
>the only Problem, inherent, is as is discussed below, the 'See-ing' derives
>in experience, and most-often, 'comes-up-short' at artificially-delimited
>experiential 'boundaries'.
>
>"Altruism" is =HUGELY= +* Stuff.
>
>so Survival-Foundation-al that it tends to be 'invisible'.
>
>folks 'move away from' it.
>
>making all sorts of 'excuses', in the name of this or that, but, in
>actuallity, in the name of 'moving toward' that which has become
>[merely]-familiar within their own experience.
>
>YIKES!
>
>k. p. collins
>
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>hi, John, i find, in the 'spunk' of your discourse, 'kindred' stuff. it
>>reflects what's in Abe Lincoln's comment, "I shall try to correct errors
>>when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
appear
>>to be true views... and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed
>>personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
>>
>>so, in the vein, you've opened-up (at least within me :-), i'll state,
>>plain, that evolution does =not= derive in 'survival of the fittest', but,
>>rather, in the efforts of everything that Lives to 'climb' the energy
>>gradient that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T]. the 'survival of
>>the fittest' notion is 'just' a short-shrift 'view' on the WDB2T thing.
>>
>>i go out late at night to Pray the Rosary. sometimes, it's raining, and
>like
>>your friend who rescues cats, i rescue earth worms that've strayed onto
the
>>driveway at my Father's Home.
>>
>>there's 'selfishness' in-it, 'cause i'm thinking, "Now, go, and do your
>work
>>in the soil.", and that'll help grow whatever it is that grows where the
>>rescued worms will do their work.
>>
>>but there's more to it. in taking this action, i'm 'climbing' the WDB2T
>>gradient, myself.
>>
>>"altruistic"?
>>
>>yes, in terms of the fact that i'll probably not receive any return on my
>>'investment' of energy-expended, but, in the Same-Stuff, applied in
>general,
>>surely some of the energy i expend comes-back-to-me, and surely, some of
it
>>with 'compound-interest'.
>>
>>the worth, inherent, becomes most-obvious when one studies cases in which
>>the correlated stuff is 'absent'. such usually occurs at 'boundaries'
>>that're created with respect to groups' familiar stuff.
>>
>>folks 'move away from' doing the WDB2T-correlated thing across such
>>experientially-defined 'boundaries'. the 'rationale', inherent, is
>>short-sighted. it 'senses' the energy gradient that is WDB2T as being
>>Precious, but Mis-takes such in behaviors manifested, and, thereby, moves
>>itself down on the WDB2T gradient, rather than up, be-cause, in 'moving
>away
>>from' assisting folks on the other 'side' of the experientially-defined
>>borders in =their= 'climb' of the WDB2T gradient, they induce those others
>>to 'move away from' rendering assistance in their [fisrt group] own climb
>of
>>the WDB2T gradient. when this happens, what could otherwise be, is
>>'devoured'. practically all the energy available for expenditure is wasted
>>in 'just' maintaining the status quo in which the artificial [with respect
>>to WDB2T] 'boundaries' are Erroneously 'honored' more than the stuff of
>>Life, which is the 'climbing' of the energy gradient that is WDB2T.
>>
>>that's why i save the worms.
>>
>>the =generalized= approach is the only one that works.
>>
>>Cheers, John, ken [k. p. collins]
>>
>>John H. wrote in message ...
>>>Do you really think that this bland atavistic reductionism is sufficient
>to
>>>explain the panorama of human behaviour? This is akin to believing that
>>>evolution, the most complex known process, can be seen through a cliche:
>>>survival of the fittest. Sure, evolution explains everything, I like to
>see
>>>it explain the bombardier beetle but anyway back to altruism ... .
>>>
>>>I have no idea why the evolutionary principle of self preservation
>excludes
>>>once and for all the possibility of altruism. Yes, it does suggest we act
>>>primarily for our own good and the survival of the species but why
>>>specifically does that exclude the possibility of altruism?
>>>Eg. If you prove that evolution, by simple extrapolation, can determine
>all
>>>possible human behaviours then I might be inclined to believe you . There
>>is
>>>no warrant in the argument:- evolution is about survival of the
>>>species-therefore altruism cannot exist.
>>>
>>>Evidence of altruistic behaviour is usually dismissed on the grounds of
>>>psychobabble. ie, one imputes that the person performed altruistically
for
>>>some hidden motive, some 'real' reason for their actions. That may well
be
>>>true but until such time that such hidden motives can be unequivocally
>>>demonstrated there is no argument, merely the possibility. The whole
>>>approach reminds me of that dreadful psycho history, interpreting human
>>>behaviour in terms of Freudian analysis, now its evolutionary psychology,
>>>and in between, Adler, Jung, Watson, Skinner, Maslow, Wilbur, ... . They
>>>were all wrong in their extrapolations but I am now expected to believe
>>that
>>>evolutionary psychology has got the psychobabble right. The fun part of
>>this
>>>is watching someone with their precious all-embracing theory of human
>>nature
>>>go into any number of conceptual contortions to prove their daft
argument.
>>>We see that a bit round here.
>>>
>>>My neighbour, wealthily retired, spends her time saving injured animals
>>that
>>>she knows are doomed in this neighbourhood anyway. She keeps trying to
>save
>>>other species, no group selection principle there. Evolutionary theory
>>>suggests she should spend her time caring for her grandchildren, making
>>more
>>>money to secure their future, but she wastes her time and money saving
>>>animals rather than obeying her genes. (As Pinker notes in "How the Mind
>>>Works": I decided long ago I didn't want children and if my genes don't
>>like
>>>that too bad.) She does it because she likes animals. Before I start
>>>imputing other motives to her, I just have to remember all those other
>>>models of human behaviour that claimed to be able to explain everything.
>>>(eg. you really just want to fuck your mother) Evolution is real but
there
>>>are plenty of things it still cannot explain, altruism included. Dammit
>>last
>>>I heard they were still arguing about Group or phenotype or genotype as
>the
>>>loci of selection.
>>>
>>>I have never been able to understand why so many people have helped me,
>and
>>>I can assure you they were well aware there was no kickback and I aint
got
>>>kids either nor do I contribute so where's the evolutionary argument
>there,
>>>wasting their resources on an essentially no return investment? Gee,
maybe
>>>its because people can be kind, no other reason than that. Look around,
>>>you'll see that everyday. If you can't then that's something very sad
>about
>>>your culture.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>John H.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>><johnkusch at charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ujc4m7pketf611 at corp.supernews.com...
>>>> > "Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is
>>>> > intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of
>>>> > pressures to the contrary," said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D.,
>>>> > co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory
>>>> > University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and
>>>> > Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the
>>>> > altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either
>>>> > genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during
>>>> > childhood and adolescence."
>>>>
>>>> This statement is made from the common, flawed perspective that
altruism
>>>> exists and that cooperation is not in the individual's best interest.
>>>It's
>>>> fascinating to see that, in humans, cooperation is rewarding on a
>>>> physiologic basis, but this does not prove that true altruism even
>>exists.
>>>> Survival of the species is in the interest of the individual.
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list