The Human Animal (Humans)
Many thanks to David, who continues to draw our attention to thought-provoking articles, the latest being one by Alison Gopnik on how children grow up ('In Conclusion...', 4 August at 14.57). - I've been following the thread on 'The Difference of Man' with great interest, but not having read Adler (how the heck do you folk have time to read all these books?), I didn't feel qualified to join in. However, this latest article seems to me to raise some interesting questions, and it may be that we can discuss them without having read Adler. - Alison Gopnik asks: "Where does our distinctively human intelligence come from?" She says that "comparisons across species usually underpin evolutionary arguments, yet there is only one species that does what we do." But in the very next paragraph she says: "However, the fundamental link between childhood and intelligence can be found across a striking variety of species." - I don't want to attack the article, but am interested in the inferences. The fact is that everything she tells us about the human baby is equally applicable to (other) animals, apart from our taking longer to mature than they do. She says human babies don't have to do "the work of [...] mating, fighting and fleeing, they can discover how the world works and explore the possibilities it offers." No babies, human or animal, are in a position to mate, fight and flee, and just like human babies, young animals discover how their world works by play, observation and imitation. The same accidental parallels run right through the article. Alison Gopnik simply takes it for granted that we are different. - In the Adler thread, the question has been asked whether humans are different from (other) animals by kind or by degree. I'm not sure whether this distinction really matters outside the sphere of religious dogmatism (i.e. that man is a special creation), but I would argue that it's a mixture. In terms of our behaviour, we follow the inevitable patterns of evolution: just like the animals from which we are descended, our priorities are survival, sex and reproduction, rearing our young, eating, drinking, protection against the elements and against our enemies, learning to live with one another (some members of the animal kingdom do this much more efficiently than we do), etc. All these are fundamental to their existence and ours, and in this context the distinction between human and animal is to my mind a false one. We ARE animals. There is no difference in kind between building a house and building a nest, between sending our kids to school and teaching the cubs to hunt, between eating a steak from the supermarket and munching it directly off the rump of the poor old cow. Sophistication and institutionalization don't alter the basic functions of housing, education and nutrition. - Where I think we are different in kind is in our culture, by which I mean our ability to store knowledge, to ask questions, to study our world and its history, to express ourselves through art, to examine our own behaviour, to think and use language abstractly, to master Nature through our astonishing technology, to devise and change the codes by which we live...You will no doubt have your own concepts of culture, so I needn't elaborate any further. - Our culture, though, is a product of our consciousness, reason, emotions, will, memory etc., and this is where we enter a grey area. I don't know (and would welcome other views) to what extent we can say that our faculties are different in kind from those of other animals. The degree of difference is clearly massive, but animals are capable of making decisions, solving problems, feeling emotions, taking precautions, remembering the past, helping one another etc., albeit normally within the framework of the basic activities listed above. I would say this also applies to human babies, although as they mature, their range of knowledge and activity broadens out over much wider fields to embrace our culture. - Another of Alison Gopnik's observations is: "One of the fundamental ideas of cognitive science is that our brains are in some senses like computers, created through evolution." Again this is in the context of humans, but is equally true of animals. And so I'm left wondering just how far we can and should take this idea of difference. At the back of my mind are the horrific consequences of man's sense of superiority. The principle of difference underlies some of humanity's most barbaric actions, and I'm not just talking about those directed against animals.
The Human Animal
by David Turell 
, Thursday, August 06, 2009, 15:21 (5587 days ago) @ dhw
Alison Gopnik simply takes it for granted that we are different. > > In the Adler thread, the question has been asked whether humans are different from (other) animals by kind or by degree. I'm not sure whether this distinction really matters outside the sphere of religious dogmatism (i.e. that man is a special creation), but I would argue that it's a mixture. We ARE animals. - Physiologically we are animals, but our brain is enormously different, although physiologically it functions just like animals, but with much more placicity, and enormously more functionality. > > Where I think we are different in kind is in our culture, > Our culture, though, is a product of our consciousness, reason, emotions, will, memory etc., and this is where we enter a grey area. I don't know (and would welcome other views) to what extent we can say that our faculties are different in kind from those of other animals. The degree of difference is clearly massive, but animals are capable of making decisions, solving problems, feeling emotions, taking precautions, remembering the past, helping one another etc., albeit normally within the framework of the basic activities listed above. - Everything you list implies a simple similarity. Our massive brain does things animals would never dream of. And we have a complex consciousness: we are aware that we are aware. They are aware, but do not analyze it. - > Another of Alison Gopnik's observations is: "One of the fundamental ideas of cognitive science is that our brains are in some senses like computers, created through evolution." Again this is in the context of humans, but is equally true of animals. And so I'm left wondering just how far we can and should take this idea of difference. At the back of my mind are the horrific consequences of man's sense of superiority. The principle of difference underlies some of humanity's most barbaric actions. - Just because we are as barbaric as animals in crime and war, does not mean we are not different by degree. They have to kill to eat and live. We kill for higher (The Crusades) or lower motives. Religions have not acted effectively in creating an absolute morality among humans: see the Old Testament and the Quran. But biologically that does not negate our super-computer brain. It is different. Now you know Adler in some sense.
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Thursday, August 06, 2009, 17:54 (5587 days ago) @ David Turell
Minimal brain activity compared to us: - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17556-crows-use-multitools-but-do-they-plan-ahead.html - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17557-orangutans-fashion-only-known-animal-instrument.html
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 06, 2009, 19:29 (5586 days ago) @ dhw
Alison Gopnik asks: "Where does our distinctively human intelligence come from?" She says that "comparisons across species usually underpin evolutionary arguments, yet there is only one species that does what we do." But in the very next paragraph she says: "However, the fundamental link between childhood and intelligence can be found across a striking variety of species." > > I don't want to attack the article, but am interested in the inferences. The fact is that everything she tells us about the human baby is equally applicable to (other) animals, apart from our taking longer to mature than they do. She says human babies don't have to do "the work of [...] mating, fighting and fleeing, they can discover how the world works and explore the possibilities it offers." No babies, human or animal, are in a position to mate, fight and flee, and just like human babies, young animals discover how their world works by play, observation and imitation. The same accidental parallels run right through the article. Alison Gopnik simply takes it for granted that we are different. > - The fact that you make that argument pretty much means that reading the first half of Adler's book is unnecessary for you. While setting up his argument he constantly refers back to the behavioral and evolutionary psychologists that do exactly this sort of contradictory thing. (I too, was among that group.) - Of interest is this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805144114.htm - A good chunk of the evolutionary argument is the question of "critical threshhold," above which we get human intelligence, below which, we do not. Much of this hinges on brain mass, and that article quite rapidly shows why the brain mass argument fails, as well as underlining that the Crows only solve problems when they are immediately in front of them. (Perceptual.) - To Adler, all the evidence at present suggests man is different in kind. A man without a mind wouldn't be a man. We can solve perceptual as well as purely mental problems. We can also store such problems for future solving. Few animals in the animal kingdom do anything similar. - Adler stresses throughout the book that it is not necessary to break phylogenetic continuity in order to assert a difference in kind, but that both materialists and immaterialists stress that it is so. - In my own case, I would agree that the present evidence indicates a difference in kind, but only by a hair.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by John Clinch , Friday, August 07, 2009, 12:13 (5586 days ago) @ xeno6696
Hi. - What is the Adler book you are referring to?
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Friday, August 07, 2009, 14:34 (5586 days ago) @ John Clinch
> What is the Adler book you are referring to? - The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes, argues that man is different in kind not degree.
The Human Animal
by John Clinch , Friday, August 07, 2009, 15:53 (5586 days ago) @ David Turell
I shall have to check it out. - In the same view, can I recommend "What makes us human?", a collection of really rather good essays, not all of them by scientists.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 09, 2009, 20:14 (5583 days ago) @ John Clinch
I shall have to check it out. > > In the same view, can I recommend "What makes us human?", a collection of really rather good essays, not all of them by scientists. - The book might seem anticlimactic... the first 2/3 sets up Adler's argument that the *present evidence* indicates man is radically different in kind, but the premises are deceptively simple. Because man has a propositional language that cannot be described by a material faculty alone is what it boils down to. His argument here is seated in the metaphysics of knowledge and the example he gives is pretty damn iron-clad in terms of the immaterial part of humanity. (The mind.) - But to someone who wasn't fully materialistic it didn't shake my foundations as much as I was expecting it to. I found I agreed much more often than disagreed, and disagreements were typically resolved in the subsequent chapter as he has a very rigid argumentative format. Some people might like that, but of course I'm used to German philosophy, heh.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 09, 2009, 20:07 (5583 days ago) @ John Clinch
Hi. > > What is the Adler book you are referring to? - Sorry for the delay, it's "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes." His argument about man's difference is sound, his conclusions on the implications of man is different only in degree, are pretty easy to attack, however as it is purely Thomistic/Aristotelian in nature, meaning that the implications only hurt someone who takes THAT position.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
By coincidence, David and Matt have referred us to different articles that cover the same experiment with crows. Four out of seven Caledonian crows succeeded in using three tools in the correct sequence to obtain food (one account mentions that a fifth succeeded later). The discrepancies between the two accounts should make us just as wary of scientific journals as we are of newspaper reports. - According to NewScientist, the birds had previously practised one part of the sequence, but according to ScienceDaily, "pre-training on each element in the sequence was not required for successful sequential tool use." According to NewScientist the four successful crows "varied in the amount of attempts they took to complete the task", whereas according to ScienceDaily, four were successful in their very first trial. There may be gaps in these reports that account for the discrepancies, but they certainly lead to different weighting of the facts. - Regardless of the discrepancies, I'd like to raise another point. ScienceDaily goes on to report: "Painstaking analysis of tool choice, tool swapping and improvement over time allowed the team to conclude that successful crows did not probe for tools at random." However, with regard to the question whether crows plan ahead, NewScientist says the experiments "cast doubt on that conclusion", and one of the researchers says: "The fact that an animal is statistically better than random should not be confused with the animal being perfect." I don't know what "perfection" has to do with it, but the same cautionary note is sounded in ScienceDaily: the team "could find no firm evidence to support previous claims that sequential tool use demonstrates analogical reasoning or human-like planning." - No-one is suggesting that crows are as intelligent as human beings, but I can't see how one can escape the conclusion that these birds have the ability to work out a problem which entails reasoning and planning. Clearly four of the crows were more intelligent than the other three ... but you'll get similar variations if you test the intelligence of human beings. I wonder what was the point of the experiment in the first place, if the researchers are not prepared to accept the results as proof of what they were testing. But I also wonder why it is that even today humans are often reluctant to acknowledge the fact that we share so many features with other animals. If we accept physiological evolution, why can't we accept similar lines of descent in other areas? Since the name Adler is now prominent in our forum, perhaps we should switch from Mortimer to Alfred: could it be that we need to assert our superiority in this way because of some almighty inferiority complex? Or is it a hangover from religion?
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 09, 2009, 20:22 (5583 days ago) @ dhw
Regardless of the discrepancies, I'd like to raise another point. ScienceDaily goes on to report: "Painstaking analysis of tool choice, tool swapping and improvement over time allowed the team to conclude that successful crows did not probe for tools at random." However, with regard to the question whether crows plan ahead, NewScientist says the experiments "cast doubt on that conclusion", and one of the researchers says: "The fact that an animal is statistically better than random should not be confused with the animal being perfect." I don't know what "perfection" has to do with it, but the same cautionary note is sounded in ScienceDaily: the team "could find no firm evidence to support previous claims that sequential tool use demonstrates analogical reasoning or human-like planning." > - Sciencedaily is reported by journalists who may not have the technical knowledge to make the same claims as New Scientist. (I think that one is like SciAm where the articles are written by scientists.) I'd err towards that one. - - > No-one is suggesting that crows are as intelligent as human beings, but I can't see how one can escape the conclusion that these birds have the ability to work out a problem which entails reasoning and planning. Clearly four of the crows were more intelligent than the other three ... but you'll get similar variations if you test the intelligence of human beings. I wonder what was the point of the experiment in the first place, if the researchers are not prepared to accept the results as proof of what they were testing. But I also wonder why it is that even today humans are often reluctant to acknowledge the fact that we share so many features with other animals. If we accept physiological evolution, why can't we accept similar lines of descent in other areas? Since the name Adler is now prominent in our forum, perhaps we should switch from Mortimer to Alfred: could it be that we need to assert our superiority in this way because of some almighty inferiority complex? Or is it a hangover from religion? - The difference that Adler cites as crucial is that to explain human thought we *must* resort to an immaterial power to explain what we do, but we don't need to do that for other animals. I'm still grappling with the latter argument, as bears and crows seem to have impressive problem-solving abilities, but lacking a propositional language there is no evidence to suggest anything beyond perceptual intelligence. Some animals have rudiments of cultures for example, but none anywhere close to man. His argument is deceptively simple. This doesn't break us away from nature in lineage, only in capability. - Alfred, as in Whitehead?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
I wrote: "If we accept physiological evolution, why can't we accept similar lines of descent in other areas? Since the name Adler is now prominent in our forum, perhaps we should switch from Mortimer to Alfred: could it be that we need to assert our superiority in this way because of some almighty inferiority complex? Or is it a hangover from religion?" - Matt asks: "Alfred, as in Whitehead?" - Sorry, I was trying to be clever. Mortimer Adler wrote The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes, and Alfred Adler developed the concept of the inferiority complex.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 10, 2009, 13:04 (5583 days ago) @ dhw
I wrote: "If we accept physiological evolution, why can't we accept similar lines of descent in other areas? Since the name Adler is now prominent in our forum, perhaps we should switch from Mortimer to Alfred: could it be that we need to assert our superiority in this way because of some almighty inferiority complex? Or is it a hangover from religion?" > > Matt asks: "Alfred, as in Whitehead?" > > Sorry, I was trying to be clever. Mortimer Adler wrote The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes, and Alfred Adler developed the concept of the inferiority complex. - Oh no problem at all, that's a new name to me. I got caught up in Emerson the past few days but I'm interested in quite a bit of early psychology. I'll add him to my list. - Looking at what your wrote again, Mortimer Adler as a pretty strict-seeming Aristotelian/Thomist thinker, a "hangover from religion" is precisely what I think is going on for many people. To me, the thinking that man is different in kind prods no special consideration vs. if man is greater only in degree. Adler takes the "slippery slope" that if we differ only in degree then we cannot condemn the acts of the Nazis in principle. The second side of N's nihilism is based on religion. Asserting that "everything means nothing" because you remove god from the equation is exactly that, and it is exactly this argument I see coming from Catholicism, and M. Adler, only this time its in removing man's "special place" in the hierarchy of things.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt: Adler takes the "slippery slope" that if we differ only in degree [from animals] then we cannot condemn the acts of the Nazis in principle. - I haven't read Adler's book, so I can only discuss the issues as you put them. - I don't know of any other social animal that systematically sets about slaughtering, enslaving, or experimenting on members of its own species (humankind), let alone of its own group (German Jews). When animals kill their own kind, it's usually through a challenge from within or from outside the group. It's true that they sometimes kill weaker or defective members, but this is a natural way of assisting the survival of the species. Even slavemaking ants act strictly in accordance with what is necessary for their survival. I would argue that our own social codes are extensions of those that govern animal societies, and are devised for the wellbeing of the species (more complex than survival, but still related to it). The Nazis ... and alas many other groups of humans before and since ... violated those codes, and the only grounds for not condemning their actions would be the absurd claim that Jews and other non-Aryans were not members of the human species. - One can, however, invert the argument and say that since man is the only animal capable of killing etc. for ideological reasons, that makes him different in kind rather than degree. It is, as you say, a slippery slope, and like yourself I can't say I'm particularly bothered either way. - As regards your second point, the argument that if we remove God (or man's special place) from the equation, then "everything means nothing" has always seemed depressingly lugubrious to me. Of course we know that all our experiences are transient, but that doesn't mean that the present is meaningless. I would rather be happy/pain-free/laughing at this moment than miserable/in agony/weeping. Multiply that by a lifetime, and you have a lifetime of meaning. Multiply that by the number of people whose moments you can change from tears to laughter, and you have another collection of meanings. Why does meaning have to depend on eternity, on an unknown outside force, or on a special place? - I think you and I may have found some common ground here!
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 13:28 (5582 days ago) @ dhw
As regards your second point, the argument that if we remove God (or man's special place) from the equation, then "everything means nothing" has always seemed depressingly lugubrious to me. Of course we know that all our experiences are transient, but that doesn't mean that the present is meaningless. I would rather be happy/pain-free/laughing at this moment than miserable/in agony/weeping. Multiply that by a lifetime, and you have a lifetime of meaning. Multiply that by the number of people whose moments you can change from tears to laughter, and you have another collection of meanings. Why does meaning have to depend on eternity, on an unknown outside force, or on a special place? > > I think you and I may have found some common ground here! - You, me, and Nietzsche... see, you understood him after all!
- Two paths to nihilism, both lead to destruction.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 13:51 (5582 days ago) @ dhw
Of course we know that all our experiences are transient, but that doesn't mean that the present is meaningless. I would rather be happy/pain-free/laughing at this moment than miserable/in agony/weeping. Multiply that by a lifetime, and you have a lifetime of meaning. Multiply that by the number of people whose moments you can change from tears to laughter, and you have another collection of meanings. Why does meaning have to depend on eternity, on an unknown outside force, or on a special place? > > I think you and I may have found some common ground here! - Sounds like you may not have read Adler, and I think you should, but that you have read Viktor Frankl.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 13:18 (5581 days ago) @ David Turell
Dr. Turell, - > Of course we know that all our experiences are transient, but that doesn't mean that the present is meaningless. I would rather be happy/pain-free/laughing at this moment than miserable/in agony/weeping. Multiply that by a lifetime, and you have a lifetime of meaning. Multiply that by the number of people whose moments you can change from tears to laughter, and you have another collection of meanings. Why does meaning have to depend on eternity, on an unknown outside force, or on a special place? > > > > I think you and I may have found some common ground here! > > Sounds like you may not have read Adler, and I think you should, but that you have read Viktor Frankl. - That little bit of conversation between dhw and I arises from the last 3-4 chapters in Adler's book where he discusses what he sees as the "difference it makes" in whether or not humans are different by degree or kind. Adler argument is pretty much in line with current Catholic views that if man differs by degree than we can't morally condemn Nazism. N's view (and my own) states exactly what you say above, that removing man from his "special place" doesn't change at all how we assign meaning or uphold our laws. Adler may not have been Catholic at that time, but his Thomist bend *definitely* was peeking through the last half of that book. You get the distinct impression that Adler thinks all of western civilization relies on man being different in kind--thus recreating N's second form of nihilism. - There's a punk band I like whose singer immigrated to the US after being kicked out of Ukraine for being a Gypsy. One resonant line: "There were never any good old days, they are today, they are tomorrow..."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt and I are in agreement that removing man from his special place "doesn't change at all how we assign meaning or uphold our laws." And the punk singer's line is great! - I had a very long discussion with Mark (a reverend) some months ago, and he seemed ... presumably like Adler ... to believe that without God humans were incapable of living good moral lives, since they would then believe in a free-for-all. I hope that's a fair summary. There is no-one at the moment on this forum who will defend that point of view (that's an open invitation to anyone out there), but it might be worth asking ourselves exactly where we do get our moral sense from. On the assumption that none of us are murderers, rapists, child abusers, thieves etc., why is it that - disregarding the obvious social constraints - even if we don't believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing god or gods, we still genuinely care about our fellow creatures and do not always simply put our own interests before those of others? - Just in case anyone thinks this is proof that humans are "special", let me sing a hymn of praise - no punk band backing I'm afraid - to ants, which knock us sideways when it comes to altruism. - A message to David: I'm afraid I haven't read Victor Frankl. But I don't think there is anything original in my belief that meaningfulness does not depend on eternity, God, or a special place in the universe. - And a message to Matt: I'm sure I'm not the only one anxious to know how your exams went. I will type better if I can uncross my fingers.
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 18:34 (5581 days ago) @ dhw
> Just in case anyone thinks this is proof that humans are "special", let me sing a hymn of praise - no punk band backing I'm afraid - to ants, which knock us sideways when it comes to altruism. - You are now springing Edward O. Wilson on us. His 'right' or 'permission' to have us accept his comments "on human nature" (his book, 1978) cannot be granted on my part because he studies ants and ant societal relationships. Ants are purely instinct. Wilson blames our altruism on religiosity, that dangerous aspect of our thinking, whereas Robert Wright in "Non-Zero" (2000) feels it is our growing intellect, consciousness, and sense of cooperative socialization while we have freedom of choice, and can learn from bad choices. I'm on Wright's side. - > And a message to Matt: I'm sure I'm not the only one anxious to know how your exams went. I will type better if I can uncross my fingers. - My toes are crossed while seated, so I can type. But if I remember, the scores come out several weeks after the test. I suppose they are still curving the test and giving percentage scores.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 13, 2009, 15:05 (5580 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Just in case anyone thinks this is proof that humans are "special", let me sing a hymn of praise - no punk band backing I'm afraid - to ants, which knock us sideways when it comes to altruism. > > You are now springing Edward O. Wilson on us. His 'right' or 'permission' to have us accept his comments "on human nature" (his book, 1978) cannot be granted on my part because he studies ants and ant societal relationships. Ants are purely instinct. Wilson blames our altruism on religiosity, that dangerous aspect of our thinking, whereas Robert Wright in "Non-Zero" (2000) feels it is our growing intellect, consciousness, and sense of cooperative socialization while we have freedom of choice, and can learn from bad choices. I'm on Wright's side. > - I'm on the fence here. (Agnostics HO!) In all seriousness, N's comments regarding ideas coming when *they* will create a very difficult scenario for a penultimate free will. I found out that I wasn't borrowing too much with the words "Who, or what is doing the willing?" N wasn't nearly that direct in the passage, but that question still remains. How do you claim free will when you don't control your thoughts? When I finished my stint with Buddhism, I was no better at *controlling* thought, only focusing my mind--but you still get errant thoughts no matter how hard you try to stick to one topic. - > > > And a message to Matt: I'm sure I'm not the only one anxious to know how your exams went. I will type better if I can uncross my fingers. > > My toes are crossed while seated, so I can type. But if I remember, the scores come out several weeks after the test. I suppose they are still curving the test and giving percentage scores. - If you read what I posted to dhw, you will see that I didn't do so well. I know it was nerves however--I wasn't nervous at the time, but I never "feel" nervousness, it only comes out in my work. There all computer adaptive, and with a score as low as what I got on the quant (480) that means the questions I missed were towards the beginning--the first 10 questions have a huge effect on your score, which is wrong, but its how the game is played now. However, if I can boost the GPA a tenth of a point I could waive the GRE requirement. - I don't see that as fully viable. In about 3 weeks I start a second internship, leaving my primary job at the hospital. Getting a job when I graduate is paramount... my wife will be student teaching beginning this January, and I can plan all I want--but I'm living in the now and I need to make one of these two internships convert. (Preferably both, I would like a bidding war.) My current internship is at a hospital under construction, Bellevue Medical Center. The second is (hopefully) Mutual of Omaha, a company who made the surprising decision to sell their health insurance unit last year. I'm intrigued by this...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Thursday, August 13, 2009, 16:08 (5580 days ago) @ xeno6696
How do you claim free will when you don't control your thoughts? When I finished my stint with Buddhism, I was no better at *controlling* thought, only focusing my mind--but you still get errant thoughts no matter how hard you try to stick to one topic. - I'm interested in your self-proclaimed lack of mind control. I think it is a matter of practice. If I am sleepy I can wander a bit, but when I am rested and interested in a subject, I can really concentrate, just as in testing. Everyone is different. I'm convinced my will is absolutely free. What is not free is my concern for others in society, or for my wife. > The second is (hopefully) Mutual of Omaha, a company who made the surprising decision to sell their health insurance unit last year. I'm intrigued by this... - They may have decided to beat Obama to the punch and get out before the storm. A goverment insurance program will be very expensive to the country, and when tested in court under the 14th Amendment, 1st section, the Equal Protection Clause, everyone will have to be covered equally: huge expense, huge rationing, probably coverage of illegal aliens (given liberal federal judges, etc.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 13, 2009, 17:02 (5580 days ago) @ David Turell
How do you claim free will when you don't control your thoughts? When I finished my stint with Buddhism, I was no better at *controlling* thought, only focusing my mind--but you still get errant thoughts no matter how hard you try to stick to one topic. > > I'm interested in your self-proclaimed lack of mind control. I think it is a matter of practice. If I am sleepy I can wander a bit, but when I am rested and interested in a subject, I can really concentrate, just as in testing. Everyone is different. I'm convinced my will is absolutely free. What is not free is my concern for others in society, or for my wife. > - What I'm trying to say is that it isn't as clear cut as you're saying it is. We *CAN* make decisions in the present moment, however the ideas that influence those decisions aren't all *willed.* When you couple this with Libet's experiments that show that our brains seem to make decisions before we're consciously aware of making them, the case for a penultimate free will isn't on as firm of a ground as one would like. (Google Benjamin Libet's experiments.) His experiments were in the context of movement, but the questions it raises about free will make the certainty of free will much less settled, in my mind. - Here, I remember dhw saying he was interested about how many writers don't seem to know what their characters were going to do in advance, they just "push them along." I think this might be what he's talking about. The idea of what to do next just "comes." They don't forcefully *will* what happens next. Even myself, when I write I build a psych profile for a character, and I let the characters move within that "box" as it were. - > > The second is (hopefully) Mutual of Omaha, a company who made the surprising decision to sell their health insurance unit last year. I'm intrigued by this... > > They may have decided to beat Obama to the punch and get out before the storm. A goverment insurance program will be very expensive to the country, and when tested in court under the 14th Amendment, 1st section, the Equal Protection Clause, everyone will have to be covered equally: huge expense, huge rationing, probably coverage of illegal aliens (given liberal federal judges, etc. - That is actually what I was considering. A company with that kind of foresight is a damn good company to work for. Part of my desire for a Master's in CS is so I reach "international" standing. (Master's will get you a job in any country.) If things continue to financially deteriorate in the U.S. I'll move to Switzerland. (Or somewhere else, in general.) - And now you know why I favor kings over democracy--everyone in my generation and in the one just before me feels entitled to health care. They don't see it as a privelege--and it IS a privelege. Someone always pays the doctor *somehow.* In a democracy--even in ours--if the plebs want something they can vote it for themselves. How is this any different than a tyrant? You and other people I work with seem to think that it is our leaders pushing this stuff, but it is the people who elected the leaders. A good king would be able to quell this nonsense by refusing to make the law. - Every great empire falls. If our people (and the leaders) read more history, the USA might have had a chance. I don't think it does--and I pride myself on my long-term outlook. There's alot of wrong in our government but the only way to change the constitution now would be a convention, and I do not see 3/4 of the states agreeing to get together for a congenial rewrite. Democracies just can't work at problems when they're the size of ours. - Sorry if I seem pessimistic. I do my best to influence my friends on my views here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't drown him.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Thursday, August 13, 2009, 19:38 (5579 days ago) @ xeno6696
When you couple this with Libet's experiments that show that our brains seem to make decisions before we're consciously aware of making them, the case for a penultimate free will isn't on as firm of a ground as one would like. (Google Benjamin Libet's experiments.) His experiments were in the context of movement, but the questions it raises about free will make the certainty of free will much less settled, in my mind. - I'm aware of his studies. Our proprioceptive sense of body movement and position will give us understanding of our movements, but everything takes time. I decide to move instantaneously before the movement itself. Granted our axons carry the electric impulse like an electric wire. Now the impusles coming back tell me I have moved the arm, even if I am not looking at it.I consciously moved that arm even if there are very tiny time lags. I play the piano and fingers move as I read notes. I did this as a kid. I read notes and the fingers played. As far as I am concerned it is all free will. Conscious thought and recognition of movement take time. I think you are misinterpreting his work. And you say it yourself: 'our brains seem to make decisions before we are consciously aware'. Electricity is at the speed of light.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 13, 2009, 21:21 (5579 days ago) @ David Turell
When you couple this with Libet's experiments that show that our brains seem to make decisions before we're consciously aware of making them, the case for a penultimate free will isn't on as firm of a ground as one would like. (Google Benjamin Libet's experiments.) His experiments were in the context of movement, but the questions it raises about free will make the certainty of free will much less settled, in my mind. > > I'm aware of his studies. Our proprioceptive sense of body movement and position will give us understanding of our movements, but everything takes time. I decide to move instantaneously before the movement itself. Granted our axons carry the electric impulse like an electric wire. Now the impusles coming back tell me I have moved the arm, even if I am not looking at it.I consciously moved that arm even if there are very tiny time lags. I play the piano and fingers move as I read notes. I did this as a kid. I read notes and the fingers played. As far as I am concerned it is all free will. Conscious thought and recognition of movement take time. I think you are misinterpreting his work. > And you say it yourself: 'our brains seem to make decisions before we are consciously aware'. Electricity is at the speed of light. - But that's what Libet's experiments show. To me, free will would have to be *instantaneous.* We perceive it as instant, but it isn't. A delay of 1.0s for the distances the electrical pulse has to travel is akin to being able to freeze light in place. So either thought doesn't actually move at light speed, or there's processing going on that we're unaware of. These unconscious properties are obviously *part of* free will or they wouldn't be invoked in the first place. Free will requires consciousness, if part of free will is unconscious than we only have qualified free will and not penultimate free will. Especially if Jung was right and a great deal of our drives are hidden in the unconscious mind, we may well have processes that push us along and we simply *think* its free will. Those unbidden thoughts to me are a clue of deeper processes that cloud the water and make the idea of "free will" much less black and white and more gray. You can concentrate all you want, but unless you've spent alot of time noticing that concentration is never perfect you'll miss my point. - Here's an intro Buddhist exercise: Take a moment, sit in a comfortable position, sit perfectly still, and let go. When you notice yourself thinking, mentally say "that's a thought." Don't try to fight it, just let it move to completion, if it helps think of how a mountain works. Clouds (thoughts) pass by but the mountain does nothing, just sits there. - When you do this you should notice incredibly quickly at how much your brain babbles... and none of it is coming from a conscious thought. When I do it I'll suddenly catch my eyes moving towards the window. That's a thought. Then I notice my brain humming a tune. That's a thought. My brain wanders to my Mexico Vacation in 2 days. That's a thought. - How is this free will? I'm not asking any of these thoughts to surface, yet they are. This is a very strong challenge to the notion that we're *completely* capable of free will.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2009, 00:14 (5579 days ago) @ xeno6696
To me, free will would have to be *instantaneous.* We perceive it as instant, but it isn't. A delay of 1.0s for the distances the electrical pulse has to travel is akin to being able to freeze light in place. So either thought doesn't actually move at light speed, or there's processing going on that we're unaware of. These unconscious properties are obviously *part of* free will or they wouldn't be invoked in the first place. Free will requires consciousness, if part of free will is unconscious than we only have qualified free will. - I don't know how you define 'free will' at this point of our discussion. My brain is mine. My subconscious, unconscious and consciousness are all mine. There is no other power that can intrude and run my thoughts. I developed my subconscious and unconscious, no other power did. I may believe there is a universal consciousness, but I alone control all levels of my brain. - I decide to start a car. I turn the key, put pressure on the pedal and the engine turns over. It takes a little time. I know there is a gap of 0.2-0.5 seconds when I start an activity. I don't think it is any different and I've now (Google) seen discussions that agree with me. You philosopher guys get all screwed up with too much thinking.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, August 14, 2009, 05:18 (5579 days ago) @ David Turell
To me, free will would have to be *instantaneous.* We perceive it as instant, but it isn't. A delay of 1.0s for the distances the electrical pulse has to travel is akin to being able to freeze light in place. So either thought doesn't actually move at light speed, or there's processing going on that we're unaware of. These unconscious properties are obviously *part of* free will or they wouldn't be invoked in the first place. Free will requires consciousness, if part of free will is unconscious than we only have qualified free will. > > > I don't know how you define 'free will' at this point of our discussion. My brain is mine. My subconscious, unconscious and consciousness are all mine. There is no other power that can intrude and run my thoughts. I developed my subconscious and unconscious, no other power did. I may believe there is a universal consciousness, but I alone control all levels of my brain. > - Really. You control your thinking at all times? You don't have errant thoughts that break in and intrude when you are thinking about something else? When you sleep and you dream, you control that as well? You make some strong claims here. Lucid dreaming is of course possible, but not for most. - > I decide to start a car. I turn the key, put pressure on the pedal and the engine turns over. It takes a little time. I know there is a gap of 0.2-0.5 seconds when I start an activity. I don't think it is any different and I've now (Google) seen discussions that agree with me. You philosopher guys get all screwed up with too much thinking.
- Heh. I like that last part. I think you're still thinking too black and white here. Yes you can do all of these things. But While you're driving, random, unwilled thoughts cross your mind. You may dismiss them, but that's not what I'm driving at. The fact that thoughts come unwilled definitely suggest that free will isn't absolute. It's an observation that's long mystified me. - Then take myself. When I was 16 I wanted to be a computer programmer. I thought I couldn't do the math. I tried to avoid it and now I'm where I should have been at 14 years ago... what role to you does the subconscious play, if you're so certain of free will?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2009, 17:19 (5579 days ago) @ xeno6696
You don't have errant thoughts that break in and intrude when you are thinking about something else? When you sleep and you dream, you control that as well? You make some strong claims here. Lucid dreaming is of course possible, but not for most. - I admit that I do lots of weird dreaming, and I can identifiy some that come from a troubling undercurrect. My first wife died of an incurable cancer. She and I were quite young for this to happen. I decided to live my life after she was gone, actively. I did just that, remarrying. The dreams were of the first wife, still alive, but sick and I abandoned her. They lasted 4-5 years, on and off, and disappeared. Perfectly understandable, especially since my adult kids were bugging me. I did not control the dreams, but as I came to peace with MY decisions, they left. Did thoughts about my first wife pop up? Of course. I still occasionally call my wife by my first wife's name. Just my subconscious at work. - Lucid dreaming? No I can't but Richard Feynman could recognize his dreams and direct them. The fact that dreams can be controlled by some people dilutes your argument about free will. - > The fact that thoughts come unwilled definitely suggest that free will isn't absolute. It's an observation that's long mystified me. - My wife tells me that her brain is constantly going. She is a brilliant lady, very organized, very research oriented: She has a huge loose-leaf book on how we should improve and add to our horse pastures in our forest. I'm just the opposite. I do organize stuff in folders, but as I wrote each of my two books, the outlines for each chapter were in my head, and I had to search for the reference material in a folder when I needed to quote. I'm simply saying that each individual brain works as the individual developed it. Brains are plastic. Part of my IQ is that I was an only child with a brilliant Mother at home until age 4. My brother arrived, but he did not command her attention until I was 9, and he began to upset her. My brain wanders around as we all do, but I don't find myself in a chattering of different ideas and thoughts. I can stay very focused and concentrated, so much so, at this age (80) I can lose my reading glasses very easily. > Then take myself. When I was 16 I wanted to be a computer programmer. I thought I couldn't do the math. I tried to avoid it and now I'm where I should have been at 14 years ago... what role to you does the subconscious play, if you're so certain of free will? - Here you are talking about ego-defense mechanisms. We all have them. At age 14 lots of fears and doubts, and a frontal lobe that is not prepared for absolute decision making and security in one's decisions. I've had a background in psychology, psychiatry, etc. in my training for medicine. I read books on Transactional Analysis, an approach I favor. If you don't know this approach to therapy, Google it. We are all Parent, Adult, Child. We all play games. I've used this approach in practice, and now, everyday life. I still surprise my wife with my analysis of problem people we know. Helps me handle them better. - In summary: My brain is MY brain. I've made my conscious personality. My subconscious still harbors some ego-defense mechanisms. I know most of them. And my unconscious is not as bothersome as it was years ago. But I created it as I grew my personality. There is no outside force that makes unwanted supernatural intrusions. My reactions to people and events creates intrusions. We have free will, and we are free to change ego defense mechanisms that get in our way. I could not have counselled patients into better health if that were not so.
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Friday, August 14, 2009, 01:19 (5579 days ago) @ xeno6696
And now you know why I favor kings over democracy--everyone in my generation and in the one just before me feels entitled to health care. They don't see it as a privelege--and it IS a privelege. Someone always pays the doctor *somehow.* In a democracy--even in ours--if the plebs want something they can vote it for themselves. > Every great empire falls. - You are simply describing the fall of Athens as a democracy. It took less than 100 years to deplete the treasury. We are sure on the way.
The Human Animal
David: Ants are purely instinct. [Edward O.] Wilson blames our altruism on religiosity [...] whereas Robert Wright in "Non-Zero" (2000) feels it is our growing intellect, consciousness, and sense of cooperative socialization while we have freedom of choice, and can learn from bad choices. I'm on Wright's side. - Sorry, but I haven't read Edward O. Wilson either (incidentally, why "blame"?). If Wright thinks our altruism is due to our growing intellect etc., how does he explain our non-altruism? Does he think that immoral people have diminishing intellect and consciousness (the social bit is self-evident)? Going back to Matt's example of the Nazis, we have to explain man's inhumanity as well as his humanity. - Here is a nice anecdote for you. A week or so ago, my wife went to the cash machine, and found £150 sticking out of the slot (plus an account slip). She took it straight into the bank. The receptionist thanked her and said that a lot of people would have simply pocketed the cash. I can assure you that my wife's action had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with her visualization of someone in distress. This came to her instinctively, as it would to me in those circumstances. But I'm sure the bank clerk was right ... many people would just think it was their lucky day. Of course you might dismiss this as simply an indication that my wife is a very nice person (which she is), but I would link it to my earlier question, which I will now modify: why do some people care about their fellow creatures, even sometimes acting against self-interest, while others don't? Clearly it was in my wife's self-interest to think well of herself, but why would she have felt bad if she hadn't handed the money in? I agree with David in dismissing "religiosity" as an argument, but as indicated above, I don't think Wright's argument holds water either. Matt suggests that it is "intuitive", but again if it is not intuitive to everyone, it can't be integral to our humanity. And there are plenty of cases where even people from the same family have different moral attitudes, so it's not just a question of upbringing either. - Epilogue: I went into the bank earlier this week. They had traced the customer through the slip and had phoned him. He was, needless, to say, extremely grateful! - Matt, I'm sorry to hear about the exam, and hope the time spent on AgnosticWeb didn't affect your performance. For decades I had to train university students for their final exams, and I did so by making them do loads of tests, written and oral. I disapprove totally of one-off exams, but if those are the rules, you have to play the game accordingly. And so you are right: practice, practice, practice.
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Saturday, August 15, 2009, 01:48 (5578 days ago) @ dhw
I would link it to my earlier question, which I will now modify: why do some people care about their fellow creatures, even sometimes acting against self-interest, while others don't? - > again if it is not intuitive to everyone, it can't be integral to our humanity. And there are plenty of cases where even people from the same family have different moral attitudes, so it's not just a question of upbringing either. - Think about this. Either we are designed or we are the result of contingent chances. In either case evil appeared. On one side we can blame God, and study theodicy, looking for excuses; on the other side evolution brought the evil. So why are the newly arrived neo-atheists saying we must blame religion for most of the evil in the world, as one religion fights with another. If evil is here either way, it is due to freedom of choice, and some folks feel free and unconstrained and are evil and perform evil events. We can blame religion or evolution equally.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 23, 2009, 06:57 (5570 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > > Matt, I'm sorry to hear about the exam, and hope the time spent on AgnosticWeb didn't affect your performance. For decades I had to train university students for their final exams, and I did so by making them do loads of tests, written and oral. I disapprove totally of one-off exams, but if those are the rules, you have to play the game accordingly. And so you are right: practice, practice, practice. - No, the site was welcome respite that helped me rejuvenate my mind... I've learned I learn best in bursts. (Trivial fact: Also how your ethernet works--large bursts.) I get good grades when I juggle. As soon as my mind tires of one subject I berate it with another. What killed me more than anything for that test was cramming for 3 weeks on a single subject. I can force myself to concentrate but I know how my mind works; my greatest thoughts more often come when I'm not thinking about what it is I'm "supposed" to think about. - I went to a seminar from a visiting Ed D. from Louisiana State University last year, and interestingly they teach their students the same essential technique I described. They say to block study time in blocks of 30min, 15min rest, switch to a second subject, repeat and then get a good night's sleep. More importantly, I know how I learn. - Glad to be back...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 13, 2009, 00:34 (5580 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, - > > I had a very long discussion with Mark (a reverend) some months ago, and he seemed ... presumably like Adler ... to believe that without God humans were incapable of living good moral lives, since they would then believe in a free-for-all. I hope that's a fair summary. There is no-one at the moment on this forum who will defend that point of view (that's an open invitation to anyone out there), but it might be worth asking ourselves exactly where we do get our moral sense from. On the assumption that none of us are murderers, rapists, child abusers, thieves etc., why is it that - disregarding the obvious social constraints - even if we don't believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing god or gods, we still genuinely care about our fellow creatures and do not always simply put our own interests before those of others? > - Morality is one of my favorite philosophical topics. Though proponents of "tabula rasa" will completely disagree with me here, man most certainly encapsulates a moral instinct. I--consider myself a particular case in this. I did not have a very strong religious upbringing at all, I think my mother made me go to church for about a year when I was... 8. She tried again for a few months when I was 13 but by that point I was introduced to George Carlin and that was that. But from the time I was about 11 on, I was on my own. (Single-parent family.) - There was a physicist I think that wrote a scathing attack on psychology, stating that if physics disappeared, so too would all knowledge about how to build all the trappings of civilization, however if psychology disappeared, people would still know how to deal with people. Groundbreaking discoveries, are not to be had in psychology, he argues. His idea is extreme, but salient... - The best moral instinct argument I've ever thought of lies in serial killers. They fit in so well with society because they deliberately find and follow all of the rules--like a robot. They don't "feel" what's right and wrong they "know" what's right and wrong purely by logic and what is given by society. When you think about "tabula rasa" that is precisely what I think would happen if we simply learned to "do what we see and/or told." Tabula rasa does not explain why when I think of cheating on a test, I feel bad. "Because I should feel bad" does not explain that. Morality is too intuitive NOT to be a part of man. - > Just in case anyone thinks this is proof that humans are "special", let me sing a hymn of praise - no punk band backing I'm afraid - to ants, which knock us sideways when it comes to altruism. > > A message to David: I'm afraid I haven't read Victor Frankl. But I don't think there is anything original in my belief that meaningfulness does not depend on eternity, God, or a special place in the universe. > > And a message to Matt: I'm sure I'm not the only one anxious to know how your exams went. I will type better if I can uncross my fingers. - Heh. Been avoiding that one. I'm afraid that my initial assessment was right... I should have spent the *entire* summer studying, yet that's hard to do when I'm also taking 3 classes. I underestimated it completely. I didn't think I performed so badly when actually taking the test however. - I got a 590 on the Verbal, (between 81-85%ile) but an absolutely dismal 480 on the quantitative. (English majors average higher than that.) My assessment is that I simply lost my nerve. I would test 590 on the verbal portion in the practice tests, 620 on the math portion. There's no reason that the scores should diverge so wildly. I didn't take it seriously enough until the last 3 weeks. - So I'm slated to retake it save for one thing. My GPA is almost high enough to waive the test entirely. I'll have to swing an A in every class from here until May to move from 3.4 to 3.5, so I'm wary. To be safe, I'll study GRE math problems every saturday and sunday morning each week, then if I need to retake it I'll do it next summer after I've graduated. I need to approach it like I did martial arts... practice, practice, practice.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, August 29, 2009, 16:09 (5564 days ago) @ dhw
I'm wondering if this would be the right thread for a discussion on the health service issues which are being debated in the US at present. I would be particularly interested in Dr Turell's views on this. The British National Health Service (NHS) is being drawn into the argument, and often being misrepresented for propaganda purposes. I've always been a great supporter of the NHS, and consider it one of our great achievements. The situation in the US in which millions of people who cannot afford insurance just have to hope never to fall ill seems awful.
--
GPJ
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, August 29, 2009, 16:39 (5564 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George, > I'm wondering if this would be the right thread for a discussion on the health service issues which are being debated in the US at present. I would be particularly interested in Dr Turell's views on this. The British National Health Service (NHS) is being drawn into the argument, and often being misrepresented for propaganda purposes. I've always been a great supporter of the NHS, and consider it one of our great achievements. The situation in the US in which millions of people who cannot afford insurance just have to hope never to fall ill seems awful. - Having worked in a hospital for nearly 5 years I can give you a bit of perspective on the current system. Anyone who walks in must be treated--by law. There is no escaping this. The only exception to that are private docs who have their own practices--they can refuse whomever they wish on their own time and in their own practices, though I think that's a very rare occurrence indeed. - Really, the only debate is on the cost of health services, which has risen much faster than inflation over the last 30 years. The no-insurance fear propagated by US media (and our president) is irrational because I watch every day as people are dismissed from their bills, say from seniors on medicare, or on the hopelessly poor. The media is pretty good about finding special cases and touting them as 'normal.' - Many variables go into the rising health costs, first and foremost is malpractice insurance. Then there's the cost of recruiting high talent--the best doctors deserve the best salaries. Then there's competition between hospitals for the latest and greatest equipment. There's hidden costs as well--about a year before I started working in my pharmacy someone forgot to put away a refrigerated chemo shipment, and cost the hospital $100k. (Over 3x my salary.) Who pays for that? Sometimes illegal immigrants get treatment in the ER then sneak out. Who pays for that? - I don't have a problem with requiring all people to pay insurance, but if its one cultural aspect of america that you haven't experienced, we don't have a great tendency to trust government. You trust yours, and I get that. But if you watch our veteran's health system--those citizens that deserve the best--they get treated like shit and a government-run system would likely end up that way here for all citizens. No sane man wants that.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Sunday, August 30, 2009, 16:30 (5563 days ago) @ xeno6696
The situation in the US in which millions of people who cannot afford insurance just have to hope never to fall ill seems awful. - George, you are reading political propaganda. The so-called 47 million without insurance is made up of 8-12 million illegal aliens, about 10 million between jobs, and about 10 million young folks who feel they don't need insurance but can afford it. That leaves an accepted figure of 14-16 million who should be covered by insurance, but as Matt notes below, they are covered by law. The 10 million between jobs is a gap in our nutty health insurance history. After WWII this country had a huge boom. To entice workers employers offered hedalth insurance as a benefit and the Congress allowed it as a business tax deduction. As a result much of our health insurance is from the employer, and the employee has no reason to ration his health desires; he feels he is not paying. That is why HMO's have co-pays and other methods to try and draw attention to costs. - One solution for the between-employment is to mandate portability of coverage. An other is to remove employers entirely from the mix and allow employees to have their health money as part of their salaries and as a group choose their company coveraage. This is what our federal employees do, and studies show they have better and yet cheaper coverage. By the way, our government does supply 40% of health care in this country through various coverage like medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, a children's program. - > Having worked in a hospital for nearly 5 years I can give you a bit of perspective on the current system. Anyone who walks in must be treated--by law. There is no escaping this. - > Really, the only debate is on the cost of health services, which has risen much faster than inflation over the last 30 years. The no-insurance fear propagated by US media (and our president) is irrational. - I've covered this above. - > Many variables go into the rising health costs, first and foremost is malpractice insurance. - Another variable is the cost of medical research, and for the world we are the leaders. Further it is our pharmaceutical companies that develop most of the new drugs for the world. You fellows benefit at our cost, and our patients who can afford it pay. - Another consideration is our national psyche. This is a very capitalistic, competative society. It is impatient and demands instant gratification. We are appalled at the queues you folks tolerate. If in this country note the number of check-out counters in a large store. there is no questioning the rationing that goes on in Britain or Canada. A research paper I read indicates the French system is better, but I only know what I read as you do. If there is no important rationing in Britain then why do you have an allowed private practice? Is it only for the rich? All polls show that most people in this country are satisfied with the coverage, about 65%. - > But if you watch our veteran's health system--those citizens that deserve the best--they get treated like shit and a government-run system would likely end up that way here for all citizens. No sane man wants that. - I worked part-time in the VA teaching, early on in my practice. I spent two forced years in the Army Medical Corps as head of Internal Medicine in a large base hospital. I enjoyed my time and was very patient-oriented. Of the 19 two-year, fresh-from-training doctors (not regular Army), only three of us had that attitude. Private practicioners have a profit motive, and must please their patients or lose them. 8-5 hired doctors have a fixed salary and tend to be 8-5 factory workers. That is why Army medicine and VA medicine are like they are in this country. Perhaps Europeans are different. - Any comments?
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 19:27 (5562 days ago) @ David Turell
Any comments? - Did you mean that post for me or George... you replied to my post but addressed it as George?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 22:05 (5562 days ago) @ xeno6696
I don't really know enough about the US health system to know whether what you say is correct. There does seem to be a lot of propaganda about. What little experience I've had of the British system has been favourable, except for inefficient individual GPs. The waiting list problem was an issue a few years ago, but now there is a rapid through-put. The current news controversy here is about nurses becoming too highly trained and losing the caring ethos.
--
GPJ
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 22:38 (5562 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I don't really know enough about the US health system to know whether what you say is correct. There does seem to be a lot of propaganda about. What little experience I've had of the British system has been favourable, except for inefficient individual GPs. The waiting list problem was an issue a few years ago, but now there is a rapid through-put. The current news controversy here is about nurses becoming too highly trained and losing the caring ethos. - I'm already seeing some of that. The nursing shortage is predicted to hit 1.4M nurses by 2012, meaning the bar is going to have to be lowered to fill the gap--or we're going to have to get creative with recruiting. Last year at this time my hospital posted 81 nursing positions. (We're on a hiring freeze right now.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Sunday, August 30, 2009, 23:31 (5562 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Sunday, August 30, 2009, 23:37
Did you mean that post for me or George... you replied to my post but addressed it as George? - The post was for George. The easiest thing for me to do since George asked me to comment on US health care politics, etc. was to use your answer post to key off and expand from my perspective. The first quote I left was his sentence that you took off from. I think cross conversations are ok. I've just jumped into his discussion with dhw, and he responded. I think your view of US medicine and mine are pretty consistent. - I'd have made everything more clear if I had credited the quotes with your name
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 31, 2009, 00:32 (5562 days ago) @ David Turell
Did you mean that post for me or George... you replied to my post but addressed it as George? > > The post was for George. The easiest thing for me to do since George asked me to comment on US health care politics, etc. was to use your answer post to key off and expand from my perspective. The first quote I left was his sentence that you took off from. I think cross conversations are ok. I've just jumped into his discussion with dhw, and he responded. I think your view of US medicine and mine are pretty consistent. > > I'd have made everything more clear if I had credited the quotes with your name - Okay, I was asking because I wouldn't mind asking about our returning soldier issue. My wife has a friend that did come back from Iraq with anger-issues related to PTSD. She was however told that she wasn't a priority because she wasn't suicidal and would have to wait about 6 months before she could see a therapist. Of course, she could lie and say "I'm suicidal," but as you're aware, that becomes permanent medical history. How on earth can this be seen as serving our people properly?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Monday, August 31, 2009, 01:50 (5562 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Okay, I was asking because I wouldn't mind asking about our returning soldier issue. My wife has a friend that did come back from Iraq with anger-issues related to PTSD. She was however told that she wasn't a priority because she wasn't suicidal and would have to wait about 6 months before she could see a therapist. Of course, she could lie and say "I'm suicidal," but as you're aware, that becomes permanent medical history. How on earth can this be seen as serving our people properly? - It's an anecdotal story, but typical of what I have heard. The attitude of the current elites in Washington is hideous re' their attitude about the armed forces. The Clintons were almost as bad as the current group. There is safety in strength, but handled with a velvet glove. When do you think the electromagnetic pulse bomb (EMP)will be attempted on this country? What are they waiting for? Better health care?
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 31, 2009, 02:09 (5562 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Okay, I was asking because I wouldn't mind asking about our returning soldier issue. My wife has a friend that did come back from Iraq with anger-issues related to PTSD. She was however told that she wasn't a priority because she wasn't suicidal and would have to wait about 6 months before she could see a therapist. Of course, she could lie and say "I'm suicidal," but as you're aware, that becomes permanent medical history. How on earth can this be seen as serving our people properly? > > It's an anecdotal story, but typical of what I have heard. The attitude of the current elites in Washington is hideous re' their attitude about the armed forces. The Clintons were almost as bad as the current group. There is safety in strength, but handled with a velvet glove. When do you think the electromagnetic pulse bomb (EMP)will be attempted on this country? What are they waiting for? Better health care? - AFAIK an EMP is the initial electron burst from a nuclear weapon that precedes the fireball and isn't a solitary weapon because of the amount of energy required. Unless that was your point. We'll probably disagree politically here as I'm of the view that a democracy necessarily fights with one hand tied behind its back. I firmly believe in no wars without direct provocation, or to aid an ally who has suffered the same. - Even besides that, if you are suggesting being bellicose with emerging nuclear states, exactly how many individual wars do you think we're capable of fighting? I'd be more concerned with Conficker and its insidious implications.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Monday, August 31, 2009, 05:42 (5562 days ago) @ xeno6696
> AFAIK an EMP is the initial electron burst from a nuclear weapon that precedes the fireball and isn't a solitary weapon because of the amount of energy required. -The orginal problem at, I believe, the Johnson Island test, was the effect on Hawaii elecronics. But recalculation of the original test has shown that a small relatively primative bomb detonated at 200 miles altitude carried by a relatively small missile to that altitude will electronically paralyze this country if exploded over, let's say, Kansas or Iowa. Nothing bigger is needed. And we are playing with N. Korea and Iran? Currently there is a special commission reporting to Congress. Note that I said strength with a velvet glove. I know how a democracy is properly in action.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 31, 2009, 13:14 (5562 days ago) @ David Turell
> > AFAIK an EMP is the initial electron burst from a nuclear weapon that precedes the fireball and isn't a solitary weapon because of the amount of energy required. > > The orginal problem at, I believe, the Johnson Island test, was the effect on Hawaii elecronics. But recalculation of the original test has shown that a small relatively primative bomb detonated at 200 miles altitude carried by a relatively small missile to that altitude will electronically paralyze this country if exploded over, let's say, Kansas or Iowa. Nothing bigger is needed. And we are playing with N. Korea and Iran? Currently there is a special commission reporting to Congress. Note that I said strength with a velvet glove. I know how a democracy is properly in action.-Historically democracies have foreign policies quite a bit like tyrannies, when you compare decisions made, ourselves included. -Again, having spent time at a school with a powerful computer security school, you should be MUCH more worried about worms such as Conficker as they can deliver a worse payload than an EMP bomb without needing to spend millions on a weapons program--AND you do NOT know when the payload hits. This past year virtually all SCADA networks (Command and control systems for US power plants) were cleaned of malware of Chinese origin. You don't need rockets or bombs to cripple U.S. infrastructure, you just need smart kids with internet access. Countries do NOT need EMP to do what you're worried about. That's why China and Russia are so heavily invested in computer science programs.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 01, 2009, 22:05 (5560 days ago) @ xeno6696
Again, having spent time at a school with a powerful computer security school, you should be MUCH more worried about worms such as Conficker as they can deliver a worse payload than an EMP bomb without needing to spend millions on a weapons program--AND you do NOT know when the payload hits. This past year virtually all SCADA networks (Command and control systems for US power plants) were cleaned of malware of Chinese origin. You don't need rockets or bombs to cripple U.S. infrastructure, you just need smart kids with internet access. Countries do NOT need EMP to do what you're worried about. That's why China and Russia are so heavily invested in computer science programs.-Very interesting point of view. I thought we could protect computers with firewalls, etc; but one primative small atom bomb exploded at 200 miles over the center of the country will wipe out the electronic controls and communication covering the entire country.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 01, 2009, 22:36 (5560 days ago) @ David Turell
Again, having spent time at a school with a powerful computer security school, you should be MUCH more worried about worms such as Conficker as they can deliver a worse payload than an EMP bomb without needing to spend millions on a weapons program--AND you do NOT know when the payload hits. This past year virtually all SCADA networks (Command and control systems for US power plants) were cleaned of malware of Chinese origin. You don't need rockets or bombs to cripple U.S. infrastructure, you just need smart kids with internet access. Countries do NOT need EMP to do what you're worried about. That's why China and Russia are so heavily invested in computer science programs. > > Very interesting point of view. I thought we could protect computers with firewalls, etc; but one primative small atom bomb exploded at 200 miles over the center of the country will wipe out the electronic controls and communication covering the entire country.-No. Firewalls are far from secure. Built into your ethernet card is something called a MAC address. The table that stores that unique value is updated once and once only--when the computer boots it. Getting your MAC address only requires a day of patience, a deep packet sniffer such as Wireshark to sniff your MAC address from a network packet. Spoofing a legit MAC address on a network can also be done by freely downloadable tools such as Cain and Abel or BT3, sometimes by 1 or 2 clicks. The only safe computer is one that is not connected to the internet at all, preferably with the switch firmly in the "off" position. -A bomb such as what you're talking about would require my buddies over here at Stratcom to be snoozing at the switch. We can track a hand-size object in space. Are you familiar with what happened during Russia's invasion of Georgia last year? They were knocked off the internet. Conficker presently controls a botnet of 5M computers--more computing power than any supercomputer in existence, and its being actively manipulated by absolute professionals. You could take the entire US off the internet with that--the backbones are all private and exercise varying levels of security. It'll also take ten years to get all SCADAs on the internet off the internet. And as I said before, it's much cheaper to knock out targets with software than with a bomb. You're worrying about the wrong thing at the moment.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"