Like I said before, I think that phenomenologists, particularly Merlou-Ponty, have some very good insights into the way that we perceive the world, and the way that the world seems to operate, but that is about it.

Our processing equipment just doesn't have the strength to deal with a whole lot of important pieces of the world. I think the problem is not the accuracy of the equipment as much as not having all of the right equipment in just our senses.

Ah, then perhaps what you are getting at is an untapped sense that we haven't actually activated yet.

I refuse to beleieve that we haven't got the capacity to reach an understanding of our environment.

Humans, after all are a product of nature becoming self aware.

It is a work in progress.

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
Ah, then perhaps what you are getting at is an untapped sense that we haven't actually activated yet.

---

Hmm. Sounds a little too spooky to me. A little too "Fortean Times" for my tastes.

I didn't know what "The Fortean Times" was, so I googled it and had a look.

Are you sayin' I'm delvin' into crackpot territory here?

untapped senses?

My only point was that our five senses aren't enough to comprehend the scope that the sciences have opened up to us.

My point is that everyone has the capacity to decide what information they will interpret, and how they chose to interpret it.

Anyone who doesn't, is just not trying.

Information overload is a result of boredom.

Boredom is a result of information overload.

.....and down the drain we go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
My point is that everyone has the capacity to decide what information they will interpret, and how they chose to interpret it.

Anyone who doesn't, is just not trying.

Information overload is a result of boredom.

Boredom is a result of information overload.

.....and down the drain we go.

---

Capacity to do and ABILITY to do are two very different things in my book.

By the way...you're beginning to wander down non sequiter lane again, burning_man. I mean, storm_chaser...

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
I didn't know what "The Fortean Times" was, so I googled it and had a look.

Are you sayin' I'm delvin' into crackpot territory here?

---

I really don't know what you were saying. I usually don't. But "untapped senses" sounded a little bit like some sort of sixth sense...something I normally lump in with the crackpot stuff. But I probably misunderstood.

quote:

---

Capacity to do and ABILITY to do are two very different things in my book

---

Thank you for finding a clear and concise way of saying what I was attempting and failing miserably to get at.

I think there's a lot of dancin' goin' on but where not actually makin' much ground.

It is my contention that the flow of this thread was leading towards uncovering how someone could get control of imput, rather than being controlled by it.

We can except, that as imperical cognetive beings, we rely on interpretation of data to construct a "model" of reality.

Perhaps the question should be "Why is reality so important to humans?"

Sorry to jump back in, but I've just had a thought.

Could it be that the "missing force" being considered is empathy?

Lack of empathy first manifests itself in selfishness, and if unchecked, can lead to extreme and drastic actions.

Does the hunter have empathy?

And what of the person in the slaughterhouse hired to calm the animals as they enter the killing floor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
Sorry to jump back in, but I've just had a thought.

Could it be that the "missing force" being considered is empathy?

---

An interesting idea. A friend is currently writing a dissertation on empathy, and it seems fertile as a philosophical topic.

Again, however, I pose the question: is having the CAPACITY for empathy the same thing as having the ability to use it or recognize it or be guided by it?

If what we really need to understand our environment IS empathy, then I guess those who have it are better equipped to understand the world. But it might be best when combined with the other useful senses...an empathetic person who is oblivious to everything BUT people's emotions can't be any better off than someone who is observant but unempathetic.

I think a hunter can have empathy. I think the killing floor employee can have empathy. So can the vet who must put stray animals to sleep. I don't think they all DO...many hunters are callous. Most vets are probably not, but they could be. It seems that Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who designs efficient slaughterhouses, might be a borderline case.

It's an interesting idea. I'm just not sure what scientific uptake you can get from the concept of empathy...is it empirically verifiable? Falsifiable?

A lot of ground to cover here, for sure.

Firstly, let me say that I think empathy is a learned behavour. Or at the very least, lays dormant unless triggered.

You like to deal in extremes phil, and I appreciate that, but on a question of this kind, I think it better to start from a personal standpoint, and work out.

Do you personaly contain empathy, and if so, on a sliding scale of 1 to 100 where would you place yourself.

Sure, empathy can not be measured or quantified per se, so that it then becomes a fringe topic, and is largly disregarded.

I think this is a mistake.

Can empathy be simulated?

As much as any "emotion" I suppose, but to what end?

Does the con man have empathy?

Does the long time loving partner, asked to pull the plug have empathy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:


Do you personaly contain empathy, and if so, on a sliding scale of 1 to 100 where would you place yourself.

Does the con man have empathy?

Does the long time loving partner, asked to pull the plug have empathy?

---

I'm not sure how to deal with these questions. They feel loaded.

I'm not sure where I'd go on a scale. I think that self-evaluations are terribly inaccurate, but I'd put myself on the high middle...say 60 out 100.

I think asking whether the con man or the spouse have empathy is oversimplifying things. Any one case may go in two different directions. I think a good con man probably DOES have a sense of empathy (useful in selecting a target to con) but doesn't use it in the intended way. I think the spouse makes a decision less empathetically that one might think...the connection between partners complicates the empathetic relationship. And, there's the additional component to that case...the self-regarding part.

Honestly, I don't have a fully developed view on empathy. Maybe this conversation will spur me to develop one.

OK. Here's some controversial generalisations.

Empathy seems to be a more prevelant female requirement, maternal instincts and all.

Males as hunters have a less empathetic world view.

It is not surprising that the greater percentage of people who kill more than once are male.

In the case of a female "serial killer", I would argue that she is operating from a more "anima" side of her personality.

It was not my intention to put you on the spot, but to indicate to you how difficult it is to quantify empathy, and yet you agree that it exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
OK. Here's some controversial generalisations.

Empathy seems to be a more prevelant female requirement, maternal instincts and all.

Males as hunters have a less empathetic world view.

It is not surprising that the greater percentage of people who kill more than once are male.

In the case of a female "serial killer", I would argue that she is operating from a more "anima" side of her personality.

It was not my intention to put you on the spot, but to indicate to you how difficult it is to quantify empathy, and yet you agree that it exists.

---

To say that I agree that empathy exists is one thing...to assume it is some sort of dormant or sixth sense is something FAR different. I don't see why empathy can't merely be a reaction to something represented by the other senses...a mechanical function of some sort. You seem to imply that, merely by my concession that empathy seems to be a real phenomenon, that I share your view about what it is. That's not the case at all.

I'm also not comfortable with your gender generalizations. The fact that men kill more than women, and that female serial killers are rare, doesn't have to mean that women are empathetic and men are not. Seems like a WILDLY speculative folk psychological generalization that I wouldn't be comfortable committing myself to.

Fine.

I'm completely off course.

I better leave this discussion to the experts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
Fine.

I'm completely off course.

I better leave this discussion to the experts.

---

I can't tell if you're being snide or serious here. I think this discussion is a good one. If you want to leave it alone, not a problem. But if you're implying that I'm being superior here, that's a little harsh. My comments were based SOLELY on the things you attributed to me and on your generalizations, and were not comments on his ability to philosophize. I merely wanted storm_chaser to defend his assertions far more than he did.

Apparently that request was enough to induce him to quit the Forums, as he seemed to be doing elsewhere. A little melodramatic for my tastes, but to each his own.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

quote:

---

I haven't read it yet, but I have to note this recent release from one of my favorite philosophers, Harry Frankfurt: On Bullshit.

---

Sorry to totally derail this coversation for a moment, but I was reminded PE's post about On Bullshit as I was driving home from work last night. On NPR's Marketplace they had a PR woman with a phoned in complaint about Frankfurt's claim that public relations is completely without worth. I believe her comment was something to the extent of 'I bet you wouldn't say that to the PR staff who got you a radio interview for your new book...now that's bullshit'.

This seems to be a pretty well-made point. I wonder what Frankfurt would say in response.

I've stayed outta this discussion because it seems to imply that philosophy can only be interpreted based on the FIVE senses. The fact that the earliest philosophers thought that was a lotta Hosanna Horseshit doesn't apparently matter in our "enlightened" times. Any discussion about "philosophy" had better address the things which the senses can't deal with because otherwise our discussion is about Biology, and that's what my degree is in, and as far as I know, philosophers don't have to get degrees in biology. (Maybe some of you have them.)

EDIT--If they did, what good would it do them? They'd still have no clue. I love philosophers. The KEY word is LOVE. Can any philosopher tell me which sense LOVE springs from?