Re: Empathy
Elliot Temple <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Dec 20, 2012, at 12:05 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Alan Forrester > <alanmichaelforrester-gM/[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 20 Dec 2012, at 11:19, hibbsa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> --- In [email protected], Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 17/12/2012, at 19:22, "hibbsa" <asbbih@...> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- In [email protected], Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2012, at 11:15 AM, hibbsa <asbbih@> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently >>>>>>> experience >>>>>>> what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop trying to invade people's privacy. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Elliot Temple >>>>>> http://fallibleideas.com/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can >>>>> see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of >>>>> what is suggested. >>>>> About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of >>>>> empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have >>>>> as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour. >>>>> >>>> Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a >>>> quale like the perception of some colour? >>>> >>>> Brett. >>>> >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>>> >>> >>> From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct >>> (Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static >>> memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't >>> going to be that many differences) >> >> People don't have instincts, only knowledge they haven't questioned yet. >> >> Empathy is just a word for certain responses that the particular audience >> in question happens to like. If a man shoots a burglar who comes into his >> house, lefties might insist we should have empathy for the burglar, while >> righties might say we should have empathy for the shooter. >> >> >>> Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's >>> have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be >>> socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on. >>> >>> What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism >>> spectrum disorders would be of potential interest. >> >> Psychopathy and autism are both labels for behaviour that psychiatrists >> dislike: the difference between them is arbitrary and of no interest. >> >> Alan >> > > The way it looks to me, you and others make a great deal of physical > claims that amount to predictions. Which would mean they are > falsifiable. So given you have moved onto falsifiable territory why > not formalize it, and make clear what the stakes are? If mirror > neurons are physically demonstrated at some point, what in your > philosophy will be falsified? How big will it be for what you believe? > Likewise if it is proven there is a subset of people with brains that > do not work in the same way and that this does not change throughout > life regardless of philosophy or experience, what will be falsified? > Stand behind what you believe and say what is at stake. You can't physically demonstrate something that isn't well defined in the first place. What observations would count? -- Elliot Temple http://beginningofinfinity.com/