MishMish

I use all those phrases, they're just idioms, but think in words. I don't see any reason use of a given phrase should indicate thinking style here, or perceptual style for that matter. I have very poor visualization skills, just generally speaking, but probably use the "I see" phrase most often. If referring to memory as Fafalone did, for me is more an abstract narrative, essentially without images, certainly no strong ones, and rarely has much if any emotional content, only a few incidents break that barrier I have heard that the ability to visualize is a plus for abstract fields, way I look at it is it basically makes them non-abstract, not sure if that's a valid way of framing it though. And believe was Pinker mentioned that our abstract references are based on sensory analogies, using the example of time And am still entirely unsure what you mean by thinking in emotions.

I don't think specifically having a hard time finding words means you do not think in words, especially if we're talking about a dominant style. When I can not find words is usually because have not identified what's going on, more often a matter of feeling an emotion but not being able to identify it or the cause. But am not sure what you mean by thinking in emotions. I don't count simply feeling an emotion the same as thinking style.

Do people draw in different directions?

Well, since he specifically says for no fixed reason... Agree is for the convenience of right handers. I align the paper to write bottom to top, but I will not be winning any penmanship awards either Would also want to know if you are proposing full mirror image or simply reversing the text direction. For print the latter is an option, but would not be for cursive. And I do not think would be of particular benefit to anyone interested in Hebrew or Arabic. Learning text direction is simply part of the system, and I do not recall it posed any specific difficulties of its own in learning to read or write Arabic. Perhaps am forgetting, but if it did it was minimal

I only go to one other chat room, and have Java for that but it just takes me straight to the room. Don't know if the IRC has anything to do with it. Am I supposed to "do" anything I guess is my question, and if so what? Not sure about pursuing this, as I say would probably not go anyway, and really know next to nothing about computers so there is no guarantee I would understand the instructions, but now that it has come up want an answer anyway

Bored or curious, decided to look in the chat room. Came up with some scroll on cookies, could see who was logged on but nothing else. Doubt would really go to or use the chat room, but still want to know how it works just in case, and perhaps also just in case anyone noticed my name popped up but I didn't say anything is because was not sure how it works

Came back as just occurred to me, and not as proof, but am currently reading The Feeling of What Happens, early into it yet. One of the patients Damasio describes had damage to a facial nerve. As treatment, they lesioned a specific region, don't see it better defined than "a specific sector of the frontal lobe," and the patient afterwards reported that the pain was still there but did not show distress and said he felt fine. Do not know specifically what could or could not be done with that for cross-species interpretations of subjective awareness of pain, but provides an avenue for investigation should think I should also add I do not draw a line specifically at aware or not but use a loose sliding scale. I will not kill the wasps randomly, and certainly would not for general amusement, but I will kill off the ones in the front when my mother visits as she is allergic. The greater the degree of nervous development the greater the need must be before causing harm as I see it (degree of harm would also, of course, be a factor.) When it comes to pigs and primates, to use the example, I think the similarities sufficient that any experiment which would be considered unethical to perform on humans should be equally considered unethical to carry out on them

I think part of the problem is that sterilization primarily has been used in eugenics programs. Does not answer all of the emotional reaction of course, but is invariably brought to mind. But we sterilize our critters for population control, I consider it the responsible thing to do at least, and was that model was following. But think have found enough practical reasons would not work I can safely dismiss the idea. And might add, just as a thought, those who favor some sort of education rather than a more direct intervention are going to have to explain to me not only how that could be sufficiently effective at reducing overpopulation, which I do not believe it can be, but how it does not betray the same arrogance or playing of God. The line between education and indoctrination is a fine one, and if your purpose in educating is not to provide all necessary information but to guide behaviour the only real difference is being more manipulative and managing to not arouse indignation. That may be considered a practical factor making indoctrination more effective, would say it is, but in terms of denying others their rights in a real sense I see no difference

Well, was a bit disingenuous of me, have thought about introducing the topic, so no doubt played a role in my decision to respond And yes, it is based on suffering. Is not particularly refined, but basically I look at degree of nervous development. Figure both pain and awareness correlate, and while I would not know where to draw precise lines and have not seen anyone else draw precise lines, I would certainly place the "higher animals" on the list. I do not know what sort of evidence of suffering you are looking for. There are definitely problems in evaluating subjective states with non-verbal subjects, a problem which is going to apply to infants as well by the way, and dismissing the subjective states of anyone deemed inferior a priori has been common historically. Am alternating primarily between psychologists on autism and popular cog-sci works for my reading, and the cog-sci authors I have read to date all allow that consciousness in some form, certainly awareness of emotional states, is present in other species, though not specifying which specifically or where they draw the line. Might add, consciousness is not seen as some single ability which you have or do not but a scaled development Don't mean to be foisting it off so ungraciously, I have not specifically looked for such evidence and have no idea how one could prove it with non-verbal subjects. But the behavioural similarities and the assumption that the workings of our brain are built on developments of shared features and mechanisms, at a minimum, makes it seem far more plausible to me than that consciousness developed uniquely and full blown in humans

Many people don't If the topic is to split off to animal rights, will go into it. Otherwise, my only point was the analogy of using data from unethical experiments, however defined. It is not something I support, certainly would not actively support, and while I personally would be wiling to slow the rate at which information is obtained if dependent on such methods (not being in the field perhaps makes it easier, but would not enter a field requiring it,) I do not reject the information gained from it either

MrL "Ah, didn't see that. See: Sayonara's interpretation instead then" Had not read ahead when I posted that, should have. I think we said essentially the same thing. I perhaps credited him with a bit more humour, though still of a rather defensive sort

I had introduced slavery as an analogy for society being biased, and YT picked up on it as a joke of sorts, that since he's being assailed for his position it is he, not his position, being criticized Since I had introduced it, felt particularly obligated to step back in to point out how things fell

I have only skimmed the thread, but it remains (for some at least) a current question in a different context. I am opposed to animal testing (speaking generically, would have to get to details for drawing the line,) yet I know that much if not most of what am currently trying to comprehend is based on animal testing which I would consider immoral.

Well, aside from the minor detail have changed to favoring one child policy, still feel bound to comment. I can see that it could be used for eugenics, but it need not be and I specifically set it up as random to forestall that possibility. And being random would no more threaten the human race than random unlimited reproduction, at our current population we're hardly in danger of losing genetic diversity, and if we were controlled breeding of a different sort might be in order. As for superiority complexes among those who are fertile, can't say that had occurred to me. But I do not see that random sterilization, assuming could be done at birth or at a young age, is so different from being born sterile. As for playing God, not quite, and see no need to return to the eugenics question you raise again. Yes, of course it is a limitation on people's rights. When rights may be restricted is to prevent greater harm, and I consider the threat (reality, actually) of overpopulation the greater harm. It is taking the rights of future generations, as well as the rights of other species, into consideration in determining where the balance falls, rather than only considering the rights of the present human population. Education, birth control, are all fine and grand, but I would add that a solution which is not sufficient to the problem is not a solution, and I do not consider those sufficient. Instead, we will be faced, quite likely sooner rather than later, with water wars and more widespread disease and starvation. Not the finest quality of life to leave our descendents while we fret about our rights to unlimited reproduction. All that said, I think that random sterilization would possibly lead to infanticide of sterile children, and more likely to trade in children. But most simply the entire premise is flawed as it still allows unlimited reproduction but only restricts it to some. Basically is assuming fertility rates will hold at relatively lower levels regardless of how many people do or do not reproduce. How I could have not seen that I had introdued such a flimsy assumption is beyond me, but if nothing else does, that nixes the idea right there. After a minor tangent with random sterilization, am back to the one child policy as my favored

How I see it, you attempted to find some outside standard for your argument, that it is not natural. And then demonstrated, quite convincingly if unwittingly, that the standard you had chosen does not correlate to your notion of what is right or wrong. Whether it is natural or not has no bearing on the argument, and you have yet to set out what the real basis for your position is. The closest I saw was back in the other thread when you said something about the Church establishing marriage. That sort of caught my eye, wondered about all those people who somehow managed to get married through various institutions without the benefit of Christianity, but chose to not pursue it at the time. As for my debating skills, have not claimed any. I never took logic or debate or critical thinking, and my outside efforts to teach myself logic did not get me far. But I have fairly recently turned my attention to spotting fallacies and elevated examining underlying assumptions to model status. Being unable to in real time has caused me problems. I mostly practice on debates between others still, however, which I realize is a bit unfair and makes me something of a nuisance at times. And on that note, MrL, would say your charge against YT re homosexuality and slavery is also unfair. And so back to the topic, problem here being am no longer sure what that is. If this is a discussion of legal rights, based on being a continuation of the previous thread, we run into a problem of different systems. If it is a question of what legal rights should be, we are discussing ethics. And far as I'm concerned, rights should only be restricted when exercising those rights causes harm to others.

Mooey, actually, I think reducing the population not just stabilizing it is in order. And just what measures do you think might be effective, if you consider these not viable for being too offensive? As for finding a husband, should think if you were Chinese your chances would be excellent, though will allow finding a decent husband is problematic under any circumstances

Yes it is evasive if you deny you have been discussing morality And no am not convinced by your argument why you are now adopting the not everything matural is appropriate line. You have your conclusion already, and are using the evidence one way first (that it is not natural) then when it is pointed out that it is natural you switch to the not everything natural is appropriate line. Maybe evasive does not describe that last, but is shifty. Is not good form, at a minimum, and does not address what your real concern or basis may be but is, best I can tell, simply trying to find some argument, any argument, to support your preformed conclusion

Dang you guys are fast, while writing that last and expecting to now leave the board found three new posts. MrL, almost didn't mention about the multiple quoites since figured I probably wouldn't understand the explanation either... Sayonara, think I understand, had wondered what the check box was for, will try it if it comes up again Sayonara, I do not know the names of the different fallacies, I just know that appeal to what the majority believes is one. If YT were arguing that slavery is wrong, assuming we were living in a slave society, and you were to say he is out of touch with societal norms my response would be so what, YT is right. Your assumption is that society is not biased. In the specific case of homosexuality you may be correct, but does not make your argument correct. What is needed, from both of you, is some objective or outside standard which can be applied to judge the question.

Whether or not you have used the term, it has been a clear subtext which you have attempted to shore up by stating that it is not "natural." I can handle people I strongly disagree with, I can not handle people not assuming responsibility for what they say, and I consider this most recent shift that not everything which is natural need be adopted as a societal good a poor move. If you are not basing your opposition to homosexuality on your concept of morality, then what is the basis. And if you did not introduce rats eating their young as analogy to homosexuality for events which occur in nature but should not be adopted by society, then why did you introduce it (forestalling here, just in case you claim the implied analogy is a misreading.) I can be as pedantic as the next guy, but do not use it to disown your position Sorry, would really have preferred to not discuss your personal views at all, I don't consider them any of my business and they do not affect me. But I do not like evasive arguments

Sayonara: "If he's saying "why does society not accept homosexuality", and that's a biased viewpoint that he's basing on his own views (see "sanctity of marriage" thread), then it certainly is relevant." No, it only makes both arguments fallacious YT: "the only reasonable case put forwards, by atinymonkey, was that it`s perhaps a mechanism of population control. that at least has SOME element of plausibility to it" And that is also overlooking that evolution has no "purpose" and diversity has no "purpose." Looking for a purpose for homesexualtiy is the wrong approach, and asking homosexuals to justify themselves by some purpose is the wrong approach. (Aside, I am not sure how people make multiple quotes in a reply, I am finding this awkward at best, and still have a page to go, so hope you will be forgiving if I split it up here with an additional post, may or may not, will have to see) I want to back up to the diseased discussion as well a bit though, as that potentially touches close to home. Technically speaking, I have no problem adopting a diesease model based on the definitions given. I have no doubt my brain is abnormal compared to most of the population, would be delighted for that matter if I could "see" it. But when you are dealing with someone's brain, speaking for inborn abnormalities or those acquired at a very early, you are very much addressing not just another organ but a central feature of who they are. For social purposes I consider adopting a disease model inappropriate, even if I can adopt it from a technical perspective. Telling someone that their brain is abnormal is telling them that they are abnormal. It is very much a denial of their personhood in a manner that telling them they have a diseased heart or some other organ is not. Adding moral value only compounds the situation. Choice of model is critical for discussing some question. Mixing models will not serve, and that is what is happening here. That homosexuality is abnormal compared to the sexual orientation of most of the population is irrelevant. What is relevant is what values we choose to apply in social situations, and I would favor those of recognizing and accepting diversity, reducing prejudice and stereotypes, and tolerance for those who are not doing others harm And I find I am repeating myself from my earlier post so will stop

Whether or not his views are current with societal values is beside the point and hardly an argument. Should hardly need to point that out as there are any number of examples where the majority has either been factually wrong or what we would consider morally wrong. But I find defining what is normal is an interesting question. Homosexuality is not normal if we look at the sexual orientation of humans, or mammals, as a whole. (For the individual who is homosexual, it is of course very normal.) Genetic diversity is normal, and homosexuality as one expressed form of genetic diversity is certainly common and I would say normal though don't have any statistics I would argue however that whether something normal or not is irrelevant when it comes to assigning value judgements. People do not accept difference well, not an admirable trait in my book but a near universal one. And asigning negative value to difference is common, but arbitrary. I do not see that homosexuality affects anyone else's rights, so see no reason for assigning it any moral value at all. Aside from general tribalism and rejection of difference, I think homosexuality arouses such emotion for many because it places other men in the subordinate female position of the dominated, if not directly by implication. Just my thoughts on the matter

The effect of testosterone on fetal development is also being looked at with regards to autism, I'm withholding judgement. HIV is transmitted by body fluids. Homosexuality of itself is not a factor, though anal sex could be as the rectum tears more easily. As for homosexuality as a choice or biologically determined, I think one must distinguish between orientation and acts. I am sure that orientation is biologically determined, but do not think all homosexual acts represent orientation. I am thinking of both experimentation among subordinate males who do not have access to females as well as dominance factors expressed by powerful males. If there are more homosexuals now than at other times in history, and I do not know if that is the case or not, would not be evidence that it represents a choice. Changing societal norms may allow open expression. But aside from that, technology and societal support allows many to survive to adulthood who otherwise would not have, some of whom may reproduce and some of whom will not. Homosexuality may be evolutionarily maladaptive, I consider myself among the evolutionarily maladapted for other reasons. But that does not mean that conditions such as homosexual orientation or what I consider my own maladaptation (from an evolutionary perspective I hasten to add, not a personal one) will disappear. As has been pointed out there are ways for homsexuals to have children, but more than that I assume a combination of factors which together result in expression. Some may not be homosexual but could be "carriers" in other words.

I stepped in on the patriotism question primarily because how patriotism is defined is a current question in the States. As for slavery, am well aware it existed at the time. Really had no thoughts on whether or not it played a role in the revolution, is why I asked.

I oversimplified the categories, had thought my shorthand would be clear for identifying the basic positions. The poll defined them as: Creationist view: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Theistic evolution: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Naturalistic Evolution: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. As for mixing and matching as applies to evolution and abiogenseis, see no need for it. Creationism and intelligent design simply are not science, and why people can not comprehend, at a minimum, that science class is for teaching science is beyond me

Sounds fair, was going the opposite direction assuming that images would be processed "only" as images.