"You can't be objective..."

I'm not sure that they are a fit example, all they need to do to be "objective" is to show both sides. Talk to both people... Not have a racist reporter interview *only* the "nice, hard-working young (white) man" that was stabbed by the (implied) "crazy, ghetto, layabout, old (black) man".

However, but speaking only to the victim and portraying the black person as "insane" and "bad", they may sway the potential jury...

So they do play an important role. Just that it's easier to be objective when all you do is just talk. They aren't the ones actually deciding if he gets the death penalty. Interviewing both (when and if possible) and telling both sides is being objective.

And it also saves you from falling into the trap of having to un-accuse someone when you find out it was really his wife that stabbed him and he was too ashamed to admit it!

[i]Note: Racism used ONLY to more easily illustrate my point on objectivity![/i]

You have a point but if you wear your hat no one will notice unless it's one like the silly assed ones that the Canadian Olympic team are wearing.( the red ones)Even then they'll probably think your only wearing one of the stupidest looking hats ever to be worn by anyonealive or dead.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Experiences give rise to an emotional state.
But so do memories of the experience.
Equally when being swayed by strong emotion, you will associate past experiences with what's happening now even though the only connection between events is emotion.

The Mr Spock scenario, however would give rise to conclusions completely disconnected from human reality, so you would look irrational to everyone else.

Emotions do have their logic, anger for instance is a very rational response to certain situations, being objective simply means you've thought your way, through become angry and then acted accordingly. In other words your response is dictated by events not emotions.

So there's no need to divorce yourself from emotions to be objective, but as emotions is part of the situation you need to examine the reasons for it, if you leave them out objectivity is lost.

I've never understood this desire to divorce ourselves from emotion, not to react blindly yes, but emotion free is anti-survival and therefore irrational.

We've been here before. The result of "no conflict..." implies a starting point of some things being true - all of the necessary data, both immediate and peripheral is available and the "rational" beings are sufficiently intelligent to be capable of interpreting and analyzing that data to reach the correct conclusion.

Given a situation in the real world, two rational beings may reach different, conflicting conclusions quite easily. Other factors come into play, also, such as cultural values which define your ethical standpoint (I, for instance, don't give a sh*t about The Constitution!) and familial circumstances.

As for me, I have found over the years that when confronted with a situation - a complex problem or something as simple as a quiz show question - the first answer that hits my mind, the intuitive answer, is more likely to be correct than not.

Despite being (I think) a rational human being, I have come to the conclusion that the human mind is more complex than is allowed for in your flat statement and I, for one, will likely take my intuitive response to be the correct one and then think it through. Are my emotions involved in the generation of an intuitive answer? Well, I don't know.

Neil :D

Mrs. Rand was absolutely brilliant, besides being insane.

Her philosphy has but one flaw. It does not account for humans in the physical world.

When she could no longer distinguish between her litterature and the real world she became a victim of her philosphy.

Humans are emotional. We can not seperate ourselves from our emotions, we can only act in spite of them. Where most people loose their objectivity is when they are unable to distinguish between their emotions and reality or they fail to see beyond their emotions.

There's all KINDS of internal conflicts... Objectively, I know my 5 year old is ready to start school, that it will be good for her physical, emotional, and educational development... my EMOTIONS however are telling me that my BABY is too young, too little, too stubborn, too needy, too much MY BABY to be going to kindergarten...

Objectively, a new job in another state that pays twice what I'm currently making, would be an excellent choice... but emotionally, I would feel terrible seperating myself and my children from family and friends.

Objectivity and emotionality are easily and completely seperated, and they do NOT always mesh with each other in each individual.

Oh, and cognitive dissonance refers to two or more beliefs held by a person which would seem to be mutually exclusive, like the pro-lifer who supports the death penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Yes you can train yourself and your knuckles etc, to break various building products, you can also train yourself to use chi & ji energy and you will have minimal fuss.

Positive thinking, and a relaxed mind will reveal wonderous side effects to life, nature and synchronicity.

I asked "If emotions are automatic responses to your experiences, and the nature of those automatic responses is dictated by the premises you hold, and those premises are determined prior to the experiences, objectively, then what is the source of conflict between emotion and objectivity?"

I'll restate my premise in a few statements: "Emotions are automatic responses, determined by the nature of the experiences and the premises held by the person experiencing them. Since my premises are valid, determined objectively, there is no conflict between my emotions and my valid premises."

The facts that emotions are not uniform among all people, but instead different people respond differently to the same experience, and therefore that emotions are responses determined by a person's premises, invalidates premises expressed by "emotion [b]intrudes[/b]" (emphasis mine) and "any attempt at objectivity becomes [b]contaminated[/b] (emphasis mine), and any other statement that non-contradictory identification (logic) is [b]necessarily[/b] at odds with emotion.

Adolf Hitler got emotional while making untrue statements about Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. also got emotional while making true statements about the rights of humans. The presence or absence of emotion does not determine, nor even help to ascertain, what is fact and what is false.

Julian's own, original theory of Free Will. (please bear with the Biblical references which are not relevant to my theory. I just happened to compose this in a "Christian" framework.)

By JULIAN HANCOCK

The Christians have it all worked out: God created a perfect world, and perfect "In the image of God" humans, but he gave us free will and we stuffed it all up. Well that conveniently answers everything, doesn't it. We can't blame God for pain, tragedy, war, environmental destruction and so on. He gave us a perfect world, and we blew it.

Well I have given the matter much thought and have concluded that most of our "free will" actions are nothing more than a matter of taking the path of least resistance given all the circumstances involved. When we are hungry, we eat; when we are thirsty, we drink; when we are tired, we rest; when our bladder is full, we relieve ourselves. Is there actually any free will involved in these basic examples of common human day-to-day experience? We don't think, we don't reason, we don't make a calculated decision; we just respond naturally to our body's demands.

We can apply this analogy to far more complex situations: a married couple find that they can no longer stand each other's company. So do they just walk away and start life anew? No, because financial considerations and responsibilities to offspring make up a much more complex equation. Eventually the couple will choose the course of action that causes the least stress to all involved, or in other words, the path of least resistance.

Anyone who takes the time to analyse the many "free will" decisions which they may make in a single day will soon see that, given all the circumstances involved, they are merely taking the path of least resistance.

However from time to time, and possibly even several times a day, we are faced with a choice of actions that are all of equal strength: there is no path of least resistance; a decision has to be made but it is impossible to choose between several equally compelling options.

And this, I believe, is where true free will comes into play: without knowing why, we randomly choose one of the competing options. I challenge anyone to present to me a scenario in which a conscious and deliberate choice can be made between multiple courses of action which are equally compelling. Is it a free will decision not to murder someone who has caused us intolerable stress? Probably not, because we weigh the alternatives of eliminating the source of our pain, with the probably consequence of spending many years in jail, as well as considering our conscience and deeply embedded social mores.

In every minute action we take each day our "choice" is predominantly determined by an amalgamation of our genes, upbringing, life experience, belief system, laws and so forth. I don't begin to understand the process that causes us to make a random choice when faced with no obvious preferred choice. But it is ONLY THIS PHENOMENON WHICH I WILL DIGNIFY WITH THE TITLE OF FREE WILL.

And now I would like to skip back to Genesis and try and make some sense out of the "free will" decision which is allegedly responsible for all the mayhem that has occurred from the inception of the human race.

Christians will no doubt be shocked and mortified by my declaration that the first great "leap of faith" made in the history of Christianity was the decision by Eve, and subsequently Adam, to risk death in order to acquire wisdom. " ... you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Well we know that was a lie, don't we, or you wouldn't be reading this now. And if God was referring to a spiritual death as distinct from a physical death, then he didn't bother to clarify the issue. So when the serpent said: "You will not surely die ... when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil," Eve and Adam were faced with a decision which quite possibly meets my criteria for a free-will choice, as they had no foreknowledge on which to judge whether God or the serpent was telling the truth.

It is also an excellent example of that most admirable of human qualities: the willingness to risk death in the quest for knowledge.

But I reject the simplistic interpretation of this incident by the Christian Church. Obviously they would not have wilfully rebelled against God if they believed that by "death" he meant annihilation.

What are "End Times"?

More to the point, do I really want or need to know? I leave that up to you, Jules.

Actually, do we have another member of the group that's always telling us how nice they are being less than nice to you, Jules? My religion allows - even encourages - me to be a ratbag. They are explicitly told not to be.

And Jesus said, "They that are sarky or otherwise take the piss shall burn in the fires of hell" - Derek, 4:2.

Is this some sort of down under inside joke or is it a book with particular meaning. Answer quickly and clearly or Neil will place the curse of The Blessed St. Liebowitz upon you, seeing as how he is Lord High Potentate of the Order of The Sons and Daughters of I Will Arise.

Damn, it's suddenly getting hot in here. Not me Neil, on them, I tell you, on them. :^O

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

the harming or abuse of any child either physically or psychologically is most definitely wrong and in many areas, is now considered to be criminal. However, the latter wasn't in force when my children were young. Objectively speaking the prevailing ideology of the time was,"Spare the rod and spoil the child." Objectively thinking, I somehow knew this to be wrong and as a consequence based on [b]my own thinking and thoughts[/b] sought a different more satisfactory solution to the problems of those instances.

Despite the conventional "wisdom" of the times I [b]knew[/b] that there had to be a better solution to my problem, than beating the hell out of a child in front of total strangers. I had absolutely no experience in child rearing and as any parent will atest, the little buggers don't come with an instruction book on their proper care and feeding. So how would you account for my decision not to lash out or physically discipline the child??? There wasn't time to consult any documentation and while never having been corporally disciplined by my parents, I had witnessed many of my peers so punished. In the short term the results always seemed to provide the desired result, for the parent, that is. The result was invariably a tearful but obeying child.

Posing the situation upon my background of contact sports and military service, the natural thing would have been for me to lash out in some form or fashion. But no, I supressed my emotions and instincts and objectively sought another course, one that would be better for all concerned. I do not trust emotions, either in myself or others. Never have, never will. Invariably decisions reached in a state of heightened emotion have proved to be the wrong decision, not only for myself but I've seen that for others as well. The only thing I had going for me was the leadership training I received as an officer candidate in which we were taught to think about all the consequences of our acts and that thought process, had damn well better be quick and affirmative, not only for myself but for all concerned. If I had permitted my emotions to come into play, what damage, either physical or psychological, would I have wrought on my children and on my relationship with them. What experience I had should have indicated that I give in to my primary instinct of an emotional response but dispassionate objectivity and reason led me to think that there had to be a better solution and furthermore, it turned out there was.

The solution was reason, pure and simple and to this day my peers keep telling me how lucky I was that my kids never caused me the anguish and problems their's did.

The other thing to note, after my divorce, my ex-wife would resort to physical punishment as she had while we were married and today even though my ex lives within twenty miles of my kids, they choose to spend their holidays with me rather than her although both of them claim I was the much stricter parent. My kids never had any doubts about where their limits were with me. I have to remind my kids to call their mother and yet I, who live over three hundred miles from them, hear from them once or twice a week. I once asked my kids if they had ever been physically afraid of me and while they said no, they said they were afraid of what might happen if ever I lost it. They both told me that while I hardly ever raised my voice to them, they were afraid of what would happen if I did but while they admitted that, they also said it gave them a sense of protection and total security. To this day, I still can't make heads or tails of that but I do know I am the parent who is called on when they're in trouble because they know dad will sit down and talk to them in finding a solution. That is what comes of being able to control your emotions. My kids trust me and my reactions, they don't trust their mother's and as a consequence they choose to bypass or ignore her. Not bad for a guy who got divorced when his oldest was four and the youngest was one. They only got to see me on alternating holidays and for two months summer vacations. I would have thought my youngest one would have been closer to his mother but that's not how it's worked out.

Don't get any ideas that I was a perfect parent. I was just a parent and far from perfection. I only know I tried my best. So far, and they're in their thirties now, my best such as it was, seems to have been good enough, I guess, at least I hope so.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

I don't care whether a person is actively(?) or inactively(?) rational, decisions arrived at based in emotion are invariably wrong or at best something that should be maybe Plan C if that. They seldom, if ever are of Plan B calibre.

When someone approaches me with a proposal that in my estimation, they are being overly enthusiastic about, I take that as a signal to be especially wary. I do that even when it is myself being the enthusiastic one. It is too easy to react out of gut instincts at the drop of a hat. If it is a good idea, it will bear examination and often while it is not really wrong there may be other better choices or decisions.

Now I don't mean to be insulting here but if I'm not mistaken you are around 30 years old and you are a bit of an impulse buyer. Trust me I know what that is like because I am still that way myself. As a consequence, when I am at home I only carry one debit card with me; I keep all my credit cards at home in a bowl of water frozen in my refrigerator freezer. There is too great a tendancy for me to see something I like and buy it on the spot. Hell, I've even bought cars I had a sudden urge for, on one of my credit cards. Imagine how I felt when a colleague showed up with the same car but he had paid a couple of thosand less than I had paid. Sure I had the satisfaction of being the first one in the parking lot with that particular type of vehicle of that year but the thrill of being the first quickly wore off when I found out that if I had been more in control of my emotions I could have saved myself a couple of thousand. For what it's worth, the car was a 'Vette and I love hot performing cars, I was able to rationalize my purchase all to hell and back and it was actively rationalized at that. It was in the colour I preferred, it was optioned exactly the way I would want and a test drive showed me it handled better than even I had expected. Add to that the fact that I had heard there was a waiting list for it and it was no contest. The salesman knew I was sold the moment I stepped in the door. Now I didn't walk in carrying cash or anything but I did have a platinum Amex card in my pocket and this was back in the days when a platinum card really meant something, in fact the salesman claimed he had never seen one up close before and I had only had mine for about two or three months at that point. My initial intention was to use the card to only put down a deposit but in those days a platinum card came with all sorts of bells and whistles and one of them was an extremely high limit. The salesman suggested that the price might be within my limit and that if it was and I could wait an hour, I could drive the car home. An hour and a half later I finished transferring all my possessions from my old Vette into my new one and was on my way home.

The next day was exciting all my coworkers were outside looking over my car, including several bosses. I felt ten feet tall and felt that way until after one week to the day a coworker drove his new Vette into the parking lot. Hey that was nice. Another owner to compare stories with but I was still the first one on the lot, right??? Oh sure the colour of his was different than mine, I even liked it but wouldn't own a bright red sports car because they attracted too much attention from the cops. His was bright shiny red, mine was bright shiny black and I had been first but how long did the bloom on that rose last when he told me what he had paid for his, an amount precisely $1987 dollars less than I had paid for mine. Thankfully I hadn't bragged about what I had paid for mine or that I had used a credit card to purchase it but that price difference niggled away at me for two years before I finally traded it in.

You see,if I had kept a rein on my emotions I could have saved myself over $2000 bucks because the prices I am talking about did not include the sales tax, his being taxed on the lower amount. You better believe I never made that mistake again. Oh, I've bought other cars on plastic but after that experience I had to go home to fetch my card and on the way home I would check out other dealers for the best price.

Ever buy something that you thought looked great only to have someone in a lower salary bracket show up with almost the exact same thing. Sort of sucks the air right out of your pride of ownership, doesn't it but after it's happened a few times experience will have taught you, take a step back, shop around, before you commit yourself to anything. Unless you are talking something like a unique piece of art there is damn little that you can purchase that is really need that very instant, unless you ripped the ass out of your pants and you have a key presentation to an important client within an hour. In those circumstances you'd be forgiven for making a rush decision. In my case, it was a pair of shoes Somehow I had rushed out in the morning and managed to have two different shoes on my feet. I walked into the store, found the first pair of shoes that were suitable quickly checked that there was nothing else that might have been more reasonable tryed them on, they fitted and so keeping them on made my presentation with twenty minutes to spare. My Christmas bonus more than made up for the cost of the shoes. You say emotions are based on past experiences well my past experiences have taught me to beware my emotions not only on the personal level but on the business level as well.

You have heard the hoary old story about the difference between men and women??? A woman will spend a dollar to buy a two dollar item she doesn't need because it's a bargain. A man will spend two dollars for a one dollar item he does need and especially if he needs it quickly. The question is, not whether you need the item or not but just how quickly do you need it, that you can't wait half an hour to check around for a better price. If you're not careful, your emotions will bite your ass nearly every time.

Remember when cell phones first became available. I refused to carry one, even when the company would have paid for it, because the damn things were too big and clumsy and I laughed at the guys who had jumped on the cell phone band wagon and were stuck with those monsters because they were tied up by a contract. I didn't start carrying a cell until the digital models came out. By that time the size was down where it could fit in a shirt pocket, pay phones were getting scarce and the prices were way down. I still have friends who have those big monsters; they make dandy paper weights. Even though I carry one now, half the time it is shut off. I turn it on when I am expecting a call or want to check for messages. The phone is for [b]my[/b] convenience not for everyone who thinks it might be nice to give me a call. I'm one of those people who won't climb out of the shower to answer the doorbell never mind my phone. I consider the phone an invasion of my privacy and to date have yet to encounter a situation where the people calling can't wait until I deem it convenient to take their call. If it is really important they'll keep calling but if it's just to chat, then it can wait. People have complained about this habit of mine but on questioning the calls have never been so urgent that they can't wait until I check my messages on the hour, every hour as routinely as I do in taking a crap or a leak. See ringing phones do not trigger emotional responses in me.

A colleague has a heart attack and everyone runs to him and starts loosening his collar and whatnot. Not me. I'm the guy who instantly gets on the horn and calls 911, then I'll go over and check on him. My 911 call is going to do more for him by summoning competent help than joining the well meaning group clustering around him and blocking the air. When I get there I shoo people away and then administer CPR which I've been trained to give. That is just another one of the reasons I have for keeping my head and controlling my emotions. I was once questioned on why I didn't rush to give CPR to someone and as I told the person, I'm good but trained EMTs are way better. The few seconds taken for the 911 call were not going to make any difference and if you don't believe that ask your doctor or even better take a course in CPR.

You say your emotions are learned or derived from experience. Well take a look at what experience has taught me. Gee I never thought I was that emotional before, neither advisedly nor inadvisedly. I guess I'm just hopelessly and incurably, rational. :^O

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

or you have no idea of what you are talking about and have never had the courage to apply the philosophy fully.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

I don't think I have seen that one. I have a strong feeling however that there may be some very meaty subject matter in that book.

Let me know if you come across it! :D

I started a discussion with this title, suggesting that the Bible should be given equal status with the three persons of the Trinity, because most of these BB Christians are much more interested in fossicking through the Bible to look for THE correct interpretation of various verses, than in actually revering the Trinity.

I made a partial breakthrough when, after much toing and froing, one member accepted my statement that the Bible "contains the words of God" as a valid alternative to "The Bible IS the Word of God."