Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 16:29:50 04/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 1998 at 19:12:09, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>Again, I do need evidence before saying A better than B, etc. Before >>saying someone is cheating I need evidence too. Not so eccentric, is it, >>to claim that data is a required condition in any experimental field. >> >>Enrique > >It is known that decisions made by humans, also logical decisions, do >request for emotional centres in the brain, before they were done. > >If you cut the way (clinical cases) to these emotional centres (or block >them by a trauma) you cannot decide rational. > >You will decide logically, but irrational. > >You cannot interpet data without emotions. If you do so, you are not >objective but crazy. >There is no objectiveness. We all claim and interprete data. >We all need data, thats true. FINALLY!!! Thorsten: in my poor Spanglish I tried to be precise. Above I was saying data is a "required" condition, not a "sufficient" condition. Then you must analyze it and reach conclusions, of course. I am not sure it's an emotional process though. From now on I think we have a semantic problem, no more. Unless you try to prove things with unconclusive data. > But the data isn't OUT THERE. It comes >using the minds. Or do you have a serial-interface in your body ?? >Your minds cannot offer the brain the data to compute on it without >emotions. > >Read Damasio or Kant to understand. No idea about Damasio. Who is he? Kant I read many years ago. Now I am more in the Sherlock Holmes mood. >If you believe that you could interpret data without changing them, if >you believe you could objectively tell us about the world, Come on, come on, you shouldn't invent your opponents in order to argue with them. > than you are >a) god That was a long time ago... >and / or >b) crazy. Not quite. :( Enrique
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.