<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What You Mean &#8220;We&#8221;, Kemosabe?</title>
	<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/</link>
	<description>I go many places...</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: JK</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83864</link>
		<author>JK</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83864</guid>
		<description>I know Malcolm,

That's why it's so dadggoned difficult to correlate data sets.

I simply wish I'd published the paper in a scientific journal instead of delivering it to a government agency. I know better now.

JK</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know Malcolm,</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s so dadggoned difficult to correlate data sets.</p>
<p>I simply wish I&#8217;d published the paper in a scientific journal instead of delivering it to a government agency. I know better now.</p>
<p>JK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83860</link>
		<author>Malcolm</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83860</guid>
		<description>I don't know how to tell you this, JK, but everyone seems to have left the room...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know how to tell you this, JK, but everyone seems to have left the room&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JK</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83859</link>
		<author>JK</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83859</guid>
		<description>Malcolm, our mutual describes my thinking occasionally as "elliptical" but sometimes an unorthodox approach is useful.

Do you ever watch C-Span?

This should be proof enough that my theory has gained some degree of acceptance. A focused and concentrated beam of cosmic rays would (it would seem) tend to induce a fairly uniform effect on any gathered group of similarly protoplasmically comprised individuals synaptically common enough (such as one might theorize makes up a body of individuals sharing a "family or phylum" that some degree of coherence of intent and motivation would seem to tend that group toward a coherent and &lt;em&gt;loosely describedy&lt;/em&gt;, rational action.   

Have you ever watched C-Span and seen some individual gesticulating somewhat wildly, making enunciations vociferously and then noticed that the cameraman has gone to take a leak and thereby allowed his camera to pan about the room and taken into account the absence of any appreciable audience to what would normally be considered an "Emmy Winning Performance" sure to bring about a degree of uniformity? 

Well, ever since I presented my paper (prior to the advent of C-Span incidentally) whenever a vociferous elected individual is about to make some sense, &lt;em&gt;whether it is sensible or not&lt;/em&gt; there is a resultant loss of a quorum. So I admit there is no direct evidence that my theory holds water. 

However the fact remains: once my theory became known in our Nations' capital, no group of elected individuals capable of passing into Law any sensible or unsensible suggested legislation has ever appeared on C-Span.

I rest my case.

JK</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Malcolm, our mutual describes my thinking occasionally as &#8220;elliptical&#8221; but sometimes an unorthodox approach is useful.</p>
<p>Do you ever watch C-Span?</p>
<p>This should be proof enough that my theory has gained some degree of acceptance. A focused and concentrated beam of cosmic rays would (it would seem) tend to induce a fairly uniform effect on any gathered group of similarly protoplasmically comprised individuals synaptically common enough (such as one might theorize makes up a body of individuals sharing a &#8220;family or phylum&#8221; that some degree of coherence of intent and motivation would seem to tend that group toward a coherent and <em>loosely describedy</em>, rational action.   </p>
<p>Have you ever watched C-Span and seen some individual gesticulating somewhat wildly, making enunciations vociferously and then noticed that the cameraman has gone to take a leak and thereby allowed his camera to pan about the room and taken into account the absence of any appreciable audience to what would normally be considered an &#8220;Emmy Winning Performance&#8221; sure to bring about a degree of uniformity? </p>
<p>Well, ever since I presented my paper (prior to the advent of C-Span incidentally) whenever a vociferous elected individual is about to make some sense, <em>whether it is sensible or not</em> there is a resultant loss of a quorum. So I admit there is no direct evidence that my theory holds water. </p>
<p>However the fact remains: once my theory became known in our Nations&#8217; capital, no group of elected individuals capable of passing into Law any sensible or unsensible suggested legislation has ever appeared on C-Span.</p>
<p>I rest my case.</p>
<p>JK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83842</link>
		<author>Malcolm</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83842</guid>
		<description>Hi JK,

But what do you think is "unexplainable" here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi JK,</p>
<p>But what do you think is &#8220;unexplainable&#8221; here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JK</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83841</link>
		<author>JK</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:01:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83841</guid>
		<description>Well Malcolm,

I just threw my pet theory out there 'cause it seems about as good as any in explaining the unexplainable. And I do regret that I didn't bother to explain that the cosmic ray thing can provide as much "un"motivational as motivational impeti for the purpuses of determining the source of "free will."

However the cosmic ray thing does perhaps explain why it is that motivation toward observable action seems more prevalent during the summer months than they do in the winter months. Kinda like dark matter.

What remains to be deduced is the mechanism by which any manifestation of "free will" would manifest itself in a more or less &lt;em&gt;coherent&lt;/em&gt; pattern.  I personally find it very curious that &lt;em&gt;any&lt;/em&gt; degree of coherency in disparate actions/expressions of free will-would be apparent.

JK</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well Malcolm,</p>
<p>I just threw my pet theory out there &#8217;cause it seems about as good as any in explaining the unexplainable. And I do regret that I didn&#8217;t bother to explain that the cosmic ray thing can provide as much &#8220;un&#8221;motivational as motivational impeti for the purpuses of determining the source of &#8220;free will.&#8221;</p>
<p>However the cosmic ray thing does perhaps explain why it is that motivation toward observable action seems more prevalent during the summer months than they do in the winter months. Kinda like dark matter.</p>
<p>What remains to be deduced is the mechanism by which any manifestation of &#8220;free will&#8221; would manifest itself in a more or less <em>coherent</em> pattern.  I personally find it very curious that <em>any</em> degree of coherency in disparate actions/expressions of free will-would be apparent.</p>
<p>JK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83837</link>
		<author>Malcolm</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83837</guid>
		<description>Hi JK,

I had no idea cosmic rays were so motivational!

Seriously, though, that does fall a bit short of what most folks are hoping for, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi JK,</p>
<p>I had no idea cosmic rays were so motivational!</p>
<p>Seriously, though, that does fall a bit short of what most folks are hoping for, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JK</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83827</link>
		<author>JK</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83827</guid>
		<description>Well I for one seriously believe it's the interference that cosmic ray particles have on protoplasm as they hurl their little selves through everything that gets in their little selves' way.

Look, if they can interfere with the "thinking" of space-based stuff surely they can (and do) interfere with the thought that one would prefer to lie about the house eating corn chips and swilling beer.

JK</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I for one seriously believe it&#8217;s the interference that cosmic ray particles have on protoplasm as they hurl their little selves through everything that gets in their little selves&#8217; way.</p>
<p>Look, if they can interfere with the &#8220;thinking&#8221; of space-based stuff surely they can (and do) interfere with the thought that one would prefer to lie about the house eating corn chips and swilling beer.</p>
<p>JK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Malcolm</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83778</link>
		<author>Malcolm</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83778</guid>
		<description>Well, we're going to get to that, down the road; I'm going to be buzzing around this topic for a long time to come. 

That "could have done otherwise" business needs a lot of unpacking too, and there are a lot of commonsense assumptions in there that get rather awkward under closer scrutiny. I don't see why vetoing is any "freer" than anything else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, we&#8217;re going to get to that, down the road; I&#8217;m going to be buzzing around this topic for a long time to come. </p>
<p>That &#8220;could have done otherwise&#8221; business needs a lot of unpacking too, and there are a lot of commonsense assumptions in there that get rather awkward under closer scrutiny. I don&#8217;t see why vetoing is any &#8220;freer&#8221; than anything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bighominid</title>
		<link>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83777</link>
		<author>bighominid</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://malcolmpollack.com/2008/04/22/what-you-mean-we-kemosabe/#comment-83777</guid>
		<description>"Free won't" makes sense.  Some philosophers, like Theodore Schick, loosely define freedom as "the ability to do otherwise."


Kevin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Free won&#8217;t&#8221; makes sense.  Some philosophers, like Theodore Schick, loosely define freedom as &#8220;the ability to do otherwise.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kevin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
