Nick are you asking why I might choose my eating habbits or habbits In general?
Diet wise I improved it some from not all that interesting to way more variety. I found I enjoyed cooking and getting away from the computer, Plus the whole ritual of making a meal, a bit of music, chopping vegis, and measuring spices has a nice ritual appeal. after grumbling about it some I enjoy a leisurly stroll so as to get out of my head and out of the house and frankly being anoyed at being out of shape I decided I want improve it, still very much a work in progress but an improvement. For what it's worth I thought people were Omnivores meaning can and enjoy a bit of this and that. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Nick Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Owen, > > > > I agree with your focus on design. Many years ago somebody wrote a > marvelous essay attempting to answer whether babies are “designed” to be > crèched or carried. The argument was based largely on a comparative study > of mammalian milk. Milk of crèching species is laced with fat (think > seals); human milk is leaner. There were many other features of the > argument which I now forget, but the basic pattern of argument – abductive > – was very convincing. > > > > When on looks at human dentition comparatively, the most striking features > of it is that it is vastly reduced and that the teeth are even. The > evenness of the dentition seems to be an adaption for speech The reduction > seems to be the result of the consumption for a couple of million years of > consuming very high quality food … fruits, nuts, meat – which is afforded > by central-location foraging. For a long time, we humans have been > bringing food to a central location and processing it. . > > > > So in fact, while I applaud the form of your argument, I don’t think it > is correct in this case. I don’t think human teeth ARE particularly well > designed for processing [raw] meat and veggies. We lack the tearing teeth > of a typical meat-eater (eg, cats and dogs) and we lack the heavily built > molars of a typical plant eater (eg, gorillas). Our dentition is that of > a creature much of whose chewing has been outsourced, and whose teeth have > been partially repurposed for communicative function. > > > > Great to see you today! > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Owen > Densmore > *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 9:51 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat > > > > We went on a vegetarian diet when we joined a Zen center in Rochester. > > > > Some years later, Dede broke her hip falling from a horse. They could not > perform the required surgery due to Dede's iron count being so low due to > diet. It took almost a week before the surgery could be performed. > > > > We now eat a Mediterranean diet (Italian) which is reasonable w.r.t. meat. > > > > I wonder why my teeth are so well designed to process both meat and > veggies. > > > > -- Owen > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:42 PM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > An appropriately timed interview in The Reasoner! > http://www.thereasoner.org/ > > Another thing I like about approaching argumentation this way is that it > forces us to confront another question, viz., why do we argue? I mean that > to be a teleological why with normative force—i.e., what should we want to > get out of arguing?— not the why in search of a causal explanation. > Epistemological and other cognitive considerations have to be prominent > parts of an account of argumentation. Again, virtues approaches to > argumentation embed arguing in a larger context: our cognitive lives. > > > > > On 10/28/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote: > > On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > > [NST==>Ok, you are forcing me to own up to my basic question. Why do > people who disagree with one another bother to talk? What is the good in > that? I assume it’s because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of > concerted action. Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving > more than one person in a decision actually improves the quality of the > decision. <==nst] > > > Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here. I tend to think we talk > _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other. Or perhaps I should > phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that > replaces grooming. But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some > sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely. > > The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr > e-mails). It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed. Every word I > read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, > _might_ reprogram me. There are other ways to be programmed (working in > the garden, driving, hiking, etc.). But there is a kind of nuance to > talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way. > > > -- > glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 > > > > -- > ⇔ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
