Chelsea boss Antonio Conte was asked about a number of issues at his press conference ahead of Sunday’s home game with Hull City. Here is some of what the Italian had to say.On Diego Costa“He had a training session on Tuesday with the rest of the team and he trained very well. He hasn’t [any] pain in his back – for this reason he’s available.“On Sunday and Monday, he trained with a fitness coach because it is important to prepare his body to have a good session on Tuesday.”On Costa’s future“I think the player wants to stay at Chelsea. He’s very happy to play with us – this idea [a move to China] is far from his mind.“He’s happy to stay here, to play with us. This is the most important thing for us. I don’t see any problem.”On reports of a bust-up with CostaEmbed from Getty Images“After the game against Leicester, I told you the truth [that Costa was injured].“I heard a lot of speculation about Diego, but now the most important thing is that he trained with us this week, he hasn’t any pain in his back, and is available to come back in our squad against Hull City.“Diego is an important player for us. When he stays in a good form, he’s always played. Will he start against Hull? We’ll see on Sunday. I do not want to give an advantage to our opponent.”On whether Costa should get a new contract“I think now it’s better to be concentrated on the present, not the future. It’s important to have these [next] four months in a very strong way, and then we’ll see.“It’s important now to be focused on the present and not to see too far, in my opinion.“Diego is a good player, he is a good person and now he’s only focused on Chelsea and to play with us and to continue to help us.“He missed only one game but now he’s ready to come back with us. I’m sure about his commitment, his will to fight with this team to the end and to try to win the title.”On an offer from Bournemouth for Asmir Begovic“Asmir is an important player for me, on and off the pitch. He knows this.“There is this offer – me and the club, we are evaluating this offer. But it’s important to find the right solution for Asmir, for the club, for me.”On Costa’s possible return to the team“At the moment, for me to make a decision is not easy, because I have four or five players [who are] very strong in that position – I have Pedro, Willian, [Eden] Hazard, Costa and also Ruben [Loftus-Cheek].“It’s not easy because they are in good form, and they give me different options. For sure, I sleep some hours less to make the best decision but it is my task to pick the best players game-by-game.“I have to pick three players [up front] and if someone stays out it’s not for punishment, or for other stories. I like to make choices game-by-game, and also to consider the opponent.”On Nathan Ake“I evaluated his situation, I evaluated our situation and I think it’s a good reinforcement for us because Ake is a player that can play in different positions.“I think in this last two years he has played and improved a lot, and now he’s ready to play with this team, to stay with us and to help us.“This is the second week that he’s working with us – now he’s starting to go into our idea of football. I’m pleased to have him.”On whether Eduardo could replace Asmir Begovic“Eduardo is a great buy for us. He arrived as a third goalkeeper, that position is very clear in my mind.“I’m very happy for him because he is working very well, and he is helping me, helping Thibaut [Courtois] and Asmir a lot and also he is helping [goalkeeper coaches] Gianluca Spinelli and Hilario in their work. For me, he is doing very well.”On Fifa technical director’s Marco Van Basten’s proposed rule changesEmbed from Getty Images“I don’t like this because I think that if you start to change a lot of rules, it’s not good. With these [current] rules, football is very attractive. I don’t like wanting to try to take examples of the other sports. Football is football, other sports are other sports.”On Hull“You have to face this game with great concentration and focus on our target because if you think that these games are easy, you can make a great mistake and you can pay for this mistake at the end of the season.“For me, Hull City are a good team – in the last game they won against Bournemouth. They changed the coach and usually when you change the coach you have a great reaction from the players – we must pay great attention.” Ads by Revcontent Trending Articles Urologists: Men, Forget the Blue Pill! This “Destroys” ED x ‘Genius Pill’ Used By Rich Americans Now Available In Netherlands! x Men, You Don’t Need the Blue Pill if You Do This x What She Did to Lose Weight Stuns Doctors: Do This Daily Before Bed! x One Cup of This (Before Bed) Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! x Drink This Before Bed, Watch Your Body Fat Melt Like Crazy x Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Charity an artifact of selfishness: Omar Eldakar and David Sloan Wilson tried to conjure up altruism out of selfishness in PNAS.1 Wilson, author of the Evolution for Everyone curriculum (12/21/2005), taught that every behavior, even infanticide, was explainable in evolutionary terms. Here he takes on sacrificial giving. “Selfishness is seldom considered a group-beneficial strategy, the two authors began. “In the typical evolutionary formulation, altruism benefits the group, selfishness undermines altruism, and the purpose of the model is to identify mechanisms, such as kinship or reciprocity, that enable altruism to evolve.” Eldakar and Wilson don’t believe that appeals to punishment can explain cooperation. Punishment costs the punisher as well as the punishee, and experimental games show that individuals quickly stop being generous in the presence of selfish cheaters. Instead, they invented a new “selfish punisher model” that proposes “behaving selfishly in first-order interactions and altruistically in second-order interactions by punishing other selfish individuals.” How does it work? The selfish guy punishes other selfish guys, increasing the pool of cooperators. The model was reported by Science Daily with the quizzical title, “Selfishness may be altruism’s unexpected ally.” This, they propose, causes selfishness to be a self-limiting strategy that sustains altruism in a society. “This polymorphism can be regarded as a division of labor, or mutualism, in which the benefits obtained by first-order selfishness help to ‘pay’ for second-order altruism.” Their model keeps selfishness on top where it belongs in the Darwinian ethic: “This behavior might seem hypocritical in moral terms, but it makes sense as an evolutionary strategy,” they said. They’re really not interested in morality, though. They just want to model a stable process in a population. It doesn’t matter whether it is made up of wasps or White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. So does this explain why grandma writes a big check to a charity in Africa? The paper’s mathematics and charts might explain beehive behavior to some extent, and why the Mafia keeps its own cheaters in check, or why civilization needs police departments as “specialized punishers” of bad guys. But these were only suggested applications of a theoretical model at the end of the paper. They talked about how punishment could keep cheaters from taking over, but they didn’t say anything about how Darwinism would motivate sacrificial love for strangers. At best, they visualized a stable society that would allow altruistic individuals to keep from getting stomped on. How or why any individual would give sacrificially to total strangers was left as an exercise: “We hope that our model stimulates interest in the concept of selfish punishment in both humans and nonhuman species.”. Promised Land: Jerusalem – the holy city, in the land of promise. One is drawn to contemplate Moses’ commands to love God and one’s neighbor as oneself, confirmed by Jesus as the greatest commandments. Today, Darwinian scholars in the land of Israel have other priorities in mind. Science Daily described how three professors at Hebrew University played games with subjects to figure out the motivations for cooperation and competition. The article began, “Phrases such as ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘every man for himself’ may seem to accentuate the presence of political and social competition in American culture; however, there obviously are similar instances of inter- and intra-group conflict across almost all known organisms. So what makes competition so prevalent for life and why does it sometimes seem to be preferred over cooperation?” Don’t look for the S-I-N word here. The researchers were surprised that the human subjects preferred to cooperate and leave the competition alone when given a choice. “It appears, therefore, that participants much preferred avoiding conflict when given the option to strengthen their own group instead,” the article ended. “But this still leaves behind yet another question of group dynamics: why, if humans prefer cooperation when given that option, are there so many instances of competition shown in everyday life?” Maybe some things can’t be reduced to formulas and Darwinian games. Mimi vs We Oui: A Science Daily article had the arresting title, “Decision Making: Is It All ‘Me, Me, Me’?” The answering is, surprisingly, no. People don’t always act in their own self interest. British researchers found that team spirit trumps selfishness even when it costs the individual. “Orthodox or classical game predicts that people will act for selfish reasons,” the article said. This is being challenged by “team reasoning theory,” the idea that individual self-interest is not always foremost in the way people act. Instead, people often act in the best interest of their team. This runs counter to the Nash Equilibrium (recall the movie A Beautiful Mind) that based its formula on individual self-interest. The researchers were “delighted” that they found a contradiction with orthodox game theory. “Theories of team reasoning were developed to explain why, in some circumstances, people seem to act not in their individual self-interest but in the interest of their families, companies, departments, or the religious, ethnic, or national groups with which they identify themselves.” Apparently they did not try to broach this observation in strictly Darwinian terms. Others Esteem: If a little selfishness is good for Darwin, more should be better. That’s another faulty inference, reported Science Daily about the opinion of Michael Kernis, psychologist at University of Georgia. High self-esteem can be fragile and counter-productive. “People with fragile high self-esteem compensate for their self-doubts by engaging in exaggerated tendencies to defend, protect and enhance their feelings of self-worth,” he said. Psychologists are trending away from the self-esteem fad of the 90s (05/12/2003). “It was once thought that more self-esteem necessarily is better self-esteem,” the article said. “In recent years, however, high self-esteem per se has come under attack on several fronts, especially in areas such as aggressive behavior. Also, individuals with high self-esteem sometimes become very unlikable when others or events threaten their egos.” Kernis offered a more complex view of self-esteem: “it is now thought that there are multiple forms of high self-esteem, only some of which consistently relate to positive psychological functioning.” Maybe Darwin can still save face. Whether it is high self-esteem, low self-esteem or healthy self-esteem, it is still self-esteem. Against just-so psychology: “Evolutionary psychology has tempted many scientists to indulge in just-so stories….; asserting that our brains are poorly engineered is an equally risky business.” So Sandra Aamodt wrote in her review of two psychology books for Nature on April 23.2 It’s not that she was about to junk Darwin. She just was pointing out that the brain and mind are pretty complex things to put into evolutionary terms. For example, summing up Adam Zeman’s book A Portrait of the Brain (Yale, 2008) and Gary Marcus’s book Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind (Houghton Mifflin, 2008), she criticized reductionism: In the final chapter, Zeman grapples with consciousness. He outlines how brains that are predisposed to tell stories and that attribute actions to agents rather than chance might lead us to believe in an immortal soul. His own view is that this is “no more than a wonderful fiction”. (Marcus makes the same point less gently.) Zeman struggles with science’s failure to find an emotionally satisfying replacement story, conceding that such questions may be more in the realm of art than science. An aggressive, Darwinian science department has long sought to take over the arts and humanities (02/11/2008, 12/11/2005), reducing everything to selectionist terms. What will happen if the Darwinians relinquish something as big as consciousness to the arts? Aamodt left that crack in the dam unplugged. And her claim that “Evolutionary psychology has tempted many scientists to indulge in just-so stories” might just tempt the philosophy professor to ask how far back the storytelling goes. Can’t Darwinize the Golden Rule: Why do so many people follow the Golden Rule instead of the Law of the Jungle? Prashanth Ak tried to address that conundrum in his book review of Donald Pfaff’s new book, The Neuroscience of Fair Play (Dana Press, 2008), in Science magazine this week.3 He began by summarizing the historical tug-of-war over reductionism: Naturalized ethics, the idea that principles of natural science bear on normative ethics, faces two longstanding objections. The naturalistic fallacy cautions that good, in the moral sense, cannot be defined from natural properties. Hume warned against deriving an ought (as in how people ought to act) from an is (how people actually act, for instance). Most of those who seek to naturalize ethics are familiar with these arguments but maintain that scientific findings can have a profound impact on our understanding of morality and ethics. The question of whether ethical concepts have innate bases or are acquired has echoes of the nature-versus-nurture question and carries much the same ideological baggage. Whether it is our natures or our cultures that make us who we are has been central to all sorts of intense debates, on topics including the ideal political system, effective means of teaching, and crime and punishment. Discussions of the nature of morality exhibit similar polarity, with some boasting of their indifference to neuroscience and others embracing it wholeheartedly. In the book, Pfaff tried to make a case that since the Golden Rule is universal, there must be a neurological basis for it. Remember “Wesley Autrey, who threw himself on top of a stranger in the New York City subway to save the person from being crushed by an oncoming train”? How does Darwin explain that? (02/22/2004). Ak summarized Pfaff’s hypothesis in academic gobbledygook: Pfaff hypothesizes that such altruism is due to brain mechanisms that override selfpreference and blur the boundaries between the self and the other through a “loss of social information.” He conjectures that it depends in part on neurobiological mechanisms for fear, supplemented by neurohormonal bases of sexual and parental behaviors, and that departures from altruistic behavior are due to similar neurogenetic bases of antisocial behaviors. Pfaff suggests that the capacity of a person to behave according to the golden rule depends on a balance–properly, an imbalance–among social behavioral mechanisms in which those producing prosocial actions outweigh those producing antisocial actions. Whether or not that was comprehensible, Ak was clearly not satisfied with it. “Pfaff’s broad-brush treatment of altruism, however, is bound to bother quite a few readers,” he said, adding later: “considerably more sophisticated cognitive mechanisms than those posited in the book are required.” Any unfinished business? “the study of possible biological bases of morals.” Old folks: Also in Science,4 Erik Myin reviewed a new book on folk psychology: Daniel Hutto’s Folk Psychological Narratives (MIT, 2008). Myin seemed downright unsatisfied with traditional evolutionary stories about why humans act so – well, human: Traditional explanations of our folk psychological capacities split on whether the crucial mechanism for understanding others is a result of genuinely theorizing about their beliefs and desires (a theory of mind) or of simulating these. Nevertheless, nearly all researchers in the tradition invoke complex “mindreading” machinery, operating behind the scenes. Moreover, it is generally assumed that this cognitive machinery has a strong innate component. The machinery must have been present in our evolutionary precursors, so a common argument goes, or else some of their well-established capacities–e.g., deception, social learning of tool use, social cooperation, the emergence of symbolic language–cannot be accounted for. In Folk Psychological Narratives, Dan Hutto presents an alternative conception of folk psychology as well as a thorough critique of its traditional treatment in the cognitive sciences. Hutto, a philosopher of psychology and professor at the University of Hertfordshire, rejects the idea that our stance toward each other is genuinely “theoretical.” Folk psychology – the attempt to explain one another’s actions in terms of their beliefs and reasons – has been viewed as an artifact of neuroscience. We don’t really read each other’s minds to figure out what people believe and are about to do. The assumption of psychologists, with their theory of mind, is that such reasonings are epiphenomena of what our neurons are doing. Hutto and his reviewer seem to be elevating the status of folk psychology as a genuinely explanatory tool. We must explain one another in narrative terms instead of trying to develop a physical theory of mind. Both still work from the premise that humans evolved from pre-human ancestors, but Hutto argues that human language was a prerequisite for folk psychology; it did not exist among tool-using hominids. Maybe that sets humans genuinely apart from the animals—even to Darwinists like these. Regardless of one’s position on folk psychology, Myin pointed out that Darwinian psychology has not achieved explanatory nirvana. There are still “fundamental debates that have raged in cognitive science through recent decades,” he said. 1. Omar Tonsi Eldakar and David Sloan Wilson, “Selfishness as second-order altruism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online on April 30, 2008, 10.1073/pnas.0712173105. 2. Sandra Aamodt, “Biased brains, messy memories,” Nature 452, 938-939 (24 April 2008) | doi:10.1038/452938a. 3. Prashanth Ak, “Neuroscience: On Deciding How to Do unto Others,” Science, 2 May 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5876, pp. 614-615, DOI: 10.1126/science.1157089. 4. Erik Myin, “Cognitive Science: Rethinking Folk Psychology,” Science 2 May 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5876, p. 615, DOI: 10.1126/science.1157120. Prashanth Ak did not answer the “naturalistic fallacy” (defining good by what is natural). He merely bluffed that he knew about it and still had faith in reductionist science. If we are only our brains, and those brains evolved ultimately from purposeless matter, then abandon all attempts to define morality, consciousness, or reason itself. The reductionist, physicalist, secularist wizards have had a long time to conjure up a mind out of matter. Maybe if they continue to bump their heads against reality, it will sober up their Darwin-inebriated souls. Physicist John Archibald Wheeler passed away recently. He seems to have been fond of the teaser, “What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.”(Visited 21 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Evolutionists struggle to explain complex human behaviors in Darwinian terms. Sure, corporate squabbles can seem like survival of the fittest, but humans also sacrifice for people they don’t even know and do other weird, un-Darwinian things. In Darwinism, selfishness rules. How does cooperative and altruistic behavior arise from selfish motives? Here are some of the recent attempts to reconcile observations with a theory in which selfishness is key.
Announcing PremiumBeat’s Indie Filmmaker Prize Pack! We’re giving away a GH5, 4 Rokinon cine lenses, $500 in music, $500 from RocketStock, and a pro camera bag. Enter now for your chance to win!The Panasonic Lumix GH5 is the most anticipated camera of 2017, and we’re giving one away for FREE! One lucky winner will get the camera, 4 Rokinon lenses, a CineBags backpack, $500 in royalty free music from PremiumBeat, and $500 in RocketStock credit.For a chance to win, click the Enter to Win button below and enter your email address. That’s it! The contest runs from March 30th until April 24th, 2017 — so sign up now!Congratulations to Harald B. for winning the Indie Filmmaker Prize Pack! I have been using a single prime lens my entire career and I am more than excited to finally be able to do more wide-angle shots. I am definitely most excited about the four Rokinon lenses even though the GH5 is a killer camera. This gear will be used on a daily basis in the building of my commercial and creative filmmaking career.THIS CONTEST HAS ENDEDWhat’s in the Indie Filmmaker Prize Pack?Panasonic Lumix GH520.3MP MOS Sensor4K, UHD, HD VideoInternal 4:2:2 10-Bit 4K Video5-Axis Sensor Stabilization; Dual I.S. 20.76x 3.68m-Dot OLED Viewfinder3.2″ 1.62m-Dot Free-Angle TouchscreenAdvanced DFD AF System; 6K & 4K PHOTOISO 25600 and 12 fps Continuous ShootingDual UHS-II SD Slots; Wi-Fi & Bluetooth4 Rokinon T1.5 Cine DS Lenses (Micro Four Thirds Mount)24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm Cine-Style LensesMicro Four Thirds MountT1.5 to T22 Exposure RangeMulti-Layer Coating to Reduce FlareDual Side Focus and T-Stop ScalesDe-Clicked Aperture RingManual Focus and ApertureCineBags CB25B Revolution BackpackBlack/Charcoal ColorFits Mirrorless Camera and Accessories17″ MacBook-Sized Laptop CompartmentFour Exterior PouchesOversized ZippersCargo Straps with Heavy-Duty BucklesCompression Foam Harness, Hip BeltLarge Carry HandleWaterproof with Pull-Out Rain CoverDistributes Payload Evenly for Comfortable CarryingFront Organizer Pouch for Media Cards, Business Cards, Pens, Passport, and Travel Documents$500 in RocketStock AssetsAfter Effects TemplatesLight LeaksLens FlaresFilm Grain OverlaysDigital DistortionTransitions$500 in PremiumBeat Royalty Free MusicCurated Royalty Free MusicThousands of Exclusive Tracks and SFX100% Copyright ClearSafe for YouTube and VimeoSimple LicensingTHIS CONTEST HAS ENDED About PremiumBeat.comPremiumBeat.com is a royalty free music website that provides high-quality tracks and sound effects for use in new and traditional media projects. Our focus is the streamlined licensing of curated music — a better selection means less time searching for the perfect tracks for your projects.PremiumBeat works with professional composers from around the world to ensure the library remains high quality and constantly expanding. With thousands of tracks in more than thirty music styles, our music is ideal for websites, online videos, mobile apps, television, radio, feature films, and other professional applications. About RocketStock.comRocketStock.com is a unique provider of exclusive After Effects templates and video assets for motion designers, filmmakers, video editors, and cinematographers. Their curated collection promises universalized project design, similar features across projects, and intuitive workflows.
Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games It may seem that it’s just the top spot at the end of the first round of UAAP Season 80 that’s at stake when La Salle and Ateneo clash on Sunday, but for reigning Most Valuable Player Ben Mbala, the game “means everything” for the defending champion Green Archers.ADVERTISEMENT Heat check LOOK: Loisa Andalio, Ronnie Alonte unwind in Amanpulo for 3rd anniversary Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Fire hits houses in Mandaluyong City Fire hits houses in Mandaluyong City The fierce rivals are squaring off before an expected sellout crowd at Mall of Asia Arena for the first time since the finals last December when La Salle prevailed to clinch its second title in four years.“It means everything,” Mbala told reporters after scoring 39 points in the 106-100 win over University of the East last Wednesday. “No matter what will happen when we step on the court, we’re just going to bring it until the last second. I don’t need to say anything about Ateneo-La Salle, it’s just blue versus green. It says it all.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutTickets for the 4 p.m. game are sold separately from the other game pitting National U and University of the Philippines set at 12 noon.A check at MoA Arena ticket booth showed only lower box, SRO and a handful of general admission tickets remain unsold as of Saturday afternoon, underscoring the allure of college basketball’s biggest rivalry. LATEST STORIES More than the rivalry, the Blue Eagles are looking to preserve their unbeaten record, after roaring to six straight wins to start the season. The Archers are gunning for a third straight victory following a loss UP recently. —CEDELF P. TUPAS Nonong Araneta re-elected as PFF president Frontrow holds fun run to raise funds for young cancer patients BSP sees higher prices in November, but expects stronger peso, low rice costs to put up fight Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH For the complete collegiate sports coverage including scores, schedules and stories, visit Inquirer Varsity. Read Next MOST READ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View comments
Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC MOST READ Read Next LOOK: Iya Villania meets ‘Jumanji: The Next Level’ cast in Mexico Typhoon ‘Tisoy’ threatens Games View comments Jarencio, Romeo insist all is well after heated argument Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university PLAY LIST 01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Barroca’s three at the 3:20 mark of the third quarter gave it its first taste of the lead, 54-53 and the rest was history as the Hotshots cruised to the 86-79 victory.Barroca was instrumental in the turnaround, finishing with 17 points, three assists, and two rebounds to lead Magnolia.The former FEU playmaker said the game served as an eye-opener for the Hotshots in this crucial stretch.“It’s the playoffs. The physicality is already heightened and we have to adjust,” he said. “We focused on the referees and the calls to start the game and we were lost on that. But once we adjusted and played physical, got our defense and pressure done, that’s when we made our run.”ADVERTISEMENT Families in US enclave in north Mexico hold sad Thanksgiving Pussycat Dolls set for reunion tour after 10-year hiatus John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding Magnolia, though, found the spark in old reliable Mark Barroca, who managed to calm his team despite the 20-point deficit, which allowed the Hotshots to storm back into the game.“If you’d look at it as a 20-point deficit, it’s going to be hard. But coach told us to continue chipping the lead away,” the 31-year-old guard said. “We were able to trim it down to 10, but they had a run before the end of the first half. Still, we focused to get some stops until eventually, we were surprised that we’re already closing in on them in the third quarter and got the lead through our defense.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutout LATEST STORIES And Magnolia will be banking on those learnings as it looks to be more than just a part of the Final Four.“Now, we’re more matured. We’re not looking at the Finals yet. That’s what we’re thinking about last season. But now, we’re taking it one game at a time. We can’t get too ahead of ourselves. The game in the playoffs is different so you have to be prepared at all times,” he said. .@M_Hotshots’ Mark Barroca shares how his team fought from 20 points down and pulled off the tough qf victory vs GlobalPort. #PBA2018 pic.twitter.com/PAmLfPCdMl— Randolph B. Leongson (@RLeongsonINQ) March 6, 2018 Google honors food scientist, banana ketchup inventor and war hero Maria Orosa Mark Barroca leads Magnolia. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netIt didn’t matter if it had the luxury of a twice-to-beat advantage in the playoffs, Magnolia was determined to move on to the semifinals as quick as it could.But the second seed Hotshots had to dig deep to shake off the seventh-place Batang Pier, who came out firing in their upset bid with a 26-6 start, in their 2018 PBA Philippine Cup quarterfinal duel Tuesday night.ADVERTISEMENT