Originally posted by AcolyteWell obviously if MAD is to work then mutual destruction must be completely assured. Without the possibility of a cleansing strike on an invaded Britain the Reds had the option of invading our presumably safe island, moving their leaders there and then starting a nuclear war. Who can blame the US for making plans to counter this approach?
Quote from a NewScientist review:
Then there was the time a head of civil defence in the UK admitted on live radio that he was preparing for an 'area denial' strike by US nuclear forces as much as anything else.
Of course, th ...[text shortened]... as to why. If no such people exist, then we can all be thankful.
(All quotations due to StarValleyWy)
A lot to think about. I will begin with your conclusion. I like your idea of struggling against [ignorance] personally with the hope of fighting it globally as being a reason for living.
I try my best to adhere to this goal.
You started out with a partial description of the relativists point of view that reality is socially constructed by the use of language, stereotypes and images. This is really an adendum to the effort to support two ideas: 1 - that the mind has no mechanisms designed to grasp reality; all it can do is passively download words, images and types from the surrounding culture. 2 - that scientists, like lay people, are unequipped to grasp an objective reality. This goes back to the idea of "western science might be a good way to create goods and services, but it misses the essence of other cultures and sciences." In short, western science is an "imperialist arrogance".
This is not exactly what i was getting at, but pretty close. I meant to be more literal, ie that there is an "objective reality" constructed from information from which we deduce the physical world. Conventional thought has the "physical world" as the start and the "conceptual world" as the deductive product. I simply reversed the two. I disagree that Western science is "technology-society" geared. My hypothesis in that thread does not contradict the standard scientific method at all, since science draws its conclusions from data. I say scientists use the physical world they deduce to figure out which facts are true. Conventioanl wisdom holds that the scientist figures out which facts are true about the physical world by observing the physical world.
This point of view is not an accident, because in bringing down hard science, the relativists are increasing their own power base. And you can't argue with them. they have the principles of "false consciousness", "inauthentic preferences" and "interiorized authority" to name just a few ... with which to whack any opponent into the dirt.
I am not attempting to bring down hard science. I am merely showing what a powerful thing it is because science does not presuppose any philosophical viewpoint. Science can be practiced by a Christian, an atheist, or a Jain with equal success as long as the practitioner uses the method scrupulously. Scince is the best truth-tool we have; I was just indicating how well it adapts to viewpoints because, as I mentioned, it is amoral.
Even though "the world we know is a construct of the brain", that does not mean it is an arbitrary construct. A million years of evolution have left us very capable of ascertaining reality.
This is true, and what I said in that thread does not deny the truth of this; it merely inverts the viewpoint.
Also, one last point. A human child spends the first year of it's life learning the "process" of knowing, not any particular action. This is why artificial intelligence is in deep trouble. The wiring of the human brain is so profound and deep as to be truely mysterious. Teach a baby monkey to grab for a rattle, it spends 98 % of it's attention on the rattle. Teach a baby human and it spends almost it's entire attention on the human doing the teaching. "What does this person want me to do? What is the action required. What reaction do i get for this action." It is learning the teacher, not the action.
This is very interesting.
Originally posted by royalchickenThe short answer is that you won't be able to find any ex-commissars. They just switched over to the greens and socialists.π
Ok, one last thought experiment before I get to read your forthocoming edit (Russ, an expectant smiley please π). When you say "evey culpable communist is evil", and "communism is evil", you are really saying "there exists a communist, who is evil, such that if he ceased to be a communist, would no longer be evil". See how that works?
Now ...[text shortened]... a combination of hereditary and biological factors, like virtually all other personality traits?
Seriously... the basic person who chooses to carry out the orders of the state at the expense of the individual is the same under any set of rules. The fact that the group has defined themselves by their actions is not a mystery. You are getting the cause and effect mixed up. They are evil because they are enforcers. This is like the arguement that the left uses all the time. "A recent study has shown that all students measurably improve their accademic scores if they have studied music."
It never occurs to them that "smart kids are more likely to take music lessons."
I kind of reject the idea that you could change the base nature of the base set of communism, ie, [culpable] communists by switching them into a flower growing club. It is a non-sequiter indeed.
Yeah, Boas and Skinner. Skinner actually proposed that all members of the society should be "conditioned". It worked, so why not?
As to the cheating spouses. It might be beyond the scope of the issue, but the marriage involves not just the two people. They made use of the law of the land and more importantly, they lay at risk their children if they have chosen to have any. That is a side issue though, and i will concede you the point that logically, if both parties agree that the only thing in the universe that contains importance is their personage... then no, there is no cheating.
I never... ever take an action without considering (by CONSCIOUS THOUGHT) if it is moral. I had to learn this as a mechanism that was destroyed in youth. Long story. But I can't even go to the market without working out the right and wrong of it. Maybe that is why i have never spoken to an lawyer.π
Originally posted by royalchickenMark...
(All quotations due to StarValleyWy)
[b]A lot to think about. I will begin with your conclusion. I like your idea of struggling against [ignorance] personally with the hope of fighting it globally as being a reason for living.
I try my best to adhere to this goal.
You started out with a partial description of the relativists point of vie ...[text shortened]... for this action." It is learning the teacher, not the action.
This is very interesting.[/b]
Sorry. I reread my rant on your "serious question" post. All i was doing was pointing out that you were "really" close to condoning the relativists point of view. I never for a moment doubted that you are an impericist at heart. Anyone with a mind like yours would have the same chance as a rat in a cat house of not following a strict reality base.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf they are evil because they are enforcers, why is it that their "communism" has anything to do with their evil? This is what I was getting at. I suppose our disagreement lies in this:
The short answer is that you won't be able to find any ex-commissars. They just switched over to the greens and socialists.π
Seriously... the basic person who chooses to carry out the orders of the state at the expense of the individual is the same under any set of rules. The fact that the group has defined themselves by their actions is not a myst ...[text shortened]... out working out the right and wrong of it. Maybe that is why i have never spoken to an lawyer.π
1. You believe that moral properties can be assigned to people: "He is evil", and to actions.
2. I disagree and say that moral properties can only be assigned to actions.
Seriously... the basic person who chooses to carry out the orders of the state at the expense of the individual is the same under any set of rules.
I of course agree. So it is not the guy's communism that makes him evil, it is his status as an enforcer. My "thought experiment" was worded to deal with that.
I also agree that your cause and effect statements are true (and fun to use among journalists and pollsters), but not exactly applicable to what I was trying to say.
I kind of reject the idea that you could change the base nature of the base set of communism, ie, [culpable] communists by switching them into a flower growing club. It is a non-sequiter indeed.
Ok, here you answer my question. You say "Enforcers are evil." and now you say "Communist enforcers are evil regardless of whether they are enforcers or not.". It is airtight logically to say that you think that by its very nature, communism is evil. So now I am completely clear on what you think. This is all I wanted. My question now is whether you also thik "Fascists" or "flower-growers" have similar status.
As to the marriage thing, I agree with you. I was assuming only the couple and the law have any involvement (no kids etc.). This doesn't invalidate what I said though. It merely says there is a superior moral law: "You will do what is in the best interests of your children above your own demands of pleasure."
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo offense taken. I don't know about my status as a rat, but there are no cat houses in my town π (What moral can of worms does THAT open? π)
Mark...
Sorry. I reread my rant on your "serious question" post. All i was doing was pointing out that you were "really" close to condoning the relativists point of view. I never for a moment doubted that you are an impericist at heart. Anyone with a mind like yours would have the same chance as a rat in a cat house of not following a strict reality base.
Originally posted by royalchickenThis goes back to my assertion that you are a moral relativist and I am not. I can not separate the being from the deed. It is the being who commits the deed. Their "communism" has at least a hundred year, knowable, studyable HISTORY. It has everything to do with their evil. They created that history. Would you feel safe in saying "well, over this span there was great misery and genecide perpetrated by unknowable things/persons/phenomenon under the guise of the set of dogma consisting of a to z"? I wouldn't. I know what, who, when, where, why and how these things were done. Being a moral relativist, you can not admit to personal culpability of an individual. I understand that. I don't agree with it, but i understand it. The actions you are assigning moral properties are perfectly safe in a relative setting. They are indivisible from the being in an "bio-centric individualist" morality.
If they are evil because they are enforcers, why is it that their "communism" has anything to do with their evil? This is what I was getting at. I suppose our disagreement lies in this:
1. You believe that moral properties can be assigned to people: "He is evil", and to actions.
2. I disagree and say that moral properties can only be assigned ...[text shortened]... do what is in the best interests of your children above your own demands of pleasure."
You are asking me to adopt the tactics of my enemy. Only socialists would attempt to put properties and attributes onto "classes" of people. I can't do that. So given any group, be it political, religious or societal... any such group driven by brute force, in the form of genecide, it's [enforcing] members could be said to be evil.
Facists qualify within the same framework we have establised for communists. Flower growerers are not. Except for the guy who owns the "Little Shop Of Horrors"π There is probably a sub set of "flower growers" who take up the hammer for the state and act as enforcers. Their primary personal attribute would then be switched from flower grower to Facist. They don't necessarily inherit the larger groups culpability, but their ACTIONS WILL TELL. Then we only need to study their actual history to know good/evil of that individual. To speak of any group quality makes no sense.
Mike, You really have answered me well. I was testing your assertion, and oyu argued it. I would, however, include most of history's communists under the fascist flag too.
I am not as much a moral relativist as an extreme skeptic. In English class once, someone referred to me as "Mephistophelian" π when I refused to believe her argument from strictly moral grounds.
Me too! I would go one step further, as i stated at the start and put all such "movements" and quests for utopia in the category of religions. If it quacks and walks... don't go looking for "gallops" in the resume!
Old Mestopho... wasn't he the horney bugger that inspired the early English literary wanderings into the bowels of the earth? You don't look a thing like him. Mind you, i'm no judge, but i don't see it a'tall.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMephistopheles is basically literary Satan. The picture you see in my profile has been messed with, and my avatar is of course not me but his excellency Mr. Turing.
Me too! I would go one step further, as i stated at the start and put all such "movements" and quests for utopia in the category of religions. If it quacks and walks... don't go looking for "gallops" in the resume!
Old Mestopho ...[text shortened]... ng like him. Mind you, i'm no judge, but i don't see it a'tall.
I think Dante was the horny bowel wanderer π
"Mephistophelian skepticism" is how she denoted what she saw as my moral bankruptcy. My response was "You crazed Jesus phreak! Did you listen to my argument at all?" and then my pathologically mellow teacher siad "Very interesting comment, Mark.". Realizing what I had got myself into, I went to sleep.
Hey Mike, 'tis a bit lonely in here. I think we hijacked the thread...π
Yes. I noticed. This makes what?... about a thousand threads... be able to make a joseph coat if we keep it up.π "Where'd ya get the threads, dude?" might take on a whole nuther meaning. It has been a pleasure as always. Gunna go cook some supper and watch the packers cream the browns. Later dude!
Originally posted by StarValleyWySorry for responding so late in the thread, but I just had to throw in my 0.02 at this point. Mike, I'd like you to provide ONE scientific reference to support your claim that "logical discussion without definition", or "a moral sense", or "moral laws" or however you want to define this thing is an "innate section of the brain". There is nothing out there right now, to my knowledge, that can support such a strong claim. Sure, orbitofrontal cortex has been implicated in moral reasoning, both in neuroimaging and neuropsychological work, but how does that make it innate? Why can't this skill develop as a function of the interaction between the subject's innate mental machinery, and their exposure to specific moral events in the world? How can you prove that the existence of orbitofrontal cortex and its (putative, not exclusive either) involvement in moral reasoning is "innate"? How can the statement even be framed this way? It's like saying that we have an innate "reading capacity" because specific areas of left prefrontal cortex are required for being able to read....
Mark,
Do you know how silly "Scientific Socialism" sounds? It is a good set of dogma, and each point contained should have it's own bead on some prayer chain, but please. Science if repeatable and verifyable. Not?
What kind of t ...[text shortened]... They commit genecide. ipso facto, they are not evil" if you like.
I'm not of the tabula rasa crowd, not many have been since the days of Skinner and Watson, but to claim that moral reasoning is innate, supported by a single brain region that when removed negates the ability to perform this task is absurd. It's 19th century phrenology all over again - If somebody were born without this brain region would they be able to overcome this deficit and learn moral reasoning? Science has shown us time and time again that the brain is massively plastic during childhood, and other patches of neural tissue can often be co-opted for other purposes (e.g., visual cortex responds to touch in Braille readers)... To claim that this is innate without qualification is misleading, wrong and disingenuous... Please be sure to back up your points in future, much as you have done in the rest of the thread...
Joe
PS, sorry for the big rant, I just like to try to ensure that discoveries from my field are gotten across accurately, it's maddening to see scientific discoveries get twisted beyond recognition....
Originally posted by kyngjJoe...
Sorry for responding so late in the thread, but I just had to throw in my 0.02 at this point. Mike, I'd like you to provide ONE scientific reference to support your claim that "logical discussion without definition", or "a moral sense", ...[text shortened]... g to see scientific discoveries get twisted beyond recognition....
Glad you jumped in. My first interest in the bio-centric nature of morality came from an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Edward O. Wilson. I am bothered a bit by the fact that he is a deist, but his overall argument and apologia in laying out the brain as the center of morality were to me very powerful. Imperisism pure and simple, but I am not an expert. I just liked the way it was shown that there is a model of the brain that "allows" for a million years of moral progress to be mapped genetically into "all human brains". He stresses that this allowance is not proof of anything except the genetic affinity of the human brain to be mapped for ALL HUMANS in the same basic fashion. What happens to that person after birth and as their learning fills in the slate is not part of the discussion.
The book that you recommended to me, "The Blank Slate" also uses anectdotal reference to "Phineas Gage" who had his ventromedial prefrontal cortex wiped out by a black powder explosion that sent a crow-bar through that region of his brain. He went from being "courteous, responsible and ambitious to rude, unreliable, and shiftless." This is not isolated, as it is almost universally the case in trauma to that region of the brain. If this is incorrect, then i stand corrected. If my memory serves... this is one of the few regions of the brain that if damaged is not capable of "remapping" into a different or unused region. Is that right? You would know a lot more about that than I would. Your point about "remapping" vision, and sound are valid. As you know, Sight can even remap into the audio region and vice-versa. Don't believe I've ever heard of "smell" remapping or "touch". Touch seems to persist even when people loose a body part to amputaion, giving rise to "phantom" limb syndrome. Is there a study where the "moral" map lost to severe trauma has been shown to relocate to an unused region? (I hope you forgive my assumption that there is indeed a "moral map region". If you don't agree, then I will bend to your expertise.) I would really be interested in that. I hate to go around spewing non-sense, so if there is a case like that, it would be helpful.
I probably mis-used the term "inate". In my mind i was trying to say that there does seem ... or appear... to exist in all of us an "intuition" for morality.
Excellent book, by the way. I have been a "mind impericist" for quite a while and have used several quotes from "The Blank Slate" in this post. I know that the term "mind impericist" would send it's author, Steven Pinker, into shock. So apologies to him.
Mike
PS... This next is a quotation from Wilson in the Atlantic article ... he gives this as an alternative to "transcendental" theories of morality.
The general empiricist principle takes this form: Strong innate feeling and historical experience cause certain actions to be preferred; we have experienced them, and have weighed their consequences, and agree to conform with codes that express them. Let us take an oath upon the codes, invest our personal honor in them, and suffer punishment for their violation. The empiricist view concedes that moral codes are devised to conform to some drives of human nature and to suppress others.