The making of western morality

[Daylight63]

In The co-evolution of human intersubjectivity, morality and language, Zlatev argues:

"Mainstream evolutionary models, based only on individual-level and gene-level selection, are argued to be incapable to account for such sharing of care, values and information, thus implying the need to evoke multi-level selection, including (cultural) group selection. "
Maybe this answers some of Cypress' questions about why, at the individual gene level, morality doesn't express (selfish genes), but it dovetails nicely into the rise of cooperative foraging and hunting that we see happening with H. heidelbergensis as mentioned in the previous post.

There appear to be three complimentary theories about the rise of this common intention type of activity. Rising from parenting modes as well as changes in communication styles.

Either way the key is that scientists are seeking to find the REAL origins of morality from our evolutionary past. Because it makes sense that "morality" would be little more than a codification of in-built actions that would serve to provide survival advantages for the members of the group. And then there's also "social selection" in which groups act as a "filter" to select those members that are most prone to cooperative behavior.

 

[Daylight63]

WESTERN vs EASTERN Mindsets.

In Who's in Charge Michael Gazzanigga discusses some research at MIT from Hedden and Gabrieli that ran fMRI studies on people from East Asian societies and Westerners while tasked with intepreting some line drawings. It was found that in the Western brain absolute judgements about individual cases required less work by the brain than when they did RELATIVE judgements (it was a test to compare the size of a line to a box). The East Asians demonstrated just the opposite.

So there is a cultural correlate with how the brain functions at a physical level. Of course there's a role for a social millieu. As some researchers noted humans have been "self-domesticating" for millennia. Our social groups select out for certain modes of behavior and that, in turn, affects how our physical brain functions as well. None of this is some bizarre "hard determinism", but it does correlate to how the brain automatically functions to do much of the heavy lifting for us.

Serotonin, one of the neurotransmitters plays a role in where our "attention" goes (so plays a role in these types of tasks). The researchers found that "there was a significant interaction between the type of 5-HTR1A alleles a person had and the culture in which he lived." The researchers further concluded "The same genetic predisposition can resul tin divergent psychological outcomes, depending on an individual's culturual context".

In my humble opinion all of this reads so rationally: the brain comes hard wired with a lot of in-built modes of behavior that we have self-selected for in our social groups to further engender those survival advantages that social groups provide our species. We see crude correlates in other primates to lesser degrees so we know morality isn't something that is wholly invented by humans. We have bred ourselves into highlighting those features which ensure stable social groups which, in turn, provide survival advantages.

And there's usually a physical correlate in the brain for those features.

 

[Into the Night]

Let me explain "wetness" to you from a scientific perspective.

You deny science. Science is not involved here.

When you put a droplet of a fluid on a solid surface it doesn't always spread spontaneously. This is what "wetting" is.

A subjective term.

It is related to the SURFACE ENERGY of the solid surface as well as the surface tension of the fluid.

A surface is not energy. The fluid is unspecified. Many fluids don't have a surface tension. I think you confusing engineering with science.

The equation that describes wetting is called the Young Equation. It tells you what the contact angle of a fluid on a surface will be (if it "wets" the surface the contact angle will be <90. If it does not it will be >90). The equation requires you know characteristics of both the SOLID and the FLUID. It's basically just the balance between three vectors.

This equation does not describe 'wetting' of anything.

Water will wet a wood surface.

Depends on the wood and how it's treated or finished.

But mercury will not!

Depends on the wood and how it's treated or finished.

You can't take a water molecule and find anything on the molecule itself that defines whether it will wet or not. It is an "emergent property" of the larger fluid in contact with a specific surface.

No. 'Wetting' is a purely subjective term. There is no value associated with it and no unit of measurement.

I just want to discuss the topic. I wish you had more science so you could understand the points I'm raising.

Science isn't being used here. You deny theories of science.

Water will not wet a teflon surface.

It sure can. Like I said, it depends on the surface and the way it's treated.

How? If you don't even know what wetting is in chemistry

Buzzword fallacy. Wetting is not part of chemistry. 'Wetting' is a subjective description only.

They aren't as in the dark as you would like them to be. You just don't like or understand when science pokes its head in.

Science isn't being used here.

That's cool. You're an armchair philosopher and you don't like too many guidelines on your flights of fancy.

Philosophy isn't being used here.

 

[Into the Night]

Something odd is happening, chap! The thread diversion doesn't make any sense. We have long had robust scientific explanations for the physical behavior of liquids at the level of chemistry and atomic matter. We do not have robust scientific explanations for conscience.

I do not know why he thinks fluid dynamics is so befuddling and mysterious.

Fluid dynamics is not chemistry.

 

[Into the Night]

In The co-evolution of human intersubjectivity, morality and language, Zlatev argues:

"Mainstream evolutionary models, based only on individual-level and gene-level selection, are argued to be incapable to account for such sharing of care, values and information, thus implying the need to evoke multi-level selection, including (cultural) group selection. "
Maybe this answers some of Cypress' questions about why, at the individual gene level, morality doesn't express (selfish genes), but it dovetails nicely into the rise of cooperative foraging and hunting that we see happening with H. heidelbergensis as mentioned in the previous post.

There appear to be three complimentary theories about the rise of this common intention type of activity. Rising from parenting modes as well as changes in communication styles.

Either way the key is that scientists are seeking to find the REAL origins of morality from our evolutionary past. Because it makes sense that "morality" would be little more than a codification of in-built actions that would serve to provide survival advantages for the members of the group. And then there's also "social selection" in which groups act as a "filter" to select those members that are most prone to cooperative behavior.

Morality is not a branch of science. Buzzword fallacy. You don't understand what 'real' means or how it's defined. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Daylight63]

Something odd is happening, chap! The thread diversion doesn't make any sense. We have long had robust scientific explanations for the physical behavior of liquids at the level of chemistry and atomic matter. We do not have robust scientific explanations for conscience.

Both are possibly EMERGENT PROPERTIES. Properties which we can ALL AGREE EXIST but do NOT have any correlate at the atomic level.

I do not know why he thinks fluid dynamics is so befuddling and mysterious.

Because it is an emergent property. Which is a perfect model to explain to you how something CAN EXIST despite having no version of it at the atomic level.

QED.

 

[Cypress]

Both are possibly EMERGENT PROPERTIES. Properties which we can ALL AGREE EXIST but do NOT have any correlate at the atomic level.




Because it is an emergent property. Which is a perfect model to explain to you how something CAN EXIST despite having no version of it at the atomic level.

QED.

We have understood the the fluid properties of liquid Hg and liquid H2O for decades, on the basis of physical, electrochemical, and thermodynamic properties. I have no idea why you went down that tangent about water and mercury.

When people want to cite the wetness of water as an emergent property in the popular litetature, they are talking about the sensation of wetness.

Anyone can holler all they want about emergent properties and conciousness, but that's still not an explanation. We still don't understand conciousness at the level of basic science. Fluid dynamics we have pretty well dialed in.

 

[Daylight63]

We have understood the the fluid properties of liquid Hg and liquid H2O for decades, on the basis of physical, electrochemical, and thermodynamic properties. I have no idea why you went down that tangent about water and mercury.

When people want to cite the wetness of water as an emergent property in the popular litetature, they are talking about the sensation of wetness.

Anyone can holler all they want about emergent properties and conciousness, but that's still not an explanation. We still don't understand conciousness at the level of basic science. Fluid dynamics we have pretty well dialed in.

So you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

That's too bad. Emergent properties are real and you deal with every day. Too bad your limited understanding of science has you ruling out emergence as a possible solution to consciousness.


(Can I just say in all honesty I thought you were sharper and would understand this sort of thing. This is really disappointing.)

 

[Cypress]

So you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

That's too bad. Emergent properties are real and you deal with every day. Too bad your limited understanding of science has you ruling out emergence as a possible solution to consciousness.

Yelling about emergent properties doesn't explain conciousness.

We understand why liquid H2O wets the surface of many materials, while liquid Hg doesn't, simply because we really do understand these liquids at the level of physical chemistry.

 

[Daylight63]

Yelling about emergent properties doesn't explain conciousness.

No one is "yelling". I'm trying to explain emergent properties to you using an example you cannot deny exists.

Yet somehow you are incapable of understanding that some things can exist without being traceable to the atomic level.

We understand why liquid H2O wets the surface of many materials, while liquid Hg doesn't,

Tell me why it wets some materials and not others. I'll wait.

Why do I ask? Because it is clear you don't understand what "EMERGENCE" is in science. And I'm hoping you will learn .

simply because we really do understand these liquids at the level of physical chemistry.

EMERGENCE. That's what we are talking about.


(I'm really flummoxed. I thought you were far sharper than this. This is very strange from someone who claims to be well read on topics)

 

[Daylight63]

The REAL morality expressed by many on here can best be summed up by Oscar Wilde:

"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people whom we personally dislike."

 

[Cypress]

No one is "yelling". I'm trying to explain emergent properties to you using an example you cannot deny exists.

Yet somehow you are incapable of understanding that some things can exist without being traceable to the atomic level.



Tell me why it wets some materials and not others. I'll wait.

Why do I ask? Because it is clear you don't understand what "EMERGENCE" is in science. And I'm hoping you will learn .



EMERGENCE. That's what we are talking about.


(I'm really flummoxed. I thought you were far sharper than this. This is very strange from someone who claims to be well read on topics)

Just blurting out "emergent property" is metaphysics at best, conjecture at worst. It's not a scientific explanation. That's why neuroscientists conceded the 25 year bet to philosopher David Chalmers

 

[Daylight63]

Just blurting out "emergent property" is metaphysics at best

No. It is why I used "wetting" as an example you could not deny. It is an emergent property. Not some metaphysical thing. It is an effect that doesn't reside at the atomic level.

, conjecture at worst. It's not a scientific explanation.

What? I'm talking pure physical science right now in the "wetting" example. It is an emergent property that does not reside at the atomic level.

What is so difficult to understand about this point? Seriously.

That's why neuroscientists conceded the 25 year bet to philosopher David Chalmers

Why do you deny the work of the neuroscientist I cited?

 

[Cypress]

No. It is why I used "wetting" as an example you could not deny. It is an emergent property. Not some metaphysical thing. It is an effect that doesn't reside at the atomic level.




What? I'm talking pure physical science right now in the "wetting" example. It is an emergent property that does not reside at the atomic level.

What is so difficult to understand about this point? Seriously.



Why do you deny the work of the neuroscientist I cited?

Just saying emergent property is metaphysics. It's not am adequate scientific explanation.

The fluid behavior of water and its sensation of wetness are totally understood at the level of physical chemistry and epistemology

It's nowhere even close to being analogous to human conscience experience.

There are no reputable neuroscientists anywhere who have announced they have produced an adequate scientific explanation for exactly how and why a collection of quarks and electrons produce subjective concious experience.

Every professional scientist on the planet is going to claim they are "making progress " on a particular scientific problem. That's par for the course, and it's not a reason to spike the football.

 

[Daylight63]

Just saying emergent property is metaphysics.

Just reiterating your earlier incorrect claim does not make it correct.

Your demand was that consciousness be shown at the quark level. I noted that there are MANY things which are not present at the quark level but are quite real. Such are emergent properties. Just because you don't necessarily know the chain of events that links each step along the way does not mean it is some crazy hypothetical conjecture. It is about the ONLY way to explain consciousness using the ONLY AVAILABLE DATA.

The fluid behavior of water and its sensation of wetness are totally understood at the level of physical chemistry and epistemology

Wow. You are still not getting this. I'm gonna have to leave it. You should really take some time and figure out what an analogy is and how analogous systems represent other things.

It's nowhere even close to being analogous to human conscience experience.

Dear Christ, this is exhausting.

There are no reputable neuroscientists anywhere who have announced they have produced an adequate scientific explanation for exactly how and why a collection of quarks and electrons produce subjective concious experience.

You simply toss aside the actual science I've posted on these threads and now you decree that it must not be "reputable". LOL. Talk about poisoning the well.

Are you capable of debating any given point on its merits or are all your debates nothing but fallacies and specious reasoning?

 

[Cypress]

Just reiterating your earlier incorrect claim does not make it correct.

Your demand was that consciousness be shown at the quark level. I noted that there are MANY things which are not present at the quark level but are quite real. Such are emergent properties. Just because you don't necessarily know the chain of events that links each step along the way does not mean it is some crazy hypothetical conjecture. It is about the ONLY way to explain consciousness using the ONLY AVAILABLE DATA.




Wow. You are still not getting this. I'm gonna have to leave it. You should really take some time and figure out what an analogy is and how analogous systems represent other things.



Dear Christ, this is exhausting.



You simply toss aside the actual science I've posted on these threads and now you decree that it must not be "reputable". LOL. Talk about poisoning the well.

Are you capable of debating any given point on its merits or are all your debates nothing but fallacies and specious reasoning?

If you are a materialist, you have to explain subjective conscious experience at the level of basic physical science: physics, biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology. You cannot just use metaphysics and wave your arms vaguely mentioning "emergent properties".

You haven't posted anything that shows the scientific community believes we have adequately explained consciousness. You can travel the world and always find a scientist who believes he has debunked global warming or debunked evolution. I'm waiting for you to post a reputable source showing the global scientific community largely agrees that we really understand consciousness now.

 

[Daylight63]

You can travel the world and always find a scientist who believes he has debunked global warming or debunked evolution. I'm waiting for you to post a reputable source showing the global scientific community largely agrees that we really understand consciousness now.

Science has a LOT more to explain the conscious experience than anything you have posted. All you ever post is "Gosh it's mysterious" and seem quite happy with that.

Science advances when it is allowed to question. You seem to want to put limits on what science is allowed to question.

Why are you so 'anti-science' in this area? I assume you aren't normally against science. Is it because this is an area you like to have flights of fancy in and don't want anyone to "clip your wings"?

 

[Daylight63]

Mathematical and scientific roots of emergence, where the 'route to consciousness' is indicated by boxes (modified from [47]).

On consciousness, resting state fMRI, and neurodynamics - PMC

During the last years, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brain has been introduced as a new tool to measure consciousness, both in a clinical setting and in a basic neurocognitive research. Moreover, advanced mathematical methods ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Cypress]

Science has a LOT more to explain the conscious experience than anything you have posted. All you ever post is "Gosh it's mysterious" and seem quite happy with that.

Science advances when it is allowed to question. You seem to want to put limits on what science is allowed to question.

Why are you so 'anti-science' in this area? I assume you aren't normally against science. Is it because this is an area you like to have flights of fancy in and don't want anyone to "clip your wings"?

So in other words, you don't have any reputable source saying the global scientific community has anything like a consensus that we really understand consciousness at the level of fundamental physical science.

This is why I can't trust you when you Google scientific papers without reading them yourself and being able to explain them in your own words.

The paper's conclusions openly states that we still don't understand the emergence of consciousness, which they call a "challenging topic" which still needs to be clarified. They're not even sure if a brain is necessary for consciousness. That's how far away we are from really understating it.

Please don't post any more papers you can't explain in your own words, and which don't actually conclude what you wish it concluded.

I'm not going to trust your links anymore.

 

[Daylight63]

I'm not going to trust your links anymore.

May I ask why you think I care what you think about science? I'm serious here. Why do I care if you do or don't believe science.

If you were more knowledgeable in the topic I might actually care if you trust the links. But you don't even seem able to read them. You've said over and over you don't like to read too much.

So why would I care again what a non-reader non-scientist thinks about science?