If the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other were asked, it would be insufficient to identify the hardware alone
— praxis

Brains aren't dead, static things. They undergo processes. The processes that amount to moral judgments/preferences occur in brains, and only in brains. Conflating influences, preconditions, etc. with what they're influences on or preconditions of is simply--and rather ridiculously--sloppy. — Terrapin Station

Both brains and computers process information. The processes that amount to computer networks of cooperative interaction occurs in computers, and only in computers.

Computers are certainly not as dynamic as brains but they’re not static, at least in the sense that they do the same basic thing that brains do, which is take in data and process it for some purpose.

If you were asked what the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other is, would you identify the hardware alone?

it's only biology that makes judgments, or that formulates and applies concepts. — Terrapin Station

It cannot do this without some variety of order, similar to the way a computer is nonfunctional without software.

If the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other were asked, it would be insufficient to identify the hardware alone. For one thing, it couldn’t account for the variety of protocols that various computer networks may use.

From a reductionist position (which science is generally inclined toward) it is perfectly non-shocking to view emotions as redundant if we’re looking at events as part of causal chain without applying emotional weight to them - again the mainstay of the scientific endeavor; to distance the gathering of data from emotional interpretations). — I like sushi

Emotions are for regulating energy expenditure appropriately to circumstances and are not all all redundant. They would be redundant if we didn’t have biological bodies, or maybe just our specific biology, to support our brains. How’s that for nonemotional reductionism.

Poor championless S.

I'm not a scientist and strongly doubt such scientific studies exist. Also, I didn't claim that moral stances can't occur in brains.

My turn. Is moral order or moral frameworks biological?

The source of morals cannot be found in human biology, therefore the belief that it can is rubbish.
— praxis

Morals have to be found in biology, because they can't occur elsewhere. To occur elsewhere, we'd need meaning, preferences, etc. to be able to occur elsewhere, but they don't occur elsewhere. They're brain phenomena. — Terrapin Station

What you quote is my interpretation of S’s illustrious analogy and not something I would say, in case that isn’t clear.

Anyway, I think it’s time to invoke the idiom that you can’t catch wind in a jar. The results would be as inadequate as a car without wings.

It was just a side note, expressing a feeling and not an ontology.

I would have preferred it if you had focused on the rest of the post.

DingoJones Would you like to take a stab at the point I was making with my analogy? Something tells me that you'll fare better than certain others. — S

I suggest hiring a hypnotist who could possibly make us believe that your point is worthwhile.

I meant to say that one and two are possibilities. Not to say that S’s thoughts are not magnificent.

There are two possibilities:

1) You don't understand what you're trying to convey well enough to communicate it succinctly.
2) You're unwilling to communicate your point for some reason, perhaps out of mischievousness or embarrassment of its inadequacy.
3) I'm too dumb to comprehend your magnificent thoughts.

Money talks because it's the one thing that practically everyone on the globe believes in. Some believe in angels and gods, and others don't. Some believe in communism or capitalism, and others don't. People believe in all sorts of philosophies and others don't.

Everyone believes in money.

So, Terrapin Station, what do you think my point was with the analogy that his criticism of my explanation is like saying that cars are rubbish because they can't fly? — S

I'll try to save Terrapin the bother.

The source of morals cannot be found in human biology, therefore the belief that it can is rubbish.

As I said, meager.

Morals require biology and culture.

If ‘cars’ are nature and ‘flying’ is nurture
— praxis

Then you would have completely misunderstood me once again. — S

And we know you don’t clarify because it would reveal the meagerness of your point.

the relative value and narrative that order concept,
— praxis

That phrase I can't figure out unfortunately.

Again, culture can influence values, but you can't actually be given values from something outside of yourself. Values/valuing anything is a mental phenomenon. — Terrapin Station

I meant to write *concepts, btw.

What I mean is that what you’re suggesting about learning concepts may not apply to how we order concepts. The order or framework, such as a moral framework, is cultural, and is established and maintained with a narrative, various practices and beliefs, etc.

you can't actually be given values from something outside of yourself. Values/valuing anything is a mental phenomenon.

This kind of dualistic view is difficult for me to appreciate. It feels artificial and not particularly useful.

If someone intentionally made you value (or devalue) something, in what sense have they not given or shared that value?

There’s also (in addition to my previous comments about it) the relative value and narrative that order concept, such as liberty (high value for you) and sanctity, which is something that is undeniably learned though culture.

That's the kind of fallacy in your reasoning: cars are rubbish because they can't fly. — S

If ‘cars’ are nature and ‘flying’ is nurture, I’ve been saying repeatedly from the beginning that both are necessary for a flying car.

Car + flying = flying car

Car ≠ flying car

Would it help if I drew pictures?

I think that I know what you’re suggesting. Regarding emotions, if the actual feelings we have are some combination of pleasure/displeasure and high or low arousal associated with particular circumstances, how can we have emotion concepts like anger, jealousy, etc. if they are not social constructs?

There’s a variety of methods.

You’re do that thing again where, if I knew what you’re point was, we could get there much quicker.

The general term for the process is learning. But I suppose you could also say conditioning.

I don't believe that biology and neuroscience are advanced enough. No neuroscientist or biologist could examine human tissues and determine why some people are, for example, conservative and others are liberal.
— praxis

I don't think we're that advanced, either. But the quote above is an example of the fallacy of moving the goalposts. I never suggested, or never meant to suggest, that. It's not all or nothing, and an explanation which goes some way towards explaining the source of morality is better than no explanation at all, or a bad explanation. — S

"Goes some way" is a rather euphemistic way of saying what? Inadequate.

I stand by my claim that your objection to what you see as a problem with my explanation, namely your assertion that it doesn't explain the divergence of moral judgements, is a faux-problem. It's not a problem with my explanation, it's a problem you have with it. — S

Inadequacy or 'going some way' is problematic in its deficiency. Clearly that's not a problem for you, and yes, it's a problem for me, and anyone else who is interested in an explanation that goes further than "some way."

What I have actually said is that moral judgement is founded in emotion, and emotion can be explained (not perfectly!) through neuroscience. — S

I'm not sure why you believe that emotions are any less dependent on culture than morals, or that neuroscience can 'adequately' explain emotion. Do you think that we're born with a full set of emotions or something? That we have, for instance, an inherent sense of schadenfreude?

Biological affect is theorized to consist of two basic dimensions, namely pleasure vs. displeasure and high arousal vs. low arousal. How these feelings are interpreted in different circumstances conforms to a conceptual framework, a framework imparted to us by our culture.

The person who judges cannibalism to be wrong would have experienced negative emotions about cannibalism... — S

And the person who judges it to be right would have experienced positive emotions about it?

If a person can go either way depending on the culture that they're raised in, it would appear reasonable to conclude that nature & nurture is a more adequate explanation than mere nature.

If he added an e it could be fuck-ye-all, which has a kinda old English ring to it, although I guess it should be fuck-all-ye if that were the case. Whatever the case, I suggest a rewrite with a more dramatic appeal:

Fuck all ye who dwelleth here! Banish me from this place of intellectual woe... I await in eager anticipation!

I think the basic problem here is in the polarizing of "social-interaction" and "biological world." You can't really separate the two. They are mutually dependent.

we only have dispositions for or against any behavior in the biological world [rather than the social-interaction world]. — Terrapin Station

I'm interpreting "disposition" as instinct or inherent moral intuition, and "social-interaction" as cultural order (with its various concepts and beliefs). So what you appear to be claiming is that "social-interaction" or aspects of culture cannot become intuitive. That is simply not true.

Of course, I may not be interpreting what you've written correctly.

Why can't this be explained through biology, of which evolution and neuroscience are a part? — S

I don't believe that biology and neuroscience are advanced enough. No neuroscientist or biologist could examine human tissues and determine why some people are, for example, conservative and others are liberal.

You could start with the meaning of this part:

we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world

Here was what I claimed that you disagreed with. Nurture doesn't actually provide moral stances in any sense, because we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world. — Terrapin Station

I wouldn’t have disagreed with something that I can’t determine the meaning of.

Conversely, are you a cannibal or do you have the potential to be someone who genuinely feels that cannibalism is not immoral, and can happily munch away?

How can something be a moral stance when there's not even any disposition towards allowing versus not allowing some behavior? — Terrapin Station

Again, I’ve not denied disposition. I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist?

lol, I believe they call this projection.

Do you derive pleasure from dancing around the issue? — S

I’m interested in your response to what I wrote.

Nurture influences, but can't provide morals. — Terrapin Station

Of course it provides morals. You wouldn’t have a life at all, much less a moral life, without nurturing.

Going back to the cloned baby S scenario, the cloned S would have no choice in what moral order was imparted to him. Depending on the culture, it might impart an order where cannibalism is acceptable or an order where it’s not.

x influencing y is different than x being identical to y.

x ≠ morals
y ≠ morals
x + y = morals

I can’t review what doesn’t exist.

I missed where you property responded to the following, btw.

It is inadequate to say that the mind or limbic system is the source of morals because it cannot account for vast differences in moral frameworks. Saying "we often feel differently and judge moral matters differently" isn't explaining or accounting for the differences. — praxis

Most of your criticisms have little to do with the subject so I have no interest in responding to them, properly or otherwise.

Would you just give up trying to distort my meaning in an attempt to refute what I said? — S

I’m not refuting it, I’ve only repeatedly pointed out its inadequacy.

The source of morals is both nature and nurture.

I think you can safely jump to the point.

With the exchange of information.

Maybe rephrasing the question would result in a more satisfying answer.

I can reiterate also. Cultures, particularly in the Information Age, can accommodate a range of moral views and values. Even so, this range is limited to known concepts. You can’t know or adopt a view that doesn’t exist in your culture.

There is also norms. A psychopath, for example, may have abhorrent (to their culture) moral views but can nevertheless function well in society because they know and understand moral norms, even though they’re not emotionally effected by them.

It’s possible that my brother could have been a psychopath who enjoys cannibalism but he would still know that it’s immoral in our society, and he would be an anomaly.

I am not suggesting that morality is bad, I am suggesting that it can be used for wrong. — Ilya B Shambat

some people decided that morality is bad — Shambat

It seems you're suggesting that some people are oxymorons.

I'd like to propose a different sort of silliness. Imagine, if you will, someone cloning you and then placing the cloned baby S into a very different culture than the one you grew up in. Cloned baby S would adopt whatever conceptual order or abstract principles, or whatever mysterious extra-mental phenomenon that exists in that culture. Let's say for the example that the culture is cannibalistic. Let's also assume for the example that you're not a cannibal and believe that cannibalism is immoral, if only marginally. Both you and cloned baby S started out with practically the same neurology or limbic system, yet cloned baby S is cool with eating people and you, we assume, find it immoral.
— praxis

It seems as if you're unaware that people in the same family, including twins, even, can and often do have completely different moral views. — Terrapin Station

It seems as if you're unaware that moral views in the same culture can vary. And "completely different" in the culture that I've lived in would include something like cannibalism, so I suppose you don't mean all that different.

None of that negates the fact that lil cloned baby S would love eating people. Perhaps with some fava beans and a nice chianti.