But then I am forced to consider why evolution would develop such a redundant mechanism as emotion to begin with. — Merkwurdichliebe
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
Amygdala
The amygdalas are two almond-shaped masses of neurons on either side of the thalamus at the lower end of the hippocampus. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression. And if the amygdala is removed, animals get very tame and no longer respond to things that would have caused rage before. But there is more to it than just anger: When removed, animals also become indifferent to stimuli that would have otherwise have caused fear and even sexual responses.
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
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
it's only biology that makes judgments, or that formulates and applies concepts. — Terrapin Station
The data is data. How we feel about us irrelevant. That’s all I was saying. The aim of the scientist is to approach the data free of emotional bias. — I like sushi
It has to be if we're trying to say that since A causes or is a cause of B, then A is the source of B. "The source of" is another way of saying "Where it comes from" or "Where it originates", "Where it arises from" or "What is B properties of." If A causes/is a cause of B, but A isn't identical to B, then we don't actually have B yet when we have A, so naming A doesn't tell us where/what/how B happens to be. This is actually because something else has to be necessary for B--some other substance, and/or process and/or context, etc. If that weren't the case, then A would be identical to B. — Terrapin Station
If the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other were asked, it would be insufficient to identify the hardware alone — praxis
The chemicals on the end of the match (and their relevant processes of course, I don’t see the necessity in worrying about the specifics here) causes the flame. You disagree with this because there must be a connection of some kind between the flame and the match head, — DingoJones
The processes that amount to moral judgments/preferences occur in brains, and only in brains. — Terrapin Station
explaining them more broadly is a more advanced topic that we shouldn't move on to until we've mastered the basics, and no matter what we do, — Terrapin Station
and no matter what we do, they're fundamentally "caprice." — Terrapin Station
It's about social interaction, and social interaction influences it, but the social realm can't literally have moral stances, because we can't have moral stances in lieu of meaning, in lieu of behavioral preferences, etc. And those things only obtain as mental phenomena. There is no social mind — Terrapin Station
So, if you found yourself in that scenario, you wouldn't try to resolve one of the most famous moral dilemmas of all time: whether to be, or not to be? — S
No, I disagree because the processes aren't optional. You do need to worry about including everything. Philosophy doesn't work well half-assed. We need to be precise, complete (at least sufficiently), etc. — Terrapin Station
In addition, as I said, causes can't be identical to what they cause unless you want to say that something can cause itself. Normally we say that there are causes and effects, and the two aren't identical, as that wouldn't make much sense re making a between between causes and effects — Terrapin Station
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
we shouldn't move on to explaining them if we can't even identify what they are/where they occur. — Terrapin Station
Because an inadequate identification would result in an inadequate explanation. — praxis
If you were asked what the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other is, would you identify the hardware alone? — praxis
What I do not understand is why you think a cause must be identical to what it causes. — DingoJones
What do you mean by this? As far as I can see ALL moral issues are about how individuals should treat other individuals; this to me clearly suggests ethics concerns how one must live among others - a social/communal context. — TheMadFool
If true, then there is no room for individual responsibility in regards to the ethical. — Merkwurdichliebe
That is a matter of opinion whether or not knowledge proceeds from the universal to the particular, or the reverse. I would surmise it is a combination of both, and it would be an error to be committed to proceeding only one way. — Merkwurdichliebe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.