Sheep Goosestepping Behind Chickenhawks

Nietzsche advocates asserting ourselves. That led to admiration for those who asserted themselves without any talent justifying that right, so bullies and aristocrats. I can see falling behind screeching Nazis if you think all other people are gutless and meek pushovers.

I was asking for the empirical support of a particular claim.

The evidence, here, is a bunch of shit done by neuro-biologists. — Merkwurdichliebe

I asked you what made something a "unified concept." You said that a consensus about it made it "unified." So I'm asking for the empirical evidence of the claimed consensus (re the concept of free will) versus the claimed relative lack of consensus (re the concept of morality). What would that have to do with a "bunch of shit done by neurobiologists"?

What would that have to do with a "bunch of shit done by neurobiologists"? — Terrapin Station

Because were talking about what neurobiology says about morality, and it is neurobiologists who are saying it.

You said that a consensus about it made it "unified." — Terrapin Station

I said that is what would make it unified, but I only meant, amongst the scientists who agree with each other. Sorry if I took that fact to be implicit in what I was saying.

Well, "consensus" refers to agreeing with each other. The claim is about relative agreement on what one concept refers to versus what another concept refers to, right?

You'll have to do some research into how neurobiologists (or any scientific community) come to form consensus in order to form unified concepts, which they can then proceed to scientifically test.

How can hard work or difficulty be associated with morality?

The claim is about relative agreement on what one concept refers to versus what another concept refers to, right? — Terrapin Station

In that sense, these neurobiologists are saying the concept of morality cannot be agreed upon, in effect they cannot proceed forth with scientific testing until they can agree what it is.

You'll have to do some research into how neurobiologists (or any scientific community) come to form consensus in order to form unified concepts, which they can then proceed to scientifically test. — Merkwurdichliebe

We'd simply do a survey of each individual's concept.

I think that was your point. The evidence, here, is a bunch of shit done by neuro-biologists.

In the article, some academically active neurobiologists basically admit that neuro-biology cannot adequately explain morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.

On one hand, if their evidence (which they thoroughly reference in their article) is sufficient for the claim to be correct, then neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality, like they claim. On the other hand, if we say that the evidence provided by these scientists is insufficient, then it doesn't matter what neurobiology says about anything, since any evidence a neurobiologist provides (e.g. a reference to a clinical study) to support any claim is inherently insufficient; and in this case, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality.

Either way, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

This was supposed to be about the source of morality, remember? There was never any claim, as far as I'm aware, that neurobiology can adequately explain morality. And if there was, it would be off topic. It can definitely provide insightful information on the source of morality, and those who are saying that this isn't adequate are just coming across as unappreciative and obstructive.

Nietzsche advocates asserting ourselves. That led to admiration for those who asserted themselves without any talent justifying that right, so bullies and aristocrats. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Is that what it led to? I don't think those admirers upheld the Nietzschean spirit very well.

I can see falling behind screeching Nazis if you think all other people are gutless and meek pushovers. — TheSageOfMainStreet

I can understand falling behind Nazi's if you are a spineless sucker, and enjoy taking orders from other people.

We'd simply do a survey of each individual's concept. — Terrapin Station

And out of a pool of opinions, they would synthesize a unified concept by accepting some, and rejecting others.

And out of a pool of opinions, they would synthesize a unified concept by accepting some, and rejecting others. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, you can't literally have a collective concept. Concepts are inherently individual, personal.

This was supposed to be about the source of morality, remember? There was never any claim that neurobiology can adequately explain morality. It can definitely provide insightful information on the source of morality, and those who are saying that this isn't adequate are just coming across as complacent. — S

The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.

The article I linked in a previous post (Intentionality and “free-will” from a neurodevelopmental perspective) claims that neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality because it it is not a unified concept at the physic level.

Complacency? More like diligence.

Well, you can't literally have a collective concept. Concepts are inherently individual, personal. — Terrapin Station

Then we will have to conclude: if we have no literal collective concepts, then there is no way to unify a concept, literally, so that it might be studied in some degree of objectivity, e.g. at a physical level. But it might be possible to do so nonliterally...whatever that is.

Well, you can tell well enough if there's a consensus by looking at the language (from an objective perspective --utterances, text, etc.) folks are associating with their concepts.

Well, you can tell well enough if there's a consensus by looking at the language (from an objective perspective --utterances, text, etc.) folks are associating with their concepts. — Terrapin Station

Ok. So, we can say: we create unified concepts by indirectly relating to the concepts of others through utterances, text, etc. Given this, it shows that any unified scientific concept is extremely unscientific.

Elaborate on what you just said, it sounds a bit like when people laugh loudly in the back of a movie theatre while punching themselves in the face.

How can hard work or difficulty be associated with morality? — whollyrolling

I think doing hard work / accomplishing difficult things are painful in the short term but rewarding in the long term. Long term > short term so these things counts as good morally.

Yet in excess they're detrimental, so they can't be inherently moral.

Too much of anything can have bad effects. But in this case we are talking about fatigue.

So its more like hard work is good and fatigue is bad. Stop working once your fatigued.

Just read the conversation between Terrapin and I, that should give you some context.

I don't need to read your conversation for context or insight into a separate conversation, but thanks for patting yourself on the back in front of me, for what accomplishment I'm not sure, I greatly appreciate it.

Then stfu. Your verbal masturbation is obscene.

Did you just use the grade school rubber glue counter on me? That's genius.

You are right, what am I doing conversing with qn insignificant twit.

When I asked you what a "unified concept" was supposed to amount to (I'd never use the phrase "unified concept" myself--it seems like a category error to me, hence why I need to ask), you said that it's a concept for which there's a consensus. Given what concepts are, that could only refer to people saying similar things when you ask them what their concept or definition of x is.

Given this definition of "unified concept," it doesn't make any sense to say that we could intentionally create one. It would simply be a contingent matter of whether people are thinking about something (a la a concept they've created) similarly, as reflected by the words they're uttering.

The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines. — Merkwurdichliebe

That was not the original question. This discussion about adequacy stemmed from a later comment by praxis, and he was never clear on what criteria he was going by, so we had a situation where I thought that it was good enough to have a meaningful discussion, and to get somewhere productive, whereas he was making it out to be some big problem just because it isn't perfect or complete or something along those lines, and then you jumped in on his side of the argument.

Why are we even discussing this tangent? Isn't it interesting enough to discuss what we know about the source of morality, in answer to the opening post? It's about what neuroscience can explain, not what it can't. It's like some people are just looking for an argument.

The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines. — Merkwurdichliebe

I was certainly never talking about anything like that, a fortiori because I refuse to do "explanation" discussions (a la "is this explained?") without first exploring someone's general criteria for explanations, and no one ever even starts trying to do their general criteria for explanations . . . because no one actually has any such criteria. They simply use "explanation" comments ("that's not (sufficiently) explained" etc.) as a bludgeon for views they don't care for.