I've actually seen this done on a forum. The elite area of the forum ended up being a ghost town. The only benefit, as I suggested earlier, was that the members of the elite class were not subject to the critiques of the lower class.

Being the sage on the [secure] stage can be quite lonely if no one is listening.

How in the world is the social stuff supposed to explain morality in a way that the big bang doesn't? — Terrapin Station

The essential difference is that we can influence 'the social stuff' and we can't influence the Big Bang. We tend to identify causes that we can influence, because we have goals and such.

Anyway, as I mentioned early on in the topic, differences in moral frameworks can be explained by examining the culture they develop in. These differences can't be explained by investigating the Big Bang.

Jake doesn’t want exclusion, he wants protection, from critical thinking.

The difference between his administration and past administrations is that this administration means what they say and say what they mean, for better or for worse. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I read a headline yesterday that Trump has reached ten thousand lies since being elected. And let’s not forget “alternative facts” and “the truth is not the truth.” Also, is it a wall or a fence? Mexico isn’t paying either way. And does Trumps wall need to be finished or begun?

This seems obvious too, until we realize that we aren't actually looking in the real world, but in the symbolic world ( words, theories, polemics, factions etc).

...

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember that the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing. — Jake

*Nothing* is just another concept in the “symbolic world.”

What are you trying to say?

I see you can name some logical fallacies. That's nice. But there's a bit more to it than that. — S

You can’t expect him to list all of your shortcomings.

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. This is an immense undertaking, requiring millions of people with specialized, complex, and difficult-to-obtain knowledge. Many people are alienated from these processes, and even those who are highly engaged with them (let's say a measily computer programmer), they are but a small part.

However, religion is a system that offers less technical knowledge. — schopenhauer1

No one can master all aspects modern technology that sustains our material lives. As you say, it requires millions of specialists, such as messily programmers. Is studying to be a programmer easier than studying to be a priest? In some cases I’m sure that programming would be easier. Is it possible to master all known religious disciplines or would that be similar to mastering all technologies? Also, in regard to user experiences, is using an iPhone any harder than attending a religious service?

My point is that I don’t see the huge disparity in accessibility that you seem to.

You must admit that it’s kinda funny that you applied experimental results from critter studies to human morality.

Shame it took fifteen pages. — S

That’s rich coming from you. If just your ad hominems in the topic were deleted, not to mention the thickets of obfuscation, it would probably shave-off a whole page.

Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum! Elitist scum!

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.

So you're suggesting that critters have morals, @S?

It's currently believed that the amygdala doesn't play the as big a role in human emotion as they once thought it did. Also, according to constructed emotion theory, culture plays a significant role, not unlike that in moral development.

If I recall correctly, he claimed to value love over truth (and reason?), so not a good fit for a philosophy forum.

Dog spelled backward is God, FYI.

Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. — schopenhauer1

Religion is hierarchical and only the top dog can be the master dog.

I’m sure that many feel or believe that the rules have something. Creativity can’t exist without a foundation or something to work with.

As I tried to suggest with my analogy, many people enjoy painting by numbers. It can be a pleasant distraction. It doesn’t require self-reflection or anything that might take them out of their comfort zone. It’s like a gilded iron cage. No one knows how to escape it.

And whatever that is works for you??

I do not believe that this argument has been made before — Ilya B Shambat

Probably. Hopefully.

Things like nature and civilization are both typically valued, for different reason. They are not “non-values” or “value-neutral.”

Polarized dualities contrast things that have positive and negative value.

I agree that trying to transcend dualities is a beneficial practice. Have you even touched on a reliable method for doing that?

You can’t ignore me, bi-otch.

In the sense that it was meant, yes, because I believe that modern society (myself included) is rather inauthentic in general.

I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion — S

Such as?

What you're mentioning is a bit like mentioning tables and chairs when others are mentioning neutrons and electrons. You're further from the source. — S

Neutrons and electrons have existed for billions of years longer than tables and chairs, but not all neutrons and electrons result in tables and chairs. Something must have occurred that made one result in the other.

You mentioned being "creative and authentic" so I gave an example that addresses both. The person who started the topic referred to "genuine Being" in regard to the creative. I take that to mean being authentic or self-actualized.

You seem to be thinking of the subject in some kind of absolute sense where someone's life is either completely authentic or it's not.

In fact, someone might happen to agree with almost every rule. So they'd not be able to live both creatively and authentically, per this definition of what it is to live creatively. — Terrapin Station

If someone adhered to specific rules, like painting by numbers or something, they would certainly not be creative. Can someone authentically enjoy painting by numbers? Sure, it might be a pleasant distraction. Would the produced 'artwork' be their authentic expression? No. So in this case they'd be both uncreative and inauthentic, though they may authentically enjoy the distraction.

"Weekly Religious Attendance Nearly as Effective as Statins and Exercise in Extending Life." — Daniel Cox

Is that supposed to be impressive?

Love to me is more important than science, or I guess I would say, "Love and science must be joined at the hip for maximum existential penetration." — Daniel Cox

Religion, or any particular religion, is not love.

You value truth, as we all do, but you value the system of meaning that you've subscribed to more than you value truth. That's what you're saying, and that's fine, it's quite common.

Anyway, I think we all know that monotheists believe that the source of morals is God.

The word 'God' has a bad rap from the God hater position and that's why I didn't use it in the comment you replied to. — Daniel Cox

Really? I assumed it was because you were trying to using science to invalidate evolutionary psychology, and it would have been awkward, to say the least, had you mentioned God in the same breath.

It could have been a more productive discussion, but then began the whining about inadequacy, and things were taken out of context. Instead of talking about what we know through science about the source of morality, it became an opportunity to attack the limits of science. Yawn. — S

No, you began with claims about a specific science (neurobiology) and not science in general.

People may not want to ignore you so much if you were more honest.

Are there really rules that aren't laws, though? And even if there are, what if someone doesn't want to break (some of) them? Do they have to live inauthentically to live creatively? That would seem odd. — Terrapin Station

It seems odd because you have it backwards, authenticity is the degree to which an individual's actions are congruent with their beliefs and desires, despite external pressures (“rules”). People make all sorts of compromises in their lives in order to be accepted. Many support shared fictions, that they know are fiction, in order to express solidarity with their ‘tribe’. Trump supporters are a recent and particularly ugly example of this.

Evolutionary psychology is problematic because evolution has no interest in the truth about anything. — Daniel Cox

And the truth is that God created us, etc.?

What does science have to say about that?

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 — S

I wouldn’t say “nonscientific disciplines,” whatever that is. I used the term “soft sciences.”

The source of morals must include culture. Neurobiology is an incomplete or ‘inadequate’ source.

It's like some people are just looking for an argument. — S

I read yesterday that someone wrote a plugin that can help you ignore such people. I predict that it will be wildly popular.

And you had already seemingly lost track of the subject, which isn't about computers. — S

I don’t think it’s about flying cars either. What do they call it? Oh yes, an analogy. They’re sometimes used to help bridge gaps in understanding between people. Unfortunately, those offered the bridge are sometimes unwilling to cross it.

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my questions — S

Am I a dualists? No. I wasn’t sure how serious a question that was and also didn’t want to lose track of the subject in a tangent, or at least an uninteresting tangent.

We can consciously endeavor to condition ourselves so that our responses or subconscious predictions are of a desirable quality. At least in that way we are responsible.
— praxis

Your are mistaking responsibility for recognition. — Merkwurdichliebe

Recognizing the responsibly, sure.

What you are talking about is an aesthetic assessment, the part about "conditioning" is only a matter of self interest, it has nothing to do with the ethical. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean an aesthetic assessment?

Of course we can work to condition ourselves for various objectives but since we’re talking about morality we might assume that I was referring to the morality relevant sort.

If the goal is a demographic of one then political individualism or libertarianism would be a poor choice to start with because the value set it holds to is rather unusual, in the USA anyway. Something like 10% of Americans are registered libertarian.

I’m not sure if it’s even possible to have large cooperative groups without a unifying identity/ideology, and any identity may necessarily rely on an ‘other’ to give it meaning.

I believe the identity of political individualism is libertarianism.

Not a reading recommendation but in Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker makes a good argument for progress.

Surprisingly, recent research suggests that conscious choice plays a smaller role in our actions than most people assume. In particular, it often comes after brain activity that initiates bodily movements, and many researchers conclude that the conscious choice does not cause the movement (cf. Melillo and Leisman, 2009a,b). That conclusion raises the disturbing questions of whether and how we can ever really be responsible for anything.

We can consciously endeavor to condition ourselves so that our responses or subconscious predictions are of a desirable quality. At least in that way we are responsible.

Re identity politics, can someone enlighten as to what other kind of politics there is? — unenlightened

Hive-mind politics.

Magnificent what? — Janus

Obfuscation.

I’m wondering if you’re both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered in the ‘soft’ sciences.

That’s a rather long way to get around the question. I think you know I was simply trying to identify an analog for morality in computers. Are you suggesting that the comparison is invalid because there’s something *special* about human morality?

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.