Electronic Music is for Chavs.

[noam]

when kids start talking they copy their elders, they dont truly understand what they're talking about, they barely understand the concepts enough to get the words in the right order

innate disposition to language doesn't equate to innate knowledge of the concepts entailed by language (not in a general sense anyway, certain concepts are it seems, innate passed down, but again, those are dispositions or capacities, not direct knowledge)

i just think its a romantic and imaginatively ambitious claim to postulate that aside from the evolutionary theory involved, we also have a moral compass born in our heads when everything can be explained with one theory in mind, why the need to postulate the co-existence of a more far-fetched one

the point about us sticking together is just as well made if not better explained by the mutually beneficial after effects of interspecial co-dependence and co-existence - its the thought that this automatically constitutes a negative outlook on human behaviour that would cause us to even bother looking for an innate moral compass in babies.

why is it so bad that babies would act according to selfish desires and instincts? also why does this somehow instantiate that when they grow up they aren't capable of learning change, or is learning to change your behaviour less morally acceptable than being pure of heart to begin with?

if they like 'nice' behaviour i think its just as plausible to claim that that is because 'nice' behaviour is genetically programmed to be recognised, as being more beneficial to themselves and the species, as opposed to a metaphysical inclination to the very human, and in some respects unnatural concept of 'good'.

[Laszlo]

if they like 'nice' behaviour i think its just as plausible to claim that that is because 'nice' behaviour is genetically programmed to be recognised, as being more beneficial to themselves and the species, as opposed to a metaphysical inclination to the very human, and in some respects unnatural concept of 'good'.

(I wish I had something better to contribute, but I don't. Enjoying the read though, guys)

[magma]

why is it so bad that babies would act according to selfish desires and instincts? also why does this somehow instantiate that when they grow up they aren't capable of learning change, or is learning to change your behaviour less morally acceptable than being pure of heart to begin with?

It's not bad and I think a lot of their desires and instincts are selfish, just like all life's instincts... but they appear when no personal gain is available to still prefer 'nice' things. It's a theory. I keep repeating that there's an awful lot of grey area - I'm not saying your point of view is "bad", merely that I disagree because of the research I've seen over the last couple of years from anthropologists, neuroscientists and psychologists. All the threads seem to be starting to tie together into a pretty neat picture... it's blurry, sure... but so are most theories concerning evolution!

the point about us sticking together is just as well made if not better explained by the mutually beneficial after effects of interspecial co-dependence and co-existence - its the thought that this automatically constitutes a negative outlook on human behaviour that would cause us to even bother looking for an innate moral compass in babies.

Banding together could well be just simple selfish logic - but if so, why did the Neanderthal, who had a much bigger brain and the capability for "caring behaviour" and teamwork within small groups do it too? Why didn't they innately trust other Neanderthal families and form society? We know they were around before us and we're pretty sure we know that we existed at the same time - human remains are found in ever-growing colonies as time progresses, Neanderthal's stay in related family groups for hundreds of thousands of years and then die out. Why would they do that if it was an intelligent, selfish motive? They just didn't have the innate trust that humans have - "I wouldn't do it, so he probably won't do it"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaki ... 5934638029

[noam]

yea i totally get the point you make about it being grey area, i mean if it wasn't there wouldn't be discussion!

the only explanations possible are what you have postulated and what i believe, which is that we chose our behaviour specifically BECAUSE they did not - that was our tactic against a stronger foe, and it prevailed, like we have done against every single species that we have ever encountered.

they were an older generation who'd been successful and we were newer and more able to adapt

our intelligence was our adaptability and our adaptability can be seen to directly oppose the possibility of a pre-cognitive inclination to abide by a genetic moral code. being nice to each but not being nice to other species points at it being a purely utilitarian tactic. not an innate altruism. 'innate trust' bypasses the utilitarian outlook in favour of a more ant-like representation of our species, which we just aren't.

as a species we dont work for each for each other unless its mutually beneficial and even if it IS mutually beneficial then even then we dont necessarily conform.

if we had an innate moral guidance then surely it would persist more strongly, but what in fact we have evidence for in every person is a desire for self-satisfaction coupled with a reliance on co-dependence or dependence and an artificial set of rules that have been constructed by rationality outside the confines of major threat of extinction, to make the world fairer and safer.

the idea of morality being in us from birth seems to stretch too far from the view im comfortable with of humans being essentially advanced animals. it strays into a metaphysical realm which is reliant on non-corporeal external influences, that is the very basis of our morality in the first place.

if its a morality thats been learned and passed down then its been learned for a reason, and that reason defies the logic that we are simply born to be nice and are corrupted. we might very well be born to be nice if the world we grow up is free from negative influence but human nature has shown in just as many cases as it has shown the opposite, that even in a world without negative influence - negative behaviour (morally speaking still) can flourish. people dont instinctively share what they have equally. it doesn't happen. it might have happened in a few cases but i'd still say the same thing - its a behavioural structure born both of ignorance of threat and rational thought leading to a conclusion that mutual benefit is gained sufficiently by co-dependence.

the birds who flock round hippo's or whatever, and keep the flies off them aren't doing them a favour. they're co-depending.

that is because all morality is a human construction built on learned principles to do with survival and mutual benefit.

[noam]

fucks sake i've done some gargantuan posting today

good discussion tho

[apmje]

[Laszlo]

good discussion tho

Thread got jacked hard!

Does anyone fancy answering the following? -

Is a religious persons action less moral than that of a person of no religion because they're doing it out of fear of a deity?

In that respect, can morality be quantified?

[d-T-r]

Nice seeing a discussion like this on here.

Boils down to the whole Nature vs Nurture thing really. ( i think the 'vs' should be replaced with an '&' or '=' personally)

Excuse the generalization, but I think what Magma and Noam are saying are both rooted in the same 'thing' essentially.

I think Society can ,and will improve ,based on both romanticized ideologies regarding 'love' , but also in fully understanding the biological and survival components that originally helped propel and expand our ideas of Love. Like magma said, society is a continuum. Human behavior and characteristics are a continuum. You could even compare society to a particular 'vantage' point on a spectrum but i'll leave that train of thought for another day.

Society, or more simply, our global habitat , is a psycho-sensory feedback loop shaping our every action and reaction based on 'the previous', but also influenced by our estimation of the future. The trouble with this, is that we project both our ultimate ideologies of society/survival/love, as well as our tendency to reaffirm current 'dystopian' aversions either consciously or not.

I see 'Love' more as an open ended question proposed to us rather than a concept we're ever going to successfully deconstruct while remaining in our dualistic mindset.

The Subjectivity and objectivity 'paradox'.

The real pressing issue though,which i hope brings some more avenues of thought into the frame, is what do we actually do about it?

Will we think about it, more than we attempt to influence it?

Will our constructive (and deconstructive) thoughts manifest into relevant actions that will influence society?

Of course the answer is yes, the 'real' question could then be,

When will we all realize our individual and collective influence on the sustaining,and destaining of current paradigm models?

Society will always change, and i think threads like this are an example of an inevitable quickening. The only way society will 'improve' and for hierarchy's to dissolve is when we all start seeing things from the same set of collective eyes. Emphasizing and exploring what makes us similar instead of that of which 'separates'.

Again, linking us back to the biological side of survival + 'Love' and the subjective nature of perception. I think when we truly attempt to correlate the cyclic behavioral properties of things on a unified scale/continum, will we start to truly realize our true ability to command the Evolutionary steering wheel. (including society )

Some people need to be spoken to from the heart to influence relevant worldly action, and some from the mind. I think we'll have a greater survival advantage and capacity for the current perception of 'love' when we remove the distinctions between the two and see ourselves as a larger collective organism ,operating within our biosphere, capable of instantaneous organization and reorganization at our own will (while still holding onto the romanticized ideas of love/idealism for the sake of 'positive' /constructive 'indulgence' )

Trying to summarize what 'i' think or what i should maybe ask...

At which point do collective and ingrained evolutionary traits of 'survival' become obsolete and outdated? And How do we recognize them?
When do we realize that surviving, needn't be the primary focus of our daily lives anymore if we make it so and actually decide to remove these unnatural hardships we created for ourselves?

When do we abandon this struggle we have out grown intellectually and emotionally?

Excuse all the tangents, but then that's what 'this' is

-----

[d-T-r]

Noam - If 'morality is a human construction built on learned principles to do with survival and mutual benefit',

Are new principles still being learnt currently and influenced by present factors, and if so , how do they affect the natural evolutionary path that morality takes. Is morality 'final' or is it still adapting (based on current views on 'survival' ) Where do you see the path of morality heading?

If we can deconstruct and analyze the past in order to understand and determine the potential outcomes of the future etc Can free will effect the speed of something happening even if some events are unavoidable.

Essentially what I'm asking is, Is co-dependency something we can steer ,and build upon for not just survival advantages, but for evolutionary advantages?

( of course i think we can , and I think it's always been destined to evolve and unfold in this way but it would be cool to hear yours or anyone elses thoughts anyway)

[noam]

i stated my views in earlier which partly answer your question and the rest is basically available by induction from the quote above that yes morality is evolving, it changes and should change with every generation. simply put old moralities dont make sense in our world or the world of the future. its necessary for them to change and its inevitable they will.

there is a danger i think to start moralising about morality in this kind of discussion so i'll avoid that as best i can - despite my advocation that it 'should change'

i can kind of see where you're trying to steer this and again i think its a natural progression and keeping the idea of this progression free from normative ascriptions i'll just say 'yeah' - its possible and is indeed happening.

its also important to recognise the value to us individually, and to our future, of maintaining the ability of an individual to change things on their own, and not rely on a consensus. history shows the inherent risk in gaining a benefit from this but i still think the risk is worth allowing. but this is straying really far from the discussion!

so regards your point about magma and myself coming from the same place, in a way yes but the main difference is a very clear one - i dispute the existence of innate morality in babies, he doesn't.

[d-T-r]

i stated my views in earlier which partly answer your question and the rest is basically available by induction from the quote above that yes morality is evolving, it changes and should change with every generation. simply put old moralities dont make sense in our world or the world of the future. its necessary for them to change and its inevitable they will.

there is a danger i think to start moralising about morality in this kind of discussion so i'll avoid that as best i can - despite my advocation that it 'should change'

i can kind of see where you're trying to steer this and again i think its a natural progression and keeping the idea of this progression free from normative ascriptions i'll just say 'yeah' - its possible and is indeed happening.

its also important to recognise the value to us individually, and to our future, of maintaining the ability of an individual to change things on their own, and not rely on a consensus. history shows the inherent risk in gaining a benefit from this but i still think the risk is worth allowing. but this is straying really far from the discussion!

so regards your point about magma and myself coming from the same place, in a way yes but the main difference is a very clear one - i dispute the existence of innate morality in babies, he doesn't.

Cool -I Didn't mean to imply you shared the same views of inate morality in babies. More so just the nature + nurture themes that were starting to appear in both of what you were saying.

I see what you mean about the moralizing morality thing but i think it's almost inescapable and doesn't have to be abandoned completely, just utilized in alignment/co-dependency with the natural ordering of our direct biological and extended biospher'ical' habitat (the world) ...To avoid moralizing morality still involves a level of morality to decide to do so

We all share those individual perceptual avocations, but using the biological route as a basis to build from (which is exactly what has lead to this moment), there really is no 'own' to begin with.So the maintenance of the individually induced change as you put it, is still firmly routed outside of the individual and thus emphasis on consensus driven change becomes inevitable. Behavior is contagious.

I think what i'm getting at now is that i reckon we can massively improve and build upon our understanding of what existence is (including the catalyst'ic improvement of society) , when we align our thinking as closely to our internal and external biology (environment) as possible.

Basically 100% realizing and accepting the 'limitations' of our perceptual and biological subjectivity, in order to better understand the 'object' we contrinbute to if that makes sense.

Utilizing both halves to better understand the whole.

The dual continuum of the human experience.

(apologies if i've gone off on further tangents, but again, that's what 'this is )

better get some sleep

[James Kofi]

the essays ppl write on here...

[knell]

the essays ppl write on here...

subjective thought provoking discourse via negligible server activity, such a tragedy...

[noam]

dont judge me oh majestic leader

[d-T-r]

the essays ppl write on here...

subjective thought provoking discourse via negligible server activity, such a tragedy...

'Can't tell if serious'

If ever there was an apparent tragedy, it would be the inclination to not think enough.

[LACE]

sorry magma, didn't mean to be snarky. i can get a little robotic and unemotional when i'm encountering new information that can possibly change the way i see the world..

anywho, yeah good discussion. and points to noam for keeping his inner scallie in check all throughout =D

[magma]

they were an older generation who'd been successful and we were newer and more able to adapt

our intelligence was our adaptability and our adaptability can be seen to directly oppose the possibility of a pre-cognitive inclination to abide by a genetic moral code. being nice to each but not being nice to other species points at it being a purely utilitarian tactic. not an innate altruism. 'innate trust' bypasses the utilitarian outlook in favour of a more ant-like representation of our species, which we just aren't.

This is the bit of logic I disagree with - we most likely weren't more intelligent than Neanderthal man. They had bigger brains and fierce problem solving abilities, but we banded together at every opportunity and, despite their ability to learn from us (as us them) they didn't. Even when it would've been clear that humans were benefitting from living in colonies, Neanderthals didn't/couldn't do it - Neanderthals appear to have been pretty untrusting so-and-sos... like most apes they apparently trusted and bonded with their immediate kin and protected their family line, but they didn't do it on a species-wide level like we did as soon as we had the chance.

Aside from that, yeah, we pretty much agree... I don't think our internal morality is all-conquering by any means and so 'practical' morality definitely shifts over time and culture-to-culture... that's pretty clear from varying attitudes to things like feminism, slavery, meat-eating and corporal/capital punishment the world over.

Utilizing both halves to better understand the whole.

The dual continuum of the human experience.

LACE - t'was yesterday and by a massive stroke of luck, my short term memory has been smoked to fuck - we're all good.

[kay]

anywho, yeah good discussion. and points to noam for keeping his inner scallie in check all throughout =D

+1 to that!

Dropped out of the discussion due to lack of heating in my house, will try to squeeze in a few thoughts:
- The question of morality in babies is indeed very difficult to prove/disprove. A lot of thought has been put into how to set the studies up to be bias neutral, but I think they are still slightly flawed to some extent. But it is progress that is being made, and that's good enough for me for now.

- On Neanderthals vs homo sapiens, could the difference simply be that humans learnt/bred the ability to compromise? The reason why packs/groupings/tribes of animals form is down to base territorial instincts (Food source! Mine! Defend!). Pack animals learnt/bred the ability that there is safety/superiority in numbers but in most cases, there is a natural limit to how much a given space of land will support at any one time. This may have limited the size of initial packs/family groupings (some species clearly took to nomadic lifestyles and these allowed the pack to grow to larger sizes). For essentially non-nomadic species (ie did not have the ability to travel vast distances rapidly) the territorial behaviour would probably have been reinforced, leading to essentially strict control of group size, and inter-pack disputes. Perhaps humans simply gained the ability to compromise their gut family-pack instinct when they realised that banding together would allow them to displace the more successful neanderthals.

An interesting observation to such new bahaviour occuring in nature was captured in a documentary a few years ago about a group of male cheetah siblings who actually 'learnt' to band together to improve their chances of bringing down prey. Cheetahs are naturally solitary animals, and their hunting success rate is quite poor, which is contributing to their decline. But, this group of siblings learnt to work together beyond their natural instincts, and were noticeably more successful.

More later, haveta run.

[kay]

This is the bit of logic I disagree with - we most likely weren't more intelligent than Neanderthal man. They had bigger brains and fierce problem solving abilities, but we banded together at every opportunity and, despite their ability to learn from us (as us them) they didn't. Even when it would've been clear that humans were benefitting from living in colonies, Neanderthals didn't/couldn't do it - Neanderthals appear to have been pretty untrusting so-and-sos... like most apes they apparently trusted and bonded with their immediate kin and protected their family line, but they didn't do it on a species-wide level like we did as soon as we had the chance.

This just kicked off another thought in my head: Could the difference simply be due to pheremones? Compared to most other animals, humans have a notoriously poor ability to detect pheremones. Either that or human pheremones are simply less detectable than others, or there is a smaller range of pheremones. Could that have made it much easier for non-familial units to band together? Whereas if neanderthals retained the more normal ape-level of pheremone sensitivity, they would be a lot less inclined/able to handle the presence of other tribes.

Could it all just be down to a poor sense of smell?

[faultier]

Does anyone fancy answering the following? -

Is a religious persons action less moral than that of a person of no religion because they're doing it out of fear of a deity?

In that respect, can morality be quantified?

i do, imo no, whats to say a non religious person doesnt abide to morality for fear of legal consequences, judgement by their peers and so on?

in my simple words, i think i agree with noam's opinion that morality is just a grid that we use to explain behaviours that are mainly motivated by self-interest. and i do not put any negative connotation in the "self interest" bit, mind

this said, i'm going back to lurking mode, cause magma, noam and kay are on fire and i feel like a moron with my lack of vocabulary, this kind of threads is the reason i love snh