A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[HoreTore]

So,

1) What are the basic science advances that have changed our view of the big questions, and which questions?
2) What are some psychology studies that really show us things we couldn't have known otherwise on the important topics? Treating the abnormal, understanding sensation/perception, and medical therapeutical stuff is a different category.
3) Same as 2, but for the neuroscience, brain imaging type studies

The stuff I've read about falls into three categories: 1) wrong, 2) not really important, 3) laborious and questionable support for something that you will likely come across in the course of a humanities education, which psychologists don't have

But obviously I quit looking into it at a certain point.

We know that science and reason can work well destructively, in pointing out flaws and impossibilities, and this can open peoples eyes. But we are talking here about a direct advance.

I can start out with my own profession, education:

1. Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
2. Vygotsky's zones(I'm sorry to say I don't know the english term for his theory, and the norwegian one won't help you).
3. Jerome Bruner showed how language is learned.
4. John Dewey's "learning by doing", and much more.

All four are, among other things, psychologist, and reached their insights through the scientific method, not by looking in old books written a thousand years ago or through "common sense" alone.

And now, with the advent of neuroscience, our knowledge has expanded even further.

[Tellos Athenaios]

1) What are the basic science advances that have changed our view of the big questions, and which questions?

Advances in measuring time, through advances in physics, have lead us to redefine length in terms of time (and speed of light) as opposed to being a "distinct" type of domain. That is we do not define speed in terms of distance over delta in time, but we define length in terms of a constant speed (of light) times a particular delta of time! So how tall are you is now officially defined in terms of how long would it take light in a vacuum to travel from top to toes?

Advances in physics in general have had striking implications for our day to day lives, including the questions "what are we made of?" and "where do we come from?"

2) What are some psychology studies that really show us things we couldn't have known otherwise on the important topics? Treating the abnormal, understanding sensation/perception, and medical therapeutical stuff is a different category.

Herd mentality type things. Mass psychology is key to designing safe buildings and vessels, to building user friendly and desirable products, or effective marketing (people don't like going back for seconds so you make more by selling larger portions up front, for instance). Also it turns out that people are terrible with quantities: one, two, three, more, many is roughly what the average Joe can deal with. Questions like "which is bigger: 10^6 or 2^19?" are very hard to do correctly.

3) Same as 2, but for the neuroscience, brain imaging type studies

How the brain works, of course; and by extension how we might aid people with e.g. Alzheimer's to remain mentally able for as long as possible and correctly diagnosing brain damage. Additionally study of the brain also has application in information science, AI, and CS (algorithms, neural networks, distributed systems). Understanding our brain's response to audio and visual input can help us design places which are more "friendly"/"soothing" on the nerves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By your own admission, you're not a creationist. I assume you "believe" in the standard scientific view of self-replicating molecules being generated by chance and evolving into life forms that are more recognisable to us. I can understand why someone wouldn't really care about the evolution/creationism controversy, but I can't for the love of god understand why you take the side of the creationists.

Like I said--it's as if I'm defending a "life begins at conception" person (who I'm confidant is not going to effect change in our country) vs some people I have profound disagreements with. In other countries, the creationist types are much more of a problem.

An unfortunate side effect of the left's hero worship of famous progressives of the past is that they want the world to face the same problems so that they can be just as heroic--that's how you end up with people accusing others of racism left and right and occupy wall street protesters singing civil rights tunes.

The real world has moved on.

Science literally means "knowledge". There's also something called "the scientific method" as advanced by Popper foremost (allthough he was probably too dismissive of inductive reasoning). Defined in it's simplest terms, I can't think of any rational reason why people would oppose either.

I'm getting the impression that you have a warped view of what Humanities is. Psychology is part of it, by the way. With the possible exception of religious studies, they're all sciences that concern themselves with the human mind and it's products. Religious studies can be scientific provided that they follow an empirical setup, but a strictly theological study (i.e. reasoning from religious premises) isn't. In any case the humanities are irrelevant when we're dealing with subjects that fall out of the scope of human society, such as the origin of life which goes beyond humans.

Let's say you have a piece of music. If you listen to it, that's observation, and will result in you knowing things about it. Simply doing that and then trying to express what you think is part of the humanities. Trying to go beyond that, doing brain scans of people listening to music, coming up with theories about different tones and how the effect mood, testing those theories, etc, that's science. Make sense?

1 - I interpret this as "which scientific advances led to a drastic change in which humans see things". Evolution is an obvious one. Other ones include metereology and seismology, which have shown us that natural disasters really aren't Acts of God, or at least provided a natural explanation we can understand and believe. The discovery of the atom and molecule debunked the whole ancient concept of "elements" as conceived by Greek philosophers.
Or an example that's relevant to pretty much everyone: historically many children died in shortly after birth, and the parents would ask "why, God, why?". The local priest would likely mutter something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways we can't comprehend, also she's in a better place now". By inductive reasoning people discovered that if midwives and doctors washed their hands before assisting in childbirth, the fatalities dropped enormously. Later on we discovered that microbes were responsible for most diseases. I would not dismiss the priest's words as useless, because they serve a real social purpose, but they're not much help in answering the "big questions that really matter"

Yes, we know that science can have destructive ability. They can disprove a humanities kind of theory that people come up with. I'm just rather indifferent to this ability when it comes to what we're talking about. For one thing, it's much simpler to just avoid writing the kind of goofy humanities nonsense that silly professors come up with. For another, science in that capacity is hostile to all myth, and sometimes myths and stories are the means by which someone has grasped at an important truth. Third, often it's merely a weapon in the hands of people who don't have any better ideas, or who have worse ideas, which they are able to make immune to attack by the best abilities of science at the time. Fourth, you still have to arrive at the important truths...

I don't think the question in your example is "Why did this happen?" by the way. It's "how do I deal with this". I've heard that people were simply less attached to their children until they reached a certain age back when infant deaths were common, don't know if it's true or not though. I'd be surprised if you think scientific knowledge has helped us deal with the death of a child though.

2 - a flawed question, I think. If you don't think treatment, understanding of sensation/perception or having an emperical understanding of why humans act the way they do is important, then the answer is invariably "there are none". I fail to see what other discipline could produce the same knowledge without becoming part of what we'd call "psychology" - since it's the study of the human mind.

3 - same as 2 really. I'll add that neuroscience has revealed that there are physical causes, instead of metaphysical reasons like a "it's the soul", that are responsible for how humans think and perceive things.

Treatment is important, sorry, I meant not important for what what we are disputing: the overreach of science. No one is saying that mystical medicine would be better--regardless of the excessive faith people have had in scientific medical studies.

So what do we know now that we believe in physical causes instead of metaphysical ones? That's the question I'm asking you guys.

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment.

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

As someone who conceives of moral perception as stemming from the sum of one's own experiences, shouldn't you be interested in what neuroscience can tell us about how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality are represented in the brain?

I'm interested in personal, subjective knowledge of how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality occur. Just like I'm interested in my own experience of listening to a piece of music and not reading an article about the effect of heavy bass on the neural system. I'm not interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake here.

[Montmorency]

The real world has moved on.

How did you come to be possessed of such an uncommon and piercing insight?

Make sense?

Neuroscience would tell us far more about that experience than the humanities could.

So what do we know now that we believe in physical causes instead of metaphysical ones?

There is evidence for physical causes, to put it simply.

Fourth, you still have to arrive at the important truths...

Why, and how do you know your method is the most appropriate?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

Seriously?

I'm not interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake here.

That's with magnetic fields, and is temporary.

We now have the ability to semi-invasively target specific neural circuits and activate or deactivate them, using the installed genetic expression of neuronal structures sensitive to predetermined stimuli. As we understand more of the brain cell classes and their functions, we will learn more of how neural circuits operate, how they interact with other neural circuits to produce complex behaviors - enduce a subject to pull a lever over and over again through neural manipulation -, sensation - switch pain processing with pleasure processing and cause the subject to cut itself with a knife voluntarily - and abstract attributes - including thought, belief, memory, value, consciousness, etc. We would be able to directly and permanently manipulate these thing, even to specification.

This is being done now, at the level of behavioral patterns, with small mammals. How many years before we move up to the hominids? You can't see the implications, or possible applications, of all this?

I'm interested in personal, subjective knowledge of how decisions and thoughts with respect to morality occur.

Trivial.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I can start out with my own profession, education:

1. Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
2. Vygotsky's zones(I'm sorry to say I don't know the english term for his theory, and the norwegian one won't help you).
3. Jerome Bruner showed how language is learned.
4. John Dewey's "learning by doing", and much more.

Thanks, I forgot all about this stuff. But I think it's in the same category as therapy. Children and people with mental illnesses are outside the normal humanities because we can't remember/don't know what it's like to be them. Scientific study is a very important assist to normal methods in both education and therapy.

Advances in measuring time, through advances in physics, have lead us to redefine length in terms of time (and speed of light) as opposed to being a "distinct" type of domain. That is we do not define speed in terms of distance over delta in time, but we define length in terms of a constant speed (of light) times a particular delta of time! So how tall are you is now officially defined in terms of how long would it take light in a vacuum to travel from top to toes?

Advances in physics in general have had striking implications for our day to day lives, including the questions "what are we made of?" and "where do we come from?"

This makes me curious...I don't find those questions interesting or significant, what do you see in them?

Herd mentality type things. Mass psychology is key to designing safe buildings and vessels, to building user friendly and desirable products, or effective marketing (people don't like going back for seconds so you make more by selling larger portions up front, for instance). Also it turns out that people are terrible with quantities: one, two, three, more, many is roughly what the average Joe can deal with. Questions like "which is bigger: 10^6 or 2^19?" are very hard to do correctly.

How the brain works, of course; and by extension how we might aid people with e.g. Alzheimer's to remain mentally able for as long as possible and correctly diagnosing brain damage. Additionally study of the brain also has application in information science, AI, and CS (algorithms, neural networks, distributed systems). Understanding our brain's response to audio and visual input can help us design places which are more "friendly"/"soothing" on the nerves.

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology, difficulty with large numbers, and what made a building look nice before science. These benefits you describe are technological improvements or of simply utilitarian value. I'm not knocking technology, utility, better education, better medicine, etc etc...far from it...but this is exactly what I mean, we all know that there are so many improvements in our world due to science that we try to apply the method in areas where we should not apply it.

Are you praising science for making marketing more insidious by the way?


************

I will say that after considering it I think you guys may be right in part--I'm probably undervaluing the destructive ability of science and reason, and the more rigorous ethos those can produce in some people. That would make an interesting historical question that I can't really answer.

That's with magnetic fields, and is temporary.

We now have the ability to semi-invasively target specific neural circuits and activate or deactivate them, using the installed genetic expression of neuronal structures sensitive to predetermined stimuli. As we understand more of the brain cell classes and their functions, we will learn more of how neural circuits operate, how they interact with other neural circuits to produce complex behaviors - enduce a subject to pull a lever over and over again through neural manipulation -, sensation - switch pain processing with pleasure processing and cause the subject to cut itself with a knife voluntarily - and abstract attributes - including thought, belief, memory, value, consciousness, etc. We would be able to directly and permanently manipulate these thing, even to specification.

This is being done now, at the level of behavioral patterns, with small mammals. How many years before we move up to the hominids? You can't see the implications, or possible applications, of all this?

So you are thinking about, say, giving someone endless willpower through technological manipulation? What should they do with that willpower? Should they choose willpower over endless contentment?

This is science fiction at the moment anyway

[Montmorency]

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology

One of the major findings of cognitive psychology is that popular understandings of psychology and brain function are crap. This "common sense" approach is actually useless and wrong.

Here's another one: you can't see how any of this matters a whit. You go apenuts over animal rightists and science lovers. These are your values. Yet what happens when there is damage to brain areas responsible for value?

Decision-making becomes near-impossible. Because internal representations of value drive pretty much all voluntary action, the loss of these curtails voluntary action. If going to work is no more valuable - food on the table is no more valuable - than the next thing, how could you pursue it? Certainly logic is only useful for such individuals in coming to a decision abstractly - not practically. What does this show? That certain 'butthole' economists are spot on when they say that value is all in the head.

And you question the usefulness of a neurological approach to this?

[Montmorency]

So you are thinking about, say, giving someone endless willpower through technological manipulation? What should they do with that willpower? Should they choose willpower over endless contentment?

This is science fiction at the moment anyway

Wait, what? That's the application you came up with? Really?

This is science fiction like flying cars are science fiction...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One of the major findings of cognitive psychology is that popular understandings of psychology and brain function are crap. This "common sense" approach is actually useless and wrong.

I'm not arguing for common sense. Strange caricature on your part. Eric Hoffer's "the true believer" is pretty good though.

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

Here's another one: you can't see how any of this matters a whit. You go apenuts over animal rightists and science lovers. These are your values. Yet what happens when there is damage to brain areas responsible for value?

Decision-making becomes near-impossible. Because internal representations of value drive pretty much all voluntary action, the loss of these curtails voluntary action. If going to work is no more valuable - food on the table is no more valuable - than the next thing, how could you pursue it? Certainly logic is only useful for such individuals in coming to a decision abstractly - not practically. What does this show? That certain 'butthole' economists are spot on when they say that value is all in the head.

And you question the usefulness of a neurological approach to this?

Well, what is the usefulness of the neurological approach?

Everyone knows that simply drinking enough can change your values, and that there are unusual people who have starkly different values.

Wait, what? That's the application you came up with? Really?

This is science fiction like flying cars are science fiction...

Sorry, I was guessing at what you were getting at.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This makes me curious...I don't find those questions interesting or significant, what do you see in them?

Only the basis of pretty much all meta physics.

I think people have had a pretty good understanding of mass psychology, difficulty with large numbers, and what made a building look nice before science.

Nope, they didn't. Mass psychology and difficulty with things like large numbers are not about "people will trample on each other in a bid to get out first when the building is on fire", or "doing sums is hard". It is about appreciating the consequences of that, specifically why certain designs work well even when everyone is a blind panic and why others don't. It also explains why people will frequently behave in a manner that goes against their own self interest, which has important application in economics for instance.

These benefits you describe are technological improvements or of simply utilitarian value. I'm not knocking technology, utility, better education, better medicine, etc etc...far from it...but this is exactly what I mean, we all know that there are so many improvements in our world due to science that we try to apply the method in areas where we should not apply it.

Well it is not so much about the improvements themselves (although that is what you asked for) but rather the implication: science brings us improvements in our understanding no matter the subject.

Are you praising science for making marketing more insidious by the way?

On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand it also allows us to understand when marketing needs to be reigned in or to communicate more effectively...

[Montmorency]

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

Can common sense direct us to the neural activity responsible for "false ideas" (I assume you mean the cognitive biases here) - that is, the source of it? All common sense can do is "X is dumb and wrong and I, as well as all the people I like, are meritous for seeing that". That's really it.

Sorry, I was guessing at what you were getting at.

I wasn't getting at any one implication, though I would think you would perceive the 'dangerous' and probably (?) current sci-fi application of centrally controlled or centrally programmed government agents - with kill-switches, to boot (think deactivating all neural activity). Also consider this in tandem with the possibility of taking any human cell, converting it into a stem cell, and then growing that stem cell into an exact replica of the original owner - also in early stages of operation, today.

Well, what is the usefulness of the neurological approach?

Where is value, and how can it be manipulated at the source? As I was explicitly describing...

Everyone knows that simply drinking enough can change your values

Does it really change values, or does it simply lower inhibitions by inhibiting higher-order function responsible for it? Common sense can't answer this at all.

I'm not arguing for common sense.

Then what are you arguing for? 'Popular sense'? Tradition-al sense?? By any other name...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Only the basis of pretty much all meta physics.

And what do you see in that? What does having as a basis the fact of physicalism or whatever it's called imply for the important stuff?

Nope, they didn't. Mass psychology and difficulty with things like large numbers are not about "people will trample on each other in a bid to get out first when the building is on fire", or "doing sums is hard". It is about appreciating the consequences of that, specifically why certain designs work well even when everyone is a blind panic and why others don't. It also explains why people will frequently behave in a manner that goes against their own self interest, which has important application in economics for instance.

Building design, less fire deaths, very handy, yes.

Explaining why people go against their own self interest? That idea that people wouldn't was an absurd myth. How much has that been believed in history? Actually I'm not sure how strongly economists believed it, I've read that it was just a model that they understood was limited but that people expanded on. In other words, the perils of using science inappropriately again.

I don't think psychology studies have really done more than touch the surface on something as big on what people's self interest is and when and why they act against it. It's been written and thought about by many people though.

Well it is not so much about the improvements themselves (although that is what you asked for) but rather the implication: science brings us improvements in our understanding no matter the subject.

But that's what I was disputing--that science works well no matter the subject. Just because it works well on some questions doesn't mean it works well on others. So where has it worked well in the humanities type big questions? I know that's a vague description...

And I'm not objecting to case studies or observation...sometimes I feel like both sides are talking past each other here.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand it also allows us to understand when marketing needs to be reigned in or to communicate more effectively...

Solving problems it creates...

Can common sense direct us to the neural activity responsible for "false ideas" (I assume you mean the cognitive biases here) - that is, the source of it? All common sense can do is "X is dumb and wrong and I, as well as all the people I like, are meritous for seeing that". That's really it.

People can notice, retrospectively, that they had confirmation bias, even if they never called it that. And that experience is going to be worth more than reading a neuroscience study about it.

Although, it still won't be enough, it takes a lot more than understanding to improve on not having mental biases.

I wasn't getting at any one implication, though I would think you would perceive the 'dangerous' and probably (?) current sci-fi application of centrally controlled or centrally programmed government agents - with kill-switches, to boot (think deactivating all neural activity). Also consider this in tandem with the possibility of taking any human cell, converting it into a stem cell, and then growing that stem cell into an exact replica of the original owner - also in early stages of operation, today.

Where is value, and how can it be manipulated at the source? As I was explicitly describing...

We wouldn't need to waterboard people if we had this ability...

Does it really change values, or does it simply lower inhibitions by inhibiting higher-order function responsible for it? Common sense can't answer this at all.

Eh, it changes what you value at the moment like the transcranial thing does.

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Then what are you arguing for? 'Popular sense'? Tradition-al sense?? By any other name...

The humanities, personal experience, observing and reacting to the world...not relying on things where you have to take someones word for it that their method arrives at the right answer. I don't know where you got common sense from. I was pretty explicit about praising scientific advances in medicine over old timey methods, right? It's just that in areas other than medicine etc I was criticizing science.

[Montmorency]

And that experience is going to be worth more than reading a neuroscience study about it.

Although, it still won't be enough, it takes a lot more than understanding to improve on not having mental biases.

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

We wouldn't need to waterboard people if we had this ability...

Yes, sure, extracting information is a classic. How about taking two individuals and replacing one's memories and experiences with the other's, and vice versa. Wacky reality TV shenanigans ensue, right?

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

where you have to take someones word for it that their method arrives at the right answer.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization.

observing and reacting to the world

Careful, that's awfully close to...

I don't know where you got common sense from. I was pretty explicit about praising scientific advances in medicine over old timey methods, right? It's just that in areas other than medicine etc I was criticizing science.

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Worth more in what sense? Towards what end? Toward getting past them? As it so happens, magnetic stimulation has been effected to temporarily deactivate several biases, such as optimism bias.

Understanding, catching yourself when it's important, letting it go on when it's useful.

We aren't going to go around wearing magnets on our head fixing all our deficiencies

Sure, that sort of broad comparative analysis is difficult with neuroscience, unless tens of thousands of diverse individuals could be 'processed' at some point.

So what's the use of the "great" philosopher besides for confirming what you already know? Perhaps you don't have the best answers? Perhaps your own experiences do not grant you any special insight? As I see it, to take your concept at face value would easily lead to the conclusion that each is wise in his or her own manner. Here, it just seems like a sort of tool for self-aggrandization.

???

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

You were saying something like, 'the conclusions and questions of cognitive science are all old hat and common sense', it seems to me.

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

How about, you're undervaluing the broad application of science to questions the humanities ask, particularly in their formulation and material basis? Surely philosophy without grounding in actual causal and material mechanisms is plain old wind-whistling: farting around. Consider whether you're not simply underestimating...say, what if one neuroscientist applied your "personal experience" approach? Would then the use of the neuroscience in unraveling what's behind the big questions be evident?

How am I undervaluing it?

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

[Montmorency]

You don't read philosophy and take their word for it, but you can still gain insight. And you just said studying history and other cultures is valuable. You can learn a lot from your own experiences...haven't you? But you can get a lot from other people too and from getting an education...everyone knows that...you're familiar with the concept of a humanities education, so I don't know why you keep talking about common sense and a "personal experience" approach...

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

The impulse to have an objecting grounding, an inarguable foundation, is just what I was criticizing back in the beginning. It's the same with modern philosophers who work entirely within a logical or rationalistic framework. Starting with a "scientific grounding" and proceeding by strict logic is how people end up with utilitarianism.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?

No, I was asking for examples where the had something interesting to say about a big question, and disputed the examples offered

...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'll list some propositions, and you should check off the ones that resonate with you:

1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.
4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.
5. Psychology is common sense.
6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.
8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.
10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

And let's cut off there for now. I feel like there have to be crippling contradictions and semantic deficits in your ideology...

You should write up a Manifesto. I promise I'll push it on tourists in Times Square, while in the nude.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know, maybe I've got it wrong, but I feel like you're trying to wriggle out of your own ideas here.

Where did I say any of that? Weren't we past it?
...

After everything, you're telling me I don't understand your position. Yet I really feel like you're going back and forth between distinct formulations. Maybe it really is because you, as you claim, are irrational and inconsistent?

I'm confused about your objection as well.

2. Issues of morality are the Big Questions.
1. Science is too logical to have bearing on issues of morality.
3. Morality can not be logical, or rational, or coherent, or any other such word.

Some of the big questions are about morality. But morality is a broader topic than the people who think of it in terms of science and logic would say. They reject the religious view and do not have a good way of viewing the world to replace it when it comes to moral questions. They replace it with things like the harm principle, consent, and human rights.

4. Morality must be derived from personal experience.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

5. Psychology is common sense.

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological (sensation and perception) or the common sense or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

6. My morality is correct, and I can tell because I have strong feelings toward issues and my life experiences have been meaningful and instructive.
7. Second-hand experience is inferior to first-hand experience with respect to morality.

People think that, it's not a terrible thought, but they aren't infallible.

Strong feelings change and we are always adding life experiences...and the basic assumption with that statement is really that the feelings of others and their experiences can be instructive too. Sometimes it can be more objective when you can view it from the outside.

8. The humanities are valuable in studying the human condition.
8a. The humanities are more valuable in this regard than science.
9. The study of morality and the study of the human condition are inextricable.

amen

10. The humanities are irrational, and do not operate on a logical or consistent basis but are rather totally personal.
11. Humans are disordered and inconsistent on every level.
11.a. Personal experience is irrational and therefore valuable.

I think it's obvious I flubbed it when talking about "personal" and about "rationally ordered".

Let's take lying....

Someone says something to you...you have to judge whether what they said was true, or how close to to truth it was, whether it was misleading, whether they mispoke, whether it's not true because it's a generalization, whether the generalization is defensible, whether they know the truth, whether if they know the truth it is something they could express easily, what emotion they are feeling when they say it, what their motivation or intent is, how uncommon a lie it would be, how serious a matter it is, what kind of situation it is, how much effort they put into the deception...that's all I can think of at the moment, sorry it's an awkward attempt. These are all things that can effect how we react to a lie. But the judgement occurs right off the bat, possibly we are getting angry and frowning before we even realize it. Often it's incorrect, but it's unavoidably our basis.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Perhaps it starts with a definition of lying that includes "there must be an intent to deceive". Our knowledge of that intent, if we have it, came from the initial judgement. What good is asking ourselves, consciously, whether it was there? And why would we imagine there is a a single definition of lying that is applicable to the entire range of social situations?

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

What we are really doing is, first of all, making a purely personal judgment of the person. But this never takes place in isolation--it depends on our relationship with the person.Then we are going to make a judgment about what response to make. This may be completely at odds with our personal judgment. Parents often don't care about their kids lies, understand why they lied, see right through it, but they want to teach them not to do it.

Distinct from all this are moral codes about lying. There are some lies that societies or cultures judge, at that time, rightly or wrongly, to be serious enough to require a well known cultural response. Other times certain groups will decide to hold themselves to particular high standards. These are often distinct from our natural judgments, but influence them as well and especially influence the response we think necessary.

Now, I would say, that since, essentially, every lie is different, and since judgments take place so fast, and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions, that it is a requirement to have extensive social experience, as we all do, and to reflect upon that experience. What do we think about when we reflect? All the various things that go into it like in my list, or most likely one that stood out. We can ask ourselves whether they really believed what they said. Whether they fooled themselves into believing it. Maybe we'll ask ourselves how much we care, which is really just checking our feelings at the moment.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

Why someone would truly believe science, logic, and a consistent rational basis for morality come into it is beyond me. That might possibly describe a legal code for dealing with lying...I hope our legal system has a logical, consistent, rational basis for determining whether something is slander and judging it...but that's not morality...

Anything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something. Many philosophers have said that. There may well be some philosophy out there that is good food for thought on the subject, I can't think of any off hand.

The fact is its absurd to act like we make moral judgments in a reasonable manner and from an impartial viewpoint. That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive. Either discuss specific lies that you've seen or talk in general about what kind of person to be and how to treat people. You might use a principle you've heard of about lying to think about a specific lie, but you shouldn't expect that principle to always apply.

You can make statements that are generally true about lying, but they wouldn't be rules that you could apply. "people should usually be instinctively averse to deceiving someone who trusts them" for example.

Also...unavoidably in these moral issues we have the questions "How high a standard should I hold myself too? How high a standard should I hold others too?". In general, religions set the bar high. It's kind of a puritan thing. Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so. Secular people often go off of what they've been taught, are puritanical about taboos, and (too often) try to justify their vices with an appeal to "natural" or "normal". I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.



I'm going to skip out on trying to edit this and you can tell me which parts don't make sense...

[Montmorency]

Studies of normal people tend towards either the biological

That's the idea, isn't it?

or the better accessed through the humanities or the wrong.

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

feelings of others and their experiences

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

sensation and perception

That's what you're about.

Most important knowledge has its root in personal experience. The reason people misjudge other cultures is mainly from a lack of personal experience living in that culture. "walk a mile in their shoes" as they say.

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

Let's take lying....

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Now what does a rational, logical, consistent moral basis for examining lies look like?

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

The moral rule "lying is wrong" we know is dumb because we have a range of reactions that goes from sympathetic to apathetic to disgusted to furious.

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

And I haven't even gone into honesty as a virtue.

The ancients lapped that stuff up.

These are often distinct from our natural judgments

I don't recognize that a judgment can be unnatural.

and rely so little on consciousness but instead on emotional reactions

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

A

nything logical or rational would have to rely on something close to "lying is always wrong" or "lying is wrong if it causes harm" or something.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

That's why moral philosophy that focuses on rules, rationality, logic, etc are generally useless. It's very personal, situational, social, and instinctive.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

Can you answer those questions scientifically, rationally? I don't think so.

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

I'm not sure I can really answer them. I guess I would say keep a high standard for yourself (but not so high that it's just a matter of pride) and have a "short memory" (as they say in sports), and be accepting of others.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

[Ironside]

Like I said--it's as if I'm defending a "life begins at conception" person (who I'm confidant is not going to effect change in our country) vs some people I have profound disagreements with. In other countries, the creationist types are much more of a problem.

They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

I don't think the question in your example is "Why did this happen?" by the way. It's "how do I deal with this". I've heard that people were simply less attached to their children until they reached a certain age back when infant deaths were common, don't know if it's true or not though. I'd be surprised if you think scientific knowledge has helped us deal with the death of a child though.

That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Well, this one is well-known: interfering with the activity of certain brain regions by means of magnetic fields causes a temporary change in how those affected approach and respond to moral dilemmas - to put it simply. It's part of a larger subset of behavioral changes that can be produced via transcranial magnetic stimulation. I'd love to see how you would react to such a treatment.

We can dial it up from there if you think this one's trivial?

Well, I've never seen what's interesting about it. It sounds like a curiosity to me.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

Did you need the the cognitive psychology studies to see that humanity is difficult to just understand and that many people have false ideas? That's something many people have seen without studies. I wouldn't characterize it as a finding.

I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

The effect of culture on values is more impressive. If you study history or anthropology you'll get a lot more interesting food for thought about values than in neuroscience I think. If you are curious about whether we overvalue compassion, wouldn't you look at history and at other cultures that have had a different approach to it and seen what it was like?

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

[Sir Moody]

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

[Ironside]

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

[Montmorency]

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Excuse me, I was delirious.

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You keep saying that, alright. On what criteria and by what authority?

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

Alright, so you're sure about that. You're big on the phenomenological aspect of philosophy. What if cognitive science demonstrates that experience as we understand/define it does not exist?

How would it demonstrate that?

Again, factual knowledge takes a backseat to personal experience. Wouldn't one of the applications of what we discussed earlier be input of information, ergo experience? How about that?

What about it?

A lie is just an untruth, nothing more. Whether or not it is deliberate or not, misinformed or not, doesn't matter. The actual thorny problem concerns the nature of truth.

Sorry that's nonsense.

Uh. Look, you can't get around it: your approach is internally perfectly consistent and rational. Just accept it and move on.

eh, you understand the context of the talk about the rational approach, right?

Perhaps, if something is wrong, it's just wrong no matter what.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

There isn't such a clear distinction. Do you describe individuals as either right-brained or left-brained? Just go with "spontaneous" vs. "considered".

I don't know much about that left brain right brain stuff.

I think they talk about it, in their laborious way, as type 1 and type 2 processes.

Why? I don't see it. Using logic to reach a moral conclusion, anyway, is a bit like cheating. It requires that one make an implicit or explicit assumption for every deductive step but the last or penultimate. Given that, there are many ways to reach a "logical" moral conclusion. Any number, really. Of course, it isn't really proper logic but that doesn't stop many.

Often in morality there's just the premise, no deductive steps. The idea that there should be deductive steps, starting from a foundation, is the problem.

It's a contradiction, really. You have a rule.

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

My beef is not your views on science vis-a-vis morality, but the humanities and the human condition. I tried to explain how natural science could be highly successful in unraveling the questions that the humanities have been asking for a while, as well as requiring new ones to be posed. Only someone with a criminal hand could contest it.

The humanities have asked a great many dumb questions. I'm sure science can unravel many of them.

I don't consider someone, say, sitting around asking "what is it in music that makes me feel energized?" to be doing good work in the humanities. People who try a humanities approach there will probably come out with some silly verbiage. If you really wanted to know you would go for neuroscience.

So, principles - and generic ones, to boot. Well, I lol myself prefer the lol harm principle and the pleasure principle and the... IMO TTFL. I didn't expect something so silly...

Principles serve as foundations for a system, they are just general, loose, concepts.

Most everyone believes that harming others is generally bad and that pleasure is generally more desirable than pain, but they don't take that as principles.

I'm curious where you're coming from on this, your ideas about the definition of lying and about what a principle and rule based morality would mean are not what I thought they'd be.

They are stronger in the US than any other western country.

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

That part goes under therapy, that stuff you found important but disqualified from this discussion.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Minor stuff. Like that your soul isn't your mind. It's also getting closer to another big question: what is your conciousness? By current data, it seems to act as a communication center between specialized areas, that treat things such as knowing your own body parts, the concept of left (yes really. They can eat all food on the plate, rotate it and suddenly more food appears. Loosing the concept of right requires a mirror brain, otherwise it'll make you blind) and things like that.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

I wouldn't characterize finding out that people have existed before me as a finding, ergo history is useless. Broad brush covers everything important.

Ah, history. The study of when the first source lied, the second one (who wrote it down) was as accurate as Braveheart, third one took the most exiting stuff as the truth and added some even better stuff, fourth took it as truth (lot's of history books are at this point btw), while the fifth and sixth tries to piece together what really happened using different methods (usually based on some kind aspected view of history). You can learn a lot from that can you?

Now a paper where the first source tried to document everything as throughly as possible? That's bull and you can't learn anything useful from there.

There is a quote from one of the best (in my opinion) sci-fi shows that sums up History as a subject perfectly - (props to anyone who figures out which show )

When you are reading any historical text you are only getting the "their" side of what happened - and what you walk away with is "your" side - neither of these are necessarily the truth

It's worse than that, for a long time "based on a true story" was the way to write history, accuracy be damned. It's interesting with history and it has many facets of knowledge, but praising it while damning science as a whole, doesn't exactly strike true. It already contradict at least one previous statement.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

Sasaki, do you consider science to only be statistics and clinical studies of one or a few factors, and not good bacause they're not having all factors the real world do?

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

What I meant to say was that it came as a disappointment to see the process of such an unusual worldview come to something so banal, like an advice column in a magazine for middle-aged moms.

But that's the point--such statements are insignificant...platitudes...proverbs...old grandpa advice. They aren't the real deal. It's like saying "life isn't fair" or something. It's just a reference to a body of experience/knowledge/etc.

[Montmorency]

Your idea that there is are objective criteria and authority is part of your problem.

So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Sorry that's nonsense.

Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

So you think lying just means stating an untruth, and so stating an untruth is always morally wrong? Very weird

Did I say that?

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

What about it?

As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

How much of the rule based, rational etc philosophy have you read? I have an approach that I think is right. You're objection here is like saying "you have a rule against rules, therefore you base things on a rule"

That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?

[rvg]

Did I say that?

You equated an "untruth" with a "lie". While every lie is an untruth, not every untruth is a lie.

[Montmorency]

You equated an "untruth" with a "lie". While every lie is an untruth, not every untruth is a lie.

he asked whether I personally believe that any lie is absolutely morally wrong. I never said I did. I deny it even now.

Anyway, if you look up "lie" in any dictionary, one of the meanings listed will be "a falsehood".

Untruth: it is a superior formulation of the word "lie".

"To deceive intentionally" is not a tautology.

[rvg]

"To deceive intentionally" is not a tautology.

Sure it is. Deceit is by definition intentional. If you don't know that you're propagating an untruth, you're not engaging in deceit.

[Montmorency]

Sure it is. Deceit is by definition intentional. If you don't know that you're propagating an untruth, you're not engaging in deceit.

to cause to believe what is false.

I prefer it.

[rvg]

I prefer it.

Definition of deceit
noun
the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth:
a web of deceit
a series of lies and deceits
Origin:

Middle English: from Old French, past participle (used as a noun) of deceveir 'deceive'

source...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, I should just take your word for it on no basis whatsoever? You know best in all matters?

Why would you take my word for it? Taking someones word for it is exactly what I'm saying we shouldn't do...not the bibles, not your preachers, not a scientists...when you're young you take your parents word for things, once you get older you move away from that and only do it when it's your best option, and then only provisionally.

I don't take the attitude that in this kind of arguments, those who disagree with me are ignoring some authority or expert or consensus opinion among the educated...when I present my word it should just be my word...

In the hard sciences you accept the scientific authority and consensus on things...not the humanities

Because it makes things difficult for you? No dice.

"Lying is just stating an untruth"

So if I sincerely believed something, and told it to you, and you knew it wasn't true, you'd think I was a liar? Weathermen lie constantly? People state untruths all the time...

You don't see how it might be presumptuous to unilaterally prescribe a purpose for history to the exclusion of all else?

I could say nothing at all I guess. But I have beliefs about the best purpose of history, why not? You should have beliefs about what the purpose of history is.

As in, gain a lifetime's experience in a single treatment. Obviates any need for deep personal study of the humanities, doesn't it?

I don't find this sci-fi stuff very interesting I presumptuously declare it to be uninteresting.

I mean I enjoyed dollhouse but its just for fun.

That's not it. "Acquire insight through personal experience": a rule. An example of inconsistency would be, 'Allah is the only God. Allah is ultimate. Allah is Law. Hitler is the greatest of all. Heil Hitler. His wisdom shall guide us above all things.'

Acquiring insight through personal experience is what people do.

A belief that their are virtues is different from a rule based moral system.

It's not scientific to describe anything as having ultimate, transcendental importance. Do you expect, though, that scientists can only be credible if they discourse only in terms of science? A scientist can't just be a regular guy with hopes, dreams, and petty musings?

I expect them not to scorn religious beliefs from one side of their mouth and have mystical pseudo-philosophy come out of the other.(and they rarely do by the way, that's more of a journalist thing). Scientists are credible on science.

[Montmorency]

"Oxford Dictionaries: The World's Most Trusted Dictionaries" *snort*

The point isn't to prescribe a source, but to demonstrate that the definition exists and is widespread.

That ain't OED, by the way.

So if I sincerely believed something, and told it to you, and you knew it wasn't true, you'd think I was a liar? Weathermen lie constantly? People state untruths all the time...

I like it precisely because it evicts all of this moral distortion. A false fact is a lie, indeed.

[Montmorency]

A belief that their are virtues is different from a rule based moral system.

And so individuals, to ascertain virtue, must acquire and examine personal experience? I don't see how it is not one. Is this too laborious for your tastes or something?

I presumptuously declare it to be uninteresting.

I mean I enjoyed dollhouse but its just for fun.

Let's meet back up in a decade.