Morality

henry quirk · 11-10-2011, 01:29 PM

"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity."

A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'.

Again: greedy reductionism.

Lamplighter · 11-10-2011, 01:33 PM

And again, envy and greed. Aren't they part of the 7 Deadly's ?

HQ: Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion ?

henry quirk · 11-10-2011, 01:44 PM

That you, Lamp, interpret my use of 'value' and 'valuing' as envy and greed is your bag (says way more about you than me).

That's not what I meant; not how I used the word(s).

I formally reject your interpretation (and encourage you to offer your own explanation for morality).

#

"Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion?"

As I've described (more than once), reality (the world) as amoral, what makes you think I give a flip about sin or religion (hooey, crafted by others for the express purpose of 'control')?

DanaC · 11-10-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity."

A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'.

Again: greedy reductionism.

How is it sterile? How is it greedy reductionism?

Are you trying to say that things that go on 'inside the head of' individuals aren't the result of brain activity? Do they not take place in the brain, using the cognitive functions of that organ?

henry quirk · 11-10-2011, 02:09 PM

Dana, there's is nothing about an EEG reading of my brain activity, as I think about pizza, that will tell you or anyone 'why' I like pizza, why I prefer the pizza from Joe's over Sal's, or why I prefer pepperoni to sausage.

To discover those things you must talk to 'me', not dissect or reduce me.

More generally: to determine why I value this or that, you must consult the source of the valuing (me), not my components.

Yes, it's all brain (embedded in body) function...electricity and chemicals and whatnot...but consulting parts and process tells you nothing about the person, the 'I'.

Even a casual review of the state of neuroscience (and all the eggheads looking to build HAL) illustrates there's no understanding of how 'self' works...yes, again, it's all electricity and chemicals (but working in most mysterious ways).

As I say 'each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)', but I-ness (subjectivity, recognition of self, self-editing, self-determination, self-de-liberation, etc.) has yet to be explained (though many attempt to 'explain away').

All beside the point.

Morality is an esoteric tool (crafted or adopted) one uses to navigate the world according to personal preference and choice (the preferences and choices of the 'I', not the preferences and choices of an organ collection, though that, indeed, is what each is).

And: for the record, I never 'try to say' anything...I say exactly what I choose to, in the way I choose to...read the words for what's there, not what you think 'might' be there.

henry quirk · 11-10-2011, 02:18 PM

In the sense that there is no absolute or universal morality to consult or rely on.

That is: I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.

#

"...collapse the numerous posts and thoughts..."

I did no such thing...I barely commented on any one's post (except for Dana's and JB's), beyond saying you lot are on target.

DanaC · 11-10-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

In the sense that there is no absolute or universal morality to consult or rely on.

That is: I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.

#

"...collapse the numerous posts and thoughts..."

I did no such thing...I barely commented on any one's post (except for Dana's and JB's), beyond saying you lot are on target.

According to what measure? Whose target? Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?

All you've put forward is some airy-fairy pseudo-philosphical ramblings about how all morality is essentially a construct in our own minds. Well, whoop de frikken do. Hold the front page. Ain't nobody ever had that thought before. Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are.

henry quirk · 11-10-2011, 02:37 PM

"Nothing I said disagrees with any of that."

Then, as I say up-thread, I misinterpreted...my apologies.

#

"Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?"

No one. This is thread of opinion (having one, defending one, disagreeing with others)...sorry if you didn't get that.

#

"Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are."

Yes, exactly...as I say up-thread, 'I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.'

This can be said for my opinion as to the 'source' of morality as well...sorry if you didn't get that.

DanaC · 11-10-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"
"Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?"

No one. This is thread of opinion (having one, defending one, disagreeing with others)...sorry if you didn't get that.

#

"Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are."

Yes, exactly...as I say up-thread, 'I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.'

This can be said for my opinion as to the 'source' of morality as well...sorry if you didn't get that.

Then referring to some posters as being 'on the money' or 'on target' is perhaps just some unfortunate phrasing. It certainly gives the impression that you are sitting in judgement as to which of the opinions expressed in this thread are the 'correct' ones.

11-10-2011, 01:29 PM	#1
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity." A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'. Again: greedy reductionism. __________________ like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'

11-10-2011, 01:44 PM	#3
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	That you, Lamp, interpret my use of 'value' and 'valuing' as envy and greed is your bag (says way more about you than me). That's not what I meant; not how I used the word(s). I formally reject your interpretation (and encourage you to offer your own explanation for morality). # "Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion?" As I've described (more than once), reality (the world) as amoral, what makes you think I give a flip about sin or religion (hooey, crafted by others for the express purpose of 'control')? __________________ like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'

11-10-2011, 02:09 PM	#5
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	Dana, there's is nothing about an EEG reading of my brain activity, as I think about pizza, that will tell you or anyone 'why' I like pizza, why I prefer the pizza from Joe's over Sal's, or why I prefer pepperoni to sausage. To discover those things you must talk to 'me', not dissect or reduce me. More generally: to determine why I value this or that, you must consult the source of the valuing (me), not my components. Yes, it's all brain (embedded in body) function...electricity and chemicals and whatnot...but consulting parts and process tells you nothing about the person, the 'I'. Even a casual review of the state of neuroscience (and all the eggheads looking to build HAL) illustrates there's no understanding of how 'self' works...yes, again, it's all electricity and chemicals (but working in most mysterious ways). As I say 'each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)', but I-ness (subjectivity, recognition of self, self-editing, self-determination, self-de-liberation, etc.) has yet to be explained (though many attempt to 'explain away'). All beside the point. Morality is an esoteric tool (crafted or adopted) one uses to navigate the world according to personal preference and choice (the preferences and choices of the 'I', not the preferences and choices of an organ collection, though that, indeed, is what each is). And: for the record, I never 'try to say' anything...I say exactly what I choose to, in the way I choose to...read the words for what's there, not what you think 'might' be there. __________________ like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'

11-10-2011, 02:18 PM	#6
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"not a moral distinction" In the sense that there is no absolute or universal morality to consult or rely on. That is: I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'. # "...collapse the numerous posts and thoughts..." I did no such thing...I barely commented on any one's post (except for Dana's and JB's), beyond saying you lot are on target. __________________ like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'

11-10-2011, 02:37 PM	#8
henry quirk maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,162	"Nothing I said disagrees with any of that." Then, as I say up-thread, I misinterpreted...my apologies. # "Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?" No one. This is thread of opinion (having one, defending one, disagreeing with others)...sorry if you didn't get that. # "Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are." Yes, exactly...as I say up-thread, 'I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.' This can be said for my opinion as to the 'source' of morality as well...sorry if you didn't get that. __________________ like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...'

11-10-2011, 01:33 PM	#2
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	And again, envy and greed. Aren't they part of the 7 Deadly's ? HQ: Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion ?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)