tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post4200753793333481143..comments2024-03-28T13:37:26.314-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Evil and ConsciousnessGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-77601216559953257872011-10-12T05:37:05.807-04:002011-10-12T05:37:05.807-04:00One of the interesting points made in the Slate ar...One of the interesting points made in the Slate article was this-<br /><i>"In other words, correlation doesn't always equal causation: We may know the 13 regions that light up on an fMRI when we feel "empathy" (or fail to light up when we choose evil) but that doesn't explain whether this lit-up state indicates they are causing empathy or just reflecting it."</i><br /><br />It seems it's equally plausible to imagine that a brain that is trained to be able to commit evil reflects that training in its structures and physical functions. In fact, to me it makes more sense. We know that brain physiology changes due to mental activity- brains underutilized through injury or disease wither, brains that are exercised are more developed in the cortex with more 'wrinkles' etc. Certainly it may be possible that someone who has a brain injury may exhibit behavior problems as a result, but so long as one demonstrates the ability to identify 'good' and 'evil' behaviors (whether they are metaphysical realities or the terms of a social contract), one is aware of whether or not an action they commit might be considered evil. Given that, how does one make the argument that evil cannot exist? At a minimum, it is still extant as a social construct. That then begs the question of why, or perhaps more importantly how we've developed such a social construct.<br /><br />At this point, I always think it's useful to examine other creatures in our world, which do not observe any system of morals or ethics, and have no rule but survival. Since we should be like them, if there is no evil, how did we even develop the idea of it? Why would we not simply be a more complicated chimpanzee? It's clearly more than the ability to communicate- social animals communicate constantly, and can establish ideas of acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, and the like, but the 'rules' are simply the understanding of cause and effect and the ability to learn patterns of such. It's been said that character (or integrity) are what you do when no one is looking. Animals have never even dreamed of such a thing. My dog is a good dog, but if I were to leave a hot dog on the counter when I leave the house, I'm sure it will be gone when I get back. Sure, she'll look worried when I get back- but not because she feels 'guilty' that she did it, only because she doesn't want to get busted for eating it. So the idea of character, or integrity- of morals and ethics, really, is one that does not seem explicable in the context of nature. So an answer is sought, and some find it in brain scans- but there's a degree of belief in it, as the question of causation or effect is unanswered, yet some give definitive declarations of the denial of the existence of evil. Surely that belief is no better than one in God and free will, and perhaps worse, as it has less standing in practice.douglasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-1968384731849122022011-10-10T21:33:36.981-04:002011-10-10T21:33:36.981-04:00You are welcome to post links in the comments here...You are welcome to post links in the comments here, AVI; or you can post the relevant argument, if you wish. <br /><br />I'm curious, though, what you mean by "May?" Plainly we "can" believe our thoughts because we often do; but how does it make sense to ask permission? If the answer were "No, you may not," who would have standing to give it besides yourself? Only some other being who -- by an exactly similar argument -- may not believe his own thoughts. Since all of his evidence for why you may not believe your thoughts will be thoughts, which he may not believe, he must not believe that you may not believe your thoughts. This is just as incoherent as the argument against free will.<br /><br />Put another way, if I decide that I may not believe a thought I have -- say, a memory that a traffic light was green when I got to it -- it can only be because of other thoughts I have that conflict with it. For example, I may have the sense-perception-thought of a photograph showing that the light was red; or that plus the sense-perception thought of asking someone else who was there, who says it was red.<br /><br />In other words if I may not believe in my thoughts, then I can have no evidence for doubting my thoughts. Neither can I rely on appeal to authority, because every authority I can ask is in exactly the same position.<br /><br />So yes, you may believe your thoughts. That doesn't mean that some thoughts aren't wrong, but that is another problem -- one solvable only by obtaining new thoughts, through other faculties, against which to check the first ones.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-62117854100787786022011-10-10T21:18:35.138-04:002011-10-10T21:18:35.138-04:00Nice focus here. Let me ruin it for ya.
I wrote ...Nice focus here. Let me ruin it for ya.<br /><br />I wrote a series about this last year "May We Believe Our Thoughts?" if anyone is interested. I collected the whole batch into links at one posting early in October.<br /><br />I will throw a slightly angled bit into the mix. Science and humanism are not even the natural allies folks seem to think, never mind synonymous. By history, occultism is the sister of science, not religion.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89087781129022668312011-10-10T20:23:59.089-04:002011-10-10T20:23:59.089-04:00Just so.Just so.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-59349321996590135292011-10-10T15:35:30.679-04:002011-10-10T15:35:30.679-04:00we do make decisions consciously that inform these...<i>we do make decisions consciously that inform these pre/sub-conscious processes. We do have some degree of mastery over our fate, at least some free will. What does that mean?</i><br /><br />That we are saved by - or are at least the result of - both grace and works?Elisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594477709835944165noreply@blogger.com