Armed Chinese Troops in Texas

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is fine, but what does it tell us that has not been known for thousands of years? It's like telling us that neuroscience has discovered that two plus two equals four.

Not quite.

It tells us that sometimes a moral choice is not quite the moral choice it appears to be, but instead the partial result of a physical condition of hot (more lizard) and cold (more neocortex). Note, I am not talking about emotions. I am talking about actual moral choices where two conflicting values are both valid.

(I gave some concrete examples earlier that you promptly ignored.)

If that isn't something that needs some fundamental ethics attention, I don't know what is.

Since you keep harping on the same thing over and over, let me say clearly that I never claimed that this is something that has not been known for thousands of years (although I suspect it has not in this form).

This means that you will simply have to wait until I catch up on a few millennium of reading. I don't know. Will 3,000 books do? 4,000? Then I will try to oblige you with such a claim. Until then, I will not make it.

You can keep implying that I do, though, and defending against it.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I suggest a little reading. But you have to get over your Philism. You have to give up thinking it's not necessary to know what something is in order to evaluate it.

Jeez, even I felt a little twinge of sympathy for Phil when I read this. But the feeling passed within microseconds.

Show me the relevance of neuroscience to the fundamental problems of ethics.

I mentioned free will earlier. If that’s not at the root of morality, I don’t know what is. What rights theory can be proved or disproved (or improved) by better understanding of what free will consists of, or operates physiologically? I don’t know, but one of the great philosophical problems (or paradoxes) is the combination of mechanistic biological chemistry with self directed consciousness, and neuroscience is where the new insights ought to come from.

And to your other point, yes, the US has benefited greatly from interventionism.. The Military Industrial Complex gets a whole lot of money out of it.

What if I said Military Industrial Complex = Malinvestment? Where does that money come from?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You want to see values in a manner you can verify yourself in order to see what part is conditioning and what part is chosen?

Try this from Harvard--if you dare:

Project Implicit

I learned about this from reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He is partially black. He took this test (the one on race) and discovered, to his great surprise, that he implicitly looked down on blacks.

Talk about a sudden identity crisis.

Do you see anything fundamental that needs attention here in terms of ethics?

(Don't worry. I don't really expect you to look at this. After all, it's modern new knowledge you can easily check and test without dust and cobwebs on it, so you probably already know enough about it inherently to dismiss it.)

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I suggest a little reading. But you have to get over your Philism. You have to give up thinking it's not necessary to know what something is in order to evaluate it.

Jeez, even I felt a little twinge of sympathy for Phil when I read this. But the feeling passed within microseconds.

Show me the relevance of neuroscience to the fundamental problems of ethics.

I mentioned free will earlier. If that’s not at the root of morality, I don’t know what is. What rights theory can be proved or disproved (or improved) by better understanding of what free will consists of, or operates physiologically? I don’t know, but one of the great philosophical problems (or paradoxes) is the combination of mechanistic biological chemistry with self directed consciousness, and neuroscience is where the new insights ought to come from.

I agree with this, for the most part. When I mentioned the relevance of neuroscience to the "philosophy of mind," this is one of the things I had in mind.

The problem here is that "soft" (or psychological) determinists will accept the same findings of neuroscience, but they will draw different philosophical conclusions than the volitionist. I alluded to this problem earlier when I said that scientific conclusions can and will be interpreted in different ways, depending on one's philosophical framework. The same problem will also occur with a "hard" (or physical) determinist.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, You want to see values in a manner you can verify yourself in order to see what part is conditioning and what part is chosen? Try this from Harvard--if you dare: Project Implicit I learned about this from reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He is partially black. He took this test (the one on race) and discovered, to his great surprise, that he implicitly looked down on blacks. Talk about a sudden identity crisis. Do you see anything fundamental that needs attention here in terms of ethics? (Don't worry. I don't really expect you to look at this. After all, it's modern new knowledge you can easily check and test without dust and cobwebs on it, so you probably already know enough about it inherently to dismiss it.) Michael

You have repeatedly portrayed me as a closed-minded bigot. Stop this bullshit now, or you won't like what is going to happen next. You will end up kicking me off this list.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, You want to see values in a manner you can verify yourself in order to see what part is conditioning and what part is chosen? Try this from Harvard--if you dare: Project Implicit I learned about this from reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He is partially black. He took this test (the one on race) and discovered, to his great surprise, that he implicitly looked down on blacks. Talk about a sudden identity crisis. Do you see anything fundamental that needs attention here in terms of ethics? (Don't worry. I don't really expect you to look at this. After all, it's modern new knowledge you can easily check and test without dust and cobwebs on it, so you probably already know enough about it inherently to dismiss it.) Michael

These are psychological tests. I never denied the relevance of psychology to ethics. I thought we were talking about brain studies.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, You want to see values in a manner you can verify yourself in order to see what part is conditioning and what part is chosen? Try this from Harvard--if you dare: Project Implicit I learned about this from reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He is partially black. He took this test (the one on race) and discovered, to his great surprise, that he implicitly looked down on blacks. Talk about a sudden identity crisis. Do you see anything fundamental that needs attention here in terms of ethics? (Don't worry. I don't really expect you to look at this. After all, it's modern new knowledge you can easily check and test without dust and cobwebs on it, so you probably already know enough about it inherently to dismiss it.) Michael

You have repeatedly portrayed me as a closed-minded bigot. Stop this bullshit now, or you won't like what is going to happen next. You will end up kicking me off this list.

Ghs

Before you go, I need your email address; I'm having no luck communicating with you on this thread about those back issues of LR. (see post 91)

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

George, You want to see values in a manner you can verify yourself in order to see what part is conditioning and what part is chosen? Try this from Harvard--if you dare: Project Implicit I learned about this from reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He is partially black. He took this test (the one on race) and discovered, to his great surprise, that he implicitly looked down on blacks. Talk about a sudden identity crisis. Do you see anything fundamental that needs attention here in terms of ethics? (Don't worry. I don't really expect you to look at this. After all, it's modern new knowledge you can easily check and test without dust and cobwebs on it, so you probably already know enough about it inherently to dismiss it.) Michael

You have repeatedly portrayed me as a closed-minded bigot. Stop this bullshit now, or you won't like what is going to happen next. You will end up kicking me off this list. Ghs

Before you go, I need your email address; I'm having no luck communicating with you on this thread about those back issues of LR. (see post 91) --Brant

smikro@comcast.net

Ghs

Addendum: I have no intention of quitting OL. This is a minor brush fire by usual flamewar standards. But I have been biting my lip, for obvious reasons; and if I let loose with what I really think about some of this garbage, my days here are numbered.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Here's what I have, George:

2 issues of SIL 1972 (Roy Childs' reviews in both)

Books for Libertarians and Libertarian Review through Nov 1981 starting in 1972: seems to be a complete set

Frontlines, maybe all issues

R Childs' Rand obit in the only issue of Inquiry I saved

American Libertarian August 1989 only--contains a lot on Branden--only if you want it

"Update on the Libertarian Movement," April 1982 Rand obit plus two more Rand articles including one by Roy, one issue only, April 1982

"Society Without Coercion" by Jarret B. Wollstein--only if you want it

Unfortunately, I'm 99% sure I threw away all my L.F. book reviews years ago

--Brant

Once again, into the breech.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Here's what I have, George: 2 issues of SIL 1972 (Roy Childs' reviews in both) Books for Libertarians and Libertarian Review through Nov 1981 starting in 1972: seems to be a complete set Frontlines, maybe all issues R Childs' Rand obit in the only issue of Inquiry I saved American Libertarian August 1989 only--contains a lot on Branden--only if you want it "Update on the Libertarian Movement," April 1982 Rand obit plus two more Rand articles including one by Roy, one issue only, April 1982 "Society Without Coercion" by Jarret B. Wollstein--only if you want it Unfortunately, I'm 99% sure I threw away all my L.F. book reviews years ago --Brant

Once again, into the breech. --Brant

I would like all of this. Let me know what the shipping costs will be, and I will reimburse you. I will also send you my snail mail address in the reply.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I think it would be best for all concerned if I took a break from OL. I need to concentrate on finishing up the Cambridge book revisions anyway, and the pressure is putting me in a bad mood. My absence will range from a few days to a few weeks, depending on how long that project takes.

I shall return.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Be well.

Say hi to your lizard brain for me.

(He's the guy who makes it so you feel you need to bite your lip. )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

These are psychological tests. I never denied the relevance of psychology to ethics. I thought we were talking about brain studies.

George,

This is what I thought. You haven't really been reading my posts.

I have been talking about neuroscience AND behavior science (and saying so). For quite a number of posts. And I have been complaining that you have been characterizing this as only studies of physical brain parts.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

These are psychological tests. I never denied the relevance of psychology to ethics. I thought we were talking about brain studies.

George,

This is what I thought. You haven't really been reading my posts.

I have been talking about neuroscience AND behavior science (and saying so). For quite a number of posts. And I have been complaining that you have been characterizing this as only studies of physical brain parts.

Michael

I have been reading your posts, unfortunately. In one of my posts I even discussed the problem of correlating brain states with mental states via neuroscience.

Of course neuroscience involves psychology to some extent, but it involves far more, including a study of the physical brain and nervous system. If you were talking only about psychology, then you should have said so, and we would have had no quarrel. I even discusssed the relevance of psychology to ethics over 35 years ago, in ATCAG. I concluded (p. 288) that "one good book on psychology, such as Nathaniel Branden's The Psychology of Self-Esteem, can do more to advance the science of ethics than any number of modern "analytic" works on ethical theory, which, more often than not, treat the subject of ethics as if it has no connection whatever to human happiness and the business of living."

But your own examples went far beyond psychology. The study of the physical brain will yield no fundamental knowledge about ethics or political theory. All we need to know (again, with some possible exceptions involving abnormalities) we can get from psychology, i.e., a study of our mental states. The mind, or consciousness, is not the brain. We can understand and (in most cases) deal with mental states without knowing anything about their physical correlates in the brain. Such knowledge will not (again, in most cases) add anything to our knowledge of ethics.

There is a reason why Nathaniel Branden did not title his book The Neuroscience of Self-Esteem.

I am done with this pointless exchange. You can have the last word. I need to get to work.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

This is fine, but what does it tell us that has not been known for thousands of years? It's like telling us that neuroscience has discovered that two plus two equals four.

Not quite.

It tells us that sometimes a moral choice is not quite the moral choice it appears to be, but instead the partial result of a physical condition of hot (more lizard) and cold (more neocortex). Note, I am not talking about emotions. I am talking about actual moral choices where two conflicting values are both valid.

If Mr. Lizard suddenly jumps in like a road-raging dipsomaniac, it is hard to say he made a moral choice, but if he doesn't choose to stuff it because there is no cave bear eating his children--they do taste good--then moral choice appears out of the bloody gloom. Fight or flight is one thing; the function of the autonomic nervous system another; and moral choices the third biggie. It is not very helpful to smear all these together like jam on toast if you want to know what is going on. All you end up with is an attack on free will for if no free will moral choices are a chimera.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course neuroscience involves psychology to some extent, but it involves far more, including a study of the physical brain and nervous system. If you were talking only about psychology, then you should have said so, and we would have had no quarrel.

George,

Thanks for the information about neuroscience. I appreciate it.

(Wait... didn't I say stuff about dendrites, axons, synapses, amygdala, hippocampus, etc.? Dayaam! I thought I did that, but I'm glad you were around and now can see fit to straighten me out about it,)

Unfortunately no, I was not only talking about psychology.

In fact, I will go out on an limb and say I seriously doubt you understand that I have been talking about human nature all along.

(Wait... didn't I go on about how they used to identify human nature--observation of others and introspection--and how they now have other means to add to that--controlled behavior experiments and neuroscience? And haven't I used the term "human nature" until it comes out the reader's ears? Dayaam! I swear I remember writing that stuff. I must be getting old...)

In my world, you have to identify something correctly in order to evaluate it.

And... now here's the kicker, if you use the hierarchical system of organizing your knowledge (which I do, and, frankly it is one of the best things I learned from Ayn Rand), meaning you base ethics, government, etc., on human nature as one of the foundations (lets call it a fundament, and I admit Rand did not use human nature as a separate category in her philosophical hierarchies), it only stands to reason that when you uncover parts of human nature that are different than formerly presumed, you have to reexamine the knowledge constructs you built on top that premise.

In other words: in MSK-land, human nature is the foundation. On top of that foundation you put ethics and politics.

If you find new discoveries about human nature, you reexamine what you put on top of that foundation just to make sure nothing needs to be realigned or corrected.

How about this way? If you find out that something about human nature is different than known before, some folks want to keep the same structure and arguments as before for ethics and politics without even checking them.

I say that is a flawed method. You seem to defend it.

I say, if the premise changes in any respect, you have to look at what you built on top of it.

In other words, at the extreme, it really doesn't matter what you put on top of a false premise. It will not be consistent with reality except by fluke.

But your own examples went far beyond psychology.

Damn straight they did. Like I have been saying over and over and over. But one thing's a trip with you. Since you could not pigeonhole me as talking ONLY about "the study of the physical brain," now you are trying to pigeonhole me as talking ONLY about psychology.

I find this curious.

What gives?

You don't want to understand what I am talking about? It's not like I haven't been saying certain things over and over.

You certainly don't need to distort the words of someone in order to argue. You are George Smith, for Pete's sake.

So what gives?

The study of the physical brain will yield no fundamental knowledge about ethics or political theory.

Once again, I hold this is a dogmatic statement.

If the "study of the physical brain" happens to yield important knowledge about human nature previously not taken into account, you're damn straight it would yield fundamental knowledge about ethics. (And I can think of some things worth discussing, but not in this climate.)

At the very least, it would yield some presumptions that need to be examined. That is if you use the hierarchical system of knowledge. If you use some other system (and God knows what that would be), I agree you can make up your own rules of logic and say whatever the hell you like. But I don't think that way.

All we need to know (again, with some possible exceptions involving abnormalities) we can get from psychology...

All we need to know we can get from psychology? (For grounding ethics, I presume you mean.)

Dayaamm!

Speak for yourself.

I'm seriously surprised to see this dogmatic side in your thinking.

You are really quick to use the phrase "all we need to know." Are you omniscient or have superpowers?

I just don't think like this. I'm a mere mortal and my knowledge is always open to addition and, if necessary, alignment and/or correction.

I am done with this pointless exchange. You can have the last word. I need to get to work.

I'm fine with this. This thing also threw me way behind on an Internet marketing project.

I wish you well on your work.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

The study of the computer hardware is completely irrelevant to the study of the software. Optical drive, magnetic drive, intel processor, AMD processor, copper wires, gold wires - doesn't matter one bit, and is probably worse than irrelevant - an impediment - to understanding the functioning of the software.

Microsoft Word runs the same on many, totally different forms of hardware including yet-to-be-imagined hardware.

This does not mean that the study of hardware (the brain) has no value. Hardly, look at how much hardware progress has been made, and look at the value this has given us. It just means that you need to have a nuanced approach and understand that it's clearly the source-code, the software rules if you will, are where the study will clearly be most fruitful if that's what you're trying to figure out. Studying the processor may tell you that you might have a limitation that a 50,000 word document cannot be spell-checked in under 3 microseconds. Knowledge sure, but relevant to how the key rules of the software operates? Marginal at best.

And I'm basically a reductionist essentially. We are not more than the sum of our parts. Everything we are can ultimately be reduced to hardware. This does not mean though that the best practical way to understand how to build a house is to understand the atomic composition of the hammer.

This is also not to say that the human mind is platform-independent, but claiming that reductionist neuroscience has relevance to ethics is akin to saying that studying the 80286 processor helps us understand how MS Word works. You might have a few areas of intersection, but it's a fantastically poor approach.

I do not like George, but he is overwhelmingly correct on this one.

Don't worry, I only read here from time to time and I won't make posting a habit.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's fine, Bob.

You run your modern Word software on an 80286 and tell me about it.

Apparently I understand computer stuff a lot differently than you do. I see software improvements driving hardware upgrades and new technologies by creating more and more perceived "needs" in the users. Hardware upgrades also drive improvements in software, so this is actually a two-way street.

What happened between George and I just now was pure lizard brain stuff (essentially two alpha males conflicting over the frame). We are both reasonably intelligent and busy with our own projects. So what else would explain why we just wasted two days out of our respective productive lives to aggressively talk past each other and get nowhere?

With your appearance, I see a third lizard brain showing up who wants to join in the fun, who wants some conflict, who sees prey. I definitely do not see uber-rational neocortex-like examination of ideas as your driving motor. (The rational stuff is there, sure, but I see it way down on the totem pole of motivation.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The study of the computer hardware is completely irrelevant to the study of the software. Optical drive, magnetic drive, intel processor, AMD processor, copper wires, gold wires - doesn't matter one bit, and is probably worse than irrelevant - an impediment - to understanding the functioning of the software.

Microsoft Word runs the same on many, totally different forms of hardware including yet-to-be-imagined hardware.

This does not mean that the study of hardware (the brain) has no value. Hardly, look at how much hardware progress has been made, and look at the value this has given us. It just means that you need to have a nuanced approach and understand that it's clearly the source-code, the software rules if you will, are where the study will clearly be most fruitful if that's what you're trying to figure out. Studying the processor may tell you that you might have a limitation that a 50,000 word document cannot be spell-checked in under 3 microseconds. Knowledge sure, but relevant to how the key rules of the software operates? Marginal at best.

And I'm basically a reductionist essentially. We are not more than the sum of our parts. Everything we are can ultimately be reduced to hardware. This does not mean though that the best practical way to understand how to build a house is to understand the atomic composition of the hammer.

This is also not to say that the human mind is platform-independent, but claiming that reductionist neuroscience has relevance to ethics is akin to saying that studying the 80286 processor helps us understand how MS Word works. You might have a few areas of intersection, but it's a fantastically poor approach.

I do not like George, but he is overwhelmingly correct on this one.

Don't worry, I only read here from time to time and I won't make posting a habit.

Bob

With this orientation, Bob, you probably like Isabel Paterson's book--I can't pull the title out of my pre-coffee head.

--Brant

I'm an alpha male too, but I keep my T-Rex in reserve: you've all been warned--also, B to Z male: the complete male package

(oh, yeah, The God of the Machine)

[Brant Gaede]

Software is active, hardware is passive. Software exploits the hardware, the hardware can't exploit anything unless it's software as hardware. The operator exploits both.

--Brant

the triumph of my ignorance

[bmacwilliam]

Software is active, hardware is passive. Software exploits the hardware, the hardware can't exploit anything unless it's software as hardware. The operator exploits both.

--Brant

the triumph of my ignorance

Sure, I'm cool with that. But as usual, Michael misses the point.

Let me sum up:

Ethics::Neuroscience

Software::Hardware

Architecture::Hammer structure

Studying the second term, while having benefit on its own, has little, if any, applicability to understanding of the first.

Michael seems too concerned with my motivation, lizards, and his imaginary alpha-male status to address the central point of George's objection.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And Bob's lizard brain is honking. "I win! I win! Look at me! I win!"

(This doesn't mean I think his analogy works.)

Someday it would be interesting to see this guy try to discuss an idea without trying to trounce someone. I fear that day will never come.

Lizard satisfaction is a far worse addiction than crack cocaine.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

What if I said Military Industrial Complex = Malinvestment? Where does that money come from?

I'm not sure it would make a difference sir?

I'm still waiting for someone however to address the entire post I made.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

I'll address it. I have the apparently unpopular opinion that the USA is not in decline, but is close to the edge of a start. One of the characteristics of the USA has always been that it acts like a sleeping giant. The people are waking up, and I don't mean this silly stuff that is happening on Wall Street.

While I agree with you that people in the USA have generally been oblivious to what the government has been doing overseas, I also claim that the very people in the "sleeping giant" part are the ones who are waking up to this knowledge. I expect they will do something good about this situation, too.

I also believe the USA should stop buying oil from Middle East countries. Let them see how much they fill their coffers with USA dollars when they sell only to China, Russia or Uganda without being able to leverage prices they get from the USA market. Wanna see the oil cartel, who think it's in command, go down the tubes? Take away the demand that pays premium price. That's the reality.

The simple fact is that no external human force on earth will stop the USA from intervening in other countries. But the internal sleeping giant will.

This redistribute the wealth thing is partly what is waking folks up. It works like this. The loud poor people defenders in the USA--who figure among the folks who like to gloat that the USA is in decline--look at the rich and think they can take just a little, then a little bit more, and the rich will not miss it.

But the sleeping giant folks are well aware that the poorest American with his iPhone and refrigerator and car and microwave oven is Extremely Wealthy when compared to the poor in Saudi Arabia, etc., and that redistribution of wealth means taking from the American poor to give out to the rest of the world.

They know that the USA is a prize that many, many, many folks would like to get their hands on. But this simply will not happen.

The giant is waking up.

It's always a mistake to crow victory in advance. Let's see what all those folks crowing about the decline of America say when the giant is fully awake. I already hear the whining just from what little the Tea Party did so far.

I expect the whining will get a lot worse before too long.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

What if I said Military Industrial Complex = Malinvestment? Where does that money come from?

I'm not sure it would make a difference sir?

I'm still waiting for someone however to address the entire post I made.

You wrote that the “US has benefited greatly from interventionism”, this prompted me to say that resources directed towards the military industrial complex are a malinvestment. In other words, it doesn’t benefit the US. I framed it with “What if I said…” because I don’t actually believe that all such resources go to waste. For example, some like to point out that the internet was an invention of the military industrial complex (not Al Gore), though I think the writers of Avenue Q have the real answer.

I didn’t have anything to say about your views on interventionism as such, since I’m generally against these foreign adventures. However, I’m curious what your feelings are concerning the Bosnia war, when our forces (or rather UN forces) intervened to end the genocide of the Muslim minority. Usually we’re criticized for coming in too late, but better late than never?