The Evolution of Morality (5-5)
Articles
33



we've all heard that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there but dogs don't really eat dogs do that why not they're obviously intelligent they're compassionate they love just as obviously as they show pain and these citizens are mentioned only in their empathy in fact studies have shown as soon as have shown that that dogs can read our emotions better than wolves or even to me because Canis lupus familiaris has evolved alongside Homo sapiens sapiens and they already had a sense of how others would feel because their communal animals they use pack strategies to do together with none alone but if done by yourself and then certainly that's why we bonded with them and one of the traits we share with them is binocular vision we've had and that this gave us better depth perceptions of the trees but at the expense of peripheral vision as early primates had few defenses and a great many enemies that we have others watch our backs and if we did see trouble coming one that would evoke an immediate response without prior investigation this is a part of where language comes from there's one group of Ultimo bookies that has been showing the same thing to do as they say let's say make a particular to on every time this is the 11 only when they see later and that's so does the steak from another cinema but they make every time they see a snake but only honey see it's making the response that policies is completely different to one sense above the trees the other tells in the static now our increased dependence on communication created a selective pressure or increasing our intelligence because we are no the smartest of all animals that is true but before we were all that smart people relatively weak compared to everything competing against us for coming afters the chimpanzees and grows probably survive because very exceptionally strong but every other lineage physically and complexly similar to our own as since died out such that we are the only one left so perhaps our ancestors cared about each other a little more generously and that probably gave us the edge we often imagine that if we built intelligent robots or if we ever encountered next that they would think like we did or if they didn't have our emotions then they would be completely loved would have no emotions at all but even if their intellect was otherwise perfect parallel of the human mind and even included feral emotions like fear and rage would still be unlikely we have the human capacity for compassion without a few specific traits that evolved only in our life just like dogs and elephants and a lot of other mammals humans also feel loved and those who are good at love is uniquely human also say that it can't be tested in any objective way implying that it must be supernatural and all that it wants but we've since discovered that even something as abstract as love as a feminine chemical signature and this applies even in the long term relationships after the initial must an attraction of theta amazingly even empathy has now been connected electrochemically those of us who follow the TED Talks may have caught her own neuropsychologist dr. Ramachandran promoting Indian philosophy in his discussion of what you call dogging neurons they're a subset of motor and sensory neurons that fire when we're watching someone else do something as if we were doing it ourselves now dr. Ramachandran suggests that this this is a the sort of empathy it enables us to learn by example we are putting ourselves in someone else's position and these are particularly located in the prefrontal lobes tendencies towards sociopathic aberrations may be physically detectable in this area also researchers at USC Irvine have found correlations between the underdeveloped prefrontal lobes and violent or criminal behavior the implication is that those who have compassion those who don't build pity or remorse or fear those who absolutely those who will not apologize except under dress and never sincerely because they either project or deflect blame and will not admit or accept responsibility for their own mistakes likely have underdeveloped or physically damaged to bring her hopes I imagine all of you were thinking about who fits that description of your personal experience of course drugs certain drugs have also been identified as a catalyst for this and other related cognitive dysfunctions as well and sadly those types of drugs tend to be popular with people this petition and this is why we had to have laws and it means to enforce them for any society to advance it must necessarily minimize pathological behaviors and usually eliminates where isolates these from the environments they present according to their various systems and social order sometimes that means banishing or incarcerating sociopaths unless they're the ones in charge then it might mean having a law mandating the murder of infidels and we can all see where that society would be in a few generations especially when those concordant with that rule are also encouraged to procreate so sadly that has been a recurring take case in her history fortunately though reasonable logical rationalism is recurrent – as if common sense was a cultural atavism we may see our culture largely divided between iconoclasts branded as rheticus and paranoid reactionaries who criticise skepticism and Graysville ability but the vast majority of the population holds the middle ground and doesn't want to hear from either extreme I've tried to get my religious friends to watch pat robertson or to read tick tracks they just won't do it they don't want to hear him anymore they want to hear me but once the masses finally awaken to these sorts of influences in our society then oppressive societies that are dope that are based on the prohibition rather than opportunity cannot remain dominant because they have nothing to offer that there's no practical advantage where you do have that with comfortable contemplation and compassionate and knowledgeable perception furiosa teammates kill the captain but it made us what we are today so the default position and natural condition of humanity desires to be more loved pity and charity which all have which are all dependent on some degree of empathy which evidently involved with it is thus integral to socially wahpeton enemies like so many other splendid patterns and nature these behavior traits are apparently not delivered from the top down rather than evidently emerged from the bottom up cooperation created society and society determines its laws and norms accordingly it is obviously to the benefit of all that we not only defend but also promote and encourage our sons and daughters as well as our kids with friends and fellows and of course we must trust in all of them as they must trust in us it is inherent to our nature that we value each other and the various degrees we instinctually feel for one another that's why we can't helping liars and killers and bees and that's why most of us don't even want to me this is how morality evolves in higher animals because Society can't function without it work Society can't function otherwise and we can't function without it

Aron, your speeches are incredible. You really need to write a book. I'd certainly buy it. You're the 6th horsemen of the atheist apocalypse!

I've never felt fear, I've often fantasized about it. Anytime something bad happens, I get angry, then Adrenalin just washes all feelings away, and I feel totally analytical about the situation. I don't know why this is. Or why I can't hear anything. It just is. I also feel like a combo of the Flash and Superman.

I might add, despite what people say, my cat totally Loves me. He feels it necessary to go outside with me & make sure no one attacks me. He also informs me if anyone comes on the property or even has the effrontery to stop & leave mail in the mailbox.
He won't lay on anything, unless I lay on it first. Once it smells like me, it's all right. But newly wished stuff is horrifying.

Very nice. This is one of those times I wish there was a companion slide set as I felt I missed some very good graphics (some were so distracting, though, they obviously detracted from the oral portion of the presentation)

bad parenting has a lot to do with psychopathic behavior it is not just genetical most of criminals and abusers and bullies have been abuse victims in their childhood!!!

Some people believe a large stick was inserted into Jesus butt when on the cross naked. This is sick. Jesus became sin and experenced homosexuality for you. He who knew no sin became sin.

08:52 – 09:03 "it is inherent in our nature that we value one another and to various degrees we instinctually feel for one another. That is why we" … Did I hear correctly "can't"? … "be liars and murderers and thieves and why most people don't even want to be."

OK, such and such a thing is inherent in our nature, but on evolutionary views we share a common ancestor with scorpions and have not ceased to evolve.

The "can't" is really not a question of ability and possibility. Of course we "can" if that means "being able to."

The only "can't" about it is about "not being authorised to". Here it is one's human nature which authorises, so far so good, we Catholics believe God is its author.
Or perhaps not totally, since experience shows how very easy it is without grace to slip from a natural to a clearly subnatural state. On a societal as well as on an individual plane.

Especially this appeal to human nature – which is of its own "backbone" so to speak good but does after the fall very clearly slip towards the worse than natural, in various different ways, each as obviously inacceptable as the other to those who get corrupted any other way. Especlially, as said, this appeal to human nature, while correct so far, is suspect in someone involved in breaking and remaking it, as atheism is.

It is part of human nature to adore God – and atheism denies us that. It is – as you said yourself – part of human nature to trust our fathers as well as our children.
Denial of traditional stories being real (such as Flood and Arc of Noah and such as Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ) undermines our trust in the fathers. A certain responsabilism, which considers children as immature for longer and longer (even way past physical childhood) is undermining in this untraditional world the trust in the children.

"This is how morality evolves in higher animals" …

Well, no. Morality presupposes freewill. Even higher animals have none such.

Denying freewill in a cirminal by stamping his behaviour as "pathological" instead of as "unjust" makes hysterical shrinks the newest susbtitute for a judge who determines for how long someone has proportionally to his crime deserved to be in prison. You have just emptied the metaphysical category of desert by reduing it to the displeasure of surroundings in community. And therefore you have also emptied a criminals reasonable hope to get back in society as normally once he has done his time. Which is in its turn bound to backfire through bitterness reaching high levels of hatred, believe me, I know what I am talking about.

08:29 "… created society, and society determines it laws and norms accordingly"

Uhuh …?

Now we are talking about, not indeed any better clarity in how morality is supposed to have evolved, but rather a better clarity in how this theory makes "Society" (whichever society it is that takes itself for such in the singular) an omnipotent dictator over conscience.

Salem and Calvin's Geneva cannot really be blamed on your view … nor can Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They examplify the view of morality that you preach.

08:23 "emerged from the bottom up"

You are giving a parallel I presume from the pattern of birds not colliding while flying in their bisannual treks (as shown on image).

Thing is, I happen to know a bit about poetry.

In one sense it is made "from the bottom up" as in deciding that a word that ends with a strong plus a weak syllable should be followed by one beginning in (or consisting of) a strong syllable, while one ending in a strong plus two weak syllables should be followed by one beginning in a weak followed by a strong (or by two words, first consisting of a weak, second consisting of or beginning with a strong) up to when you reach a unit of eight syllables starting with a weak and ending with a strong, and this one followed (unless already preceded) by another such unit rhyming with it. But in another sense it is made from top down, like deciding whether you want to keep that pattern for all of the poem or have another one in part of it, and also deciding on the story or picture that the actual words communicate.
I therefore do not at all believe the bird swarm behaviour is as simple as a bottom to top emergence, I think either God or an angel attributed to the birds is also controlling that exact behaviour from top down at the very same time, and therefore I do not believe your suggestion of morality being a parallel.

But supposing it were, and one in your sense if your explanation of bird behaviour were correct, that would not show us a believable rule applicable to all. Or show a believable reason for everyone to follow that rule.

It would give an excuse for shrinks and educators to try to micromanage human behaviour in suzuki like bottom to top emergence of behaviour, and of course to gaol or maim even more people, not for doing anything wrong in particular, but for being slightly off the common standard of behaviour.

In some places it is doing this more and more. Already. No "would" about it. Not because this evolutionist view of morality is true, but because it is believed.

07:35 You said that societies based on prohibition rather than opportunity cannot remain dominant, since they have nothing to offer?

Let us say one society with Sharia (not every such on earth, but one type of it, I am taking an example I think realistic) is really very much based on prohibition in one sense (no alcohol except the small percentage in curdled milk, no women showing their faces in public, no free speech in when it comes to say comparing Mohammed to Odin and Joseph Smith, as I do … it is of course based very much on opportunity in another sense. It can for instance be pretty opportunistic about when and how to raid negro villages not altogether far off either on the excuse that they are openly kaffir (wonder why the French rather than such Muslims finished off human sacrifice in Benin and Dahomey … could it be they enjoyed the slave markets there? I have that fact about W Africa from a Swedish Geography textbook from the time when Texas was neither Mexican nor Estadunidense – thus not as back then ancient history but as contemporary exotic society), or that other negro village which was nominally Muslim but in their eyes really kaffir, since too permissive on alcohol, or also give opportunity to negro slaves to become free … by becoming Muslims. And to women to arouse their men, simply because a female face becomes so much more exciting when never seen in the street.

Every society is in some sense built on prohibition and in some sense on opportunity. At the same time France would be an opportunity for some (like people enjoying a good wine, beer or cider or a pretty face not showing too much beneath, but a bit more than her Muslim sister would) and a prohibitive society for others (like usurers, readers of Talmud, Albigensians who dreamed of saving themselves from rebirth by undergoing endura …).

Morality is not and cannot be a simple question of "more prohibition than opportunity" or "more opportunity than prohibition", it is a question of what opportunities are worthwhile and what prohiobitions are worthwhile.

Again, you are not explaining how morality (even with a rather aberrant variety with Sharia and an even more aberrant variety in Benin and Dahomey not practising Sharia) arose among men from evolutionary causes. You are just presuming compassionate emotions is the ground and on that basing a rally speech about how morality ought to evolve in the future. Now it is less than two minutes you have left on that old occasion to make a case for an evolutionary origin of morality …

6:56 Iconoclasm is rationality?

Have you ever read how Leo III Isauros behaved? Sure, he did not "praise gullibility" if that is how you want to put it, it is during his reign that the original manuscripts of the Gospels were lost. They were venerated too much for his taste.

But burning a monk's hands because he paints an icon of the Holy Virgin, is that your taste in rationality?

Seriously, this is a mistake commonly made by … Calvinists … among the Protestants, as well as those loosely inspired by them (read Baptists). And you, an Atheist, citing this very typically Protestant prejudice is pretty clear proof I am right that Atheism of the Western type is simply a radical sect of Protestantism. A Therevada Buddhist is technically also atheist, but he would hardly praise iconoclasm!

06:27 Am I being too sensitive or am I overhearing some kind of plaidoyer for sterilising people who hate Albigensian heresy?

I recommend the reading of The Night's Dark Shade by one Elena Maria Vidal (her own pen name, her grandmother's own real name).

Now, Nazis were sometimes keen on sterilising people and they were sometimes very fascinated with Unorthodox Medieval Mysticism – such as Templars and such as Albigensians perhaps also, I should not wonder. They cared at least very little for Medieval Orthodoxy, as they showed by their contempt for admonitions by Pope Pius XI in an Encyclical and by both him and the next in several diplomatic notes. And, let us not forget, their admiration for Frederick II the Stauffer.

05:24 two mistakes, I set about to correct:

1) Empathy is not the same thing as morality. Even a great empathy can be deflected from mercy, which is anyway not the only duty, and which has anyway time after time been an inspiration for cruelty also, if misapplied. So, showing an evolutionary origin for empathy, whether rightly or wrongly, does not imply there is one for what St Thomas calls "synderesis" or being aware of what the moral law requires. Nor have you shown that what he referred to as being aware of an objective moral law is a kind of illusion, where there is no explanation of morality (evolutionary or other) involved to be done.

2) Obviously this testing of pre-frontal lobes can be horribly abused for "scientific" or supposedly such precautions.

And, as obviously, being empathetic is no panacea against violent crimes, either unpunished ones or such as will land you in prison.

03:32 St Thomas Aquinas would not have agreed that love was uniquely supernatural or uniquely human. He would have argued the supernatural virtue of charity is uniquely reserved for God, angels and men, but he would very clearly have admitted parallels between charity and non meritorious human loves (whether sinful or merely not supernatural) and between human and animal natural emotions, including love. Cfr Summa Theologiae I-II where he discusses the principle of human behaviour, one of which is "law" (thus morality) and another of which is passions.

Now, another thing, he was no sentimentalist. He would not have agreed that the emotions you find finer than others in general are a guarantee of moral correctitude if cultivated. Cultivating courage and solidarity is very fine, and even necessary for a sound moral development (and trying to add on such cultivation after someone is already an adult is usually pretty lousy), but they are no guarantees for moral rightness. And he would also insist that the popular judgement behind diverse moralities is a significant sign for a moral judgement being right in case of agreement.

And denying that exists is not the same thing as explaining how it arose by evolution.

02:55

"if we built intelligent robots or encountered extraterrestrials, that they would think like we do, or if they didn't have our emotions they wouldn't have any emotions at all"

Now, an intelligent robot (assuming you mean the English meaning of cybernetic implications rather than the Slavonik meaning of robotnik as "worker" or as employed in manufacturing in factories, since those are intelligent enough, but if you mean it as in English) that is quite an oxymoron.

There is no sign computers will ever have intelligence, however much technological advance we put into producing them.

A computer can "deal with" a recurrent formula, if you like. But only by cutting off after a certain number of digits is reached. If you add 0.1 and 0.2 the immediate result will be 0.30000 … 001 and if in fact you do get 0.3 it is because one has added a rounding off function. At least according to what I heard on computerphile.
And if you take a google translate, it has no method of even guessing what a non-programmed word might mean from the context it only leaves that untranslated so the human user can do so, but even worse, if a word in lang A has two translation in lang B it has no guarantee of hitting the right one. Try to take a text and google translate it from English to Russian, then copypaste, then translate that back from Russian to English.

It has no real way of knowing whether a text is complex or not. I tried out an online programme for evaluating complexity level of a text.

I wrote a text in very simple English and it evaluated the text as "genius" level. Believe me, it was not, the one thing that triggered this was a single word with a few syllables more than the rest. You guess if I pointed this out and the programme was taken off line?

No, do not believe in such materialistic myths as intelligent computers, do your own intelligence some honour!

That is where our language comes from!

01:35 flabberghasted

A signal meant to evoke a response without prior investigation is very obviously something very different from signals meant to evoke both reflection and investigation – such as one may presume very charitably that even this talk by AronRa had some kind of intention to do.

Religion…. Sticking a Dead man on an invisible stick, up another person's butt,. for over 2000 years.

@sogenrise – The answer your question, you can look to dogs. Dogs are descended from the wolf. There are breeds that have been created within recorded history that would have a hard time mating with wolves. When these new breeds come into existence, why don't the old ones disappear? Why are there still wolves when dogs exist?

We ARE apes actually. That's not a matter of evolution, that's a matter of taxonomy. Just as different dogs can exist together with the older versions still existing, different kinds of apes can also exist in the same world.

1. We (Humans), evolved not from current monkeys/apes instead we share a common ancestor with them that would have resembled them maybe a bit more than it does us. So Humans and Apes evolved from that point in different ways (following linage from that ancestor species to then modern apes and humans we have now.
2. Lots of species can do a lot of things we can't. Fish can breathe in water, humans cannot. We developed a more "advanced" intellect and it was beneficial to our survival. Different.

Aronra (or anyone else) i have 2 questions:

1. If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?
2. Why is it only humans have an advanced society and , say fish, can't achive what we can?

I DO know these are stupid questions BUT i know there are answers for these i just don't remember them.

I have mutation called double jointed shoulders my shoulder move in an abnormally large radius. this is a mutation and is actual quite advantageous especially in escaping when my arms are held behind my back.. If could conveivably save my life thus allowing my to potentially pass that mutation to my children and thier children. what about the family with nearly indestructible bones? that is a mutation and I cant see how that is destructive.

could you not argue that Dogs were designed to be more emphathetic as those traits would be ones chosen by breeders. its still evelution I suppose but not natural.

Personally, I can't wait until your kind is naturally selected out of our gene pool. Now go back to Shockofgod's channel where you can have your stone-age beliefs reinforced by a fellow Neanderthal. Here, have some free magical fairy dust to feed your unicorn.

They won't read yours, mine or anyone else's especially if they conflict with their ideas. This moron is spamming and preaching his garbage.

Punishment is torment especially if it is eternal. Imprisoning someone for life is torment because you are removing their right to freedom. Anything that removes rights is a torment. Though you may not see the similarity it is still there. Eternity itself is torment because it will never end no matter how long you wait. You can't even comprehend eternity or even the idea of it if you don't see it as torment.

Actually there are if you look back in the fossil record far enough. You just won't do it because you are convinced that your conclusion is correct and have no intention of seeing if it is wrong.

33 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Experiments In Sacred Geometry: Music Symbols
Articles
1
Experiments In Sacred Geometry: Music Symbols

Experiments In Sacred Geometry: Music Symbols FREE Meditation MP3: http://thespottydoggmethod.com Credits: Geometry Experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFKiIkBy28 Sacred Crates-Passion Fruit (Lucid Skeems) http://sacredcrates.bandcamp.com/album/lucid-skeems Sonic Loom presents the 4th Orbita Solaris Sacred Sequence http://www.sonic-loom.com Shamanic Dimensions 1 ★( Psychedelic Sacred Geometry Visuals +fibonacci Dark Goa) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPduEiP0kzQ The Sacred Geometry in 3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lo7ce1_m8 Links- Website- …

What Is Grace? | Why Jesus Brought Grace To Save Us | The Power In The Blood Of Jesus
Articles
3
What Is Grace? | Why Jesus Brought Grace To Save Us | The Power In The Blood Of Jesus

in the previous episode we learn about the mission that Christ came to fulfill during his first coming to the world and that he executed only two objectives to rescue us from sin and hell and to set us free from the enemy’s bondage we learned specifically that he came …