Then moral agency means nothing unless we consider ALL influences. We can't just say, "They did it, they are guilty.' We need to know the entire state of the universe to make a moral judgment. Which makes the concept of the soul philosophically useless.
If I roll a 6 on a die, the risk of me rolling a 1 is zero. I've rolled a 6, not a 1. And that seems to be the problem in this experiment. The girlfriend made it over the bridge, therefore the chance of her sustaining injury is zero, therefore the risk is zero. Yes, it's faulty reasoning, that is the whole point of the experiment.
If someone is schizophrenic though, they aren't held liable for their actions. Weird, huh? I mean, do people have free will or don't they? It sure seems like there are a lot of gray areas, don't you think? Alcohol and drugs can screw up your moral compass, now magnetic fields? What if a supernova creates a magnetic pulse that makes me forget its wrong to kill someone?
Unless the proposed soul-mind connection is 100% reliable, the entire idea of a soul is philosophically worthless.
The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.
That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring. On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.
It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media. If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by Young et al. For example:
Participants even judged attempted harms (e.g., attempting, but failing to poison someone) as more permissible than accidental harms (e.g., accidentally poisoning someone).
In that example, risk is quite accurately assessed. In the first case, no one was harmed, thus, no risk. In the second case, accidental though it was, someone was harmed and there was obviously risk.
I'd call that a failure of moral reasoning. Young even uses the phrase 'moral reasoning' multiple times for names of his papers, on the very page you link to.
How can a hypothetical God judge us for our choices, if our choices can be screwed up by a 'bad connection?' Maybe I was going to make the right choice, but a damn supernova sent a magnetic pulse through my head. I'm sorry, but it just seems laughable.
Why do we need to imagine a God like that? And why do we need to imagine a soul? To make us feel better. To make us feel that there is balance. But if there is no separation between self and other, if there is no duality, there is no imbalance to correct.
In any case, it does not matter how unlikely the stimulus, this research proves how ludicrous absolute concepts like 'good' and 'evil' really are. If the connection between soul and mind is anything less than 100% perfect, there are NO moral absolutes.
Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.
I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.
In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.
So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain?
Why? What makes you jump to the conclusion that because two things are connected, therefore one must be caused by the other - and specifically that you get to choose which one that is?
Connected does not mean "causal".
If the "soul" (if it exists) is connected to the brain, and the magnet interferes with this connection, why is it surprising that behaviour also changes?
Because, if the soul-mind connection can be interefered with, that negates the moral purpose of the soul as repository for merits and demerits caused by good and bad actions. If your bad actions can result from a bad connection, then the soul (and the self) should not accrue the demerits, bad karma, stains, evil, or whatever you want to call it. Because if they did, then I could go to hell for walking under a strong magnet.
If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences, the soul can not fairly accrue 'karma' or any kinds of merits or demerits for the actions taken by the individual. The random environmental influences must take part of both the blame and the credit for our actions, in which case, why do we even bother with the concept of free will and a soul? Why not admit there is no real 'self' at all?
Thanks for that link! For years now I've been hearing people talk about house this, house that, and I thought, "When did house music make a big comeback?" Now, thanks to your informative link, I know that House is a TV show.
How can magnets impact my moral choices? Isn't my soul supposed to do that? Is my soul a magnet? Maybe free will is magnetic. Or MAYBE, just maybe, those things don't exist except as concepts in the human mind.
The difference between 'likely to cause harm' and 'did cause harm.' In one question, they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous, even if she made it to the other side safely. Magnetized folks thought, 'well she made it across, it's morally okay' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time.
So why should we care who gets the merchandising deal from a movie or the song tie-in on a variety show? One reason is that the publishers' sights are set on the public. It is, for example, technically against the law for Girl Scouts to sing "This Land Is Your Land" and "Puff, the Magic Dragon" around a campfire without paying royalties. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers tried to collect such royalties. It backed off only after it faced public outrage—which was fanned by restaurateurs wanting to play the radio without having to pay fees. It now charges the Scouts $1 a year, foregoing real profits while making it clear that the girls sing only by ASCAP's belatedly good graces.
ASCAP attracted media attention in 1996 when it threatened Girl Scouts of the USA and Boy Scouts of America camps that sang ASCAP's copyrighted works at camps with lawsuits for not paying licensing fees.[19] These threats were later retracted,[20] however they have drawn negative attention for cracking down on licensing fees on other occasions as well, such as when they demand that open mic events need to pay licensing (even if most or all of the songs are original).[21]
Your model airplane hobby is not important to your function as a citizen of the US. Education is. Libraries provide a valuable function to society. Being a model airplane pilot does enhance your ability to contribute to society. It is not a positive externality like being educated is. Societies around the world have agreed on the value of public libraries for hundreds of years. You just don't feel like paying your fair share for the benefits you receive. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and we can vote on things like libraries. And then you have to pay your fair share whether you want to or not. You don't get to be the freeloader you'd like to be, so very sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
Then moral agency means nothing unless we consider ALL influences. We can't just say, "They did it, they are guilty.' We need to know the entire state of the universe to make a moral judgment. Which makes the concept of the soul philosophically useless.
If I roll a 6 on a die, the risk of me rolling a 1 is zero. I've rolled a 6, not a 1. And that seems to be the problem in this experiment. The girlfriend made it over the bridge, therefore the chance of her sustaining injury is zero, therefore the risk is zero. Yes, it's faulty reasoning, that is the whole point of the experiment.
If someone is schizophrenic though, they aren't held liable for their actions. Weird, huh? I mean, do people have free will or don't they? It sure seems like there are a lot of gray areas, don't you think? Alcohol and drugs can screw up your moral compass, now magnetic fields? What if a supernova creates a magnetic pulse that makes me forget its wrong to kill someone?
Unless the proposed soul-mind connection is 100% reliable, the entire idea of a soul is philosophically worthless.
Can you prove you aren't an SCO corporate whore? No? Then shut the fuck up.
The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.
That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring. On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.
It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media. If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by Young et al. For example:
In that example, risk is quite accurately assessed. In the first case, no one was harmed, thus, no risk. In the second case, accidental though it was, someone was harmed and there was obviously risk.
I'd call that a failure of moral reasoning. Young even uses the phrase 'moral reasoning' multiple times for names of his papers, on the very page you link to.
How can a hypothetical God judge us for our choices, if our choices can be screwed up by a 'bad connection?' Maybe I was going to make the right choice, but a damn supernova sent a magnetic pulse through my head. I'm sorry, but it just seems laughable.
Why do we need to imagine a God like that? And why do we need to imagine a soul? To make us feel better. To make us feel that there is balance. But if there is no separation between self and other, if there is no duality, there is no imbalance to correct.
In any case, it does not matter how unlikely the stimulus, this research proves how ludicrous absolute concepts like 'good' and 'evil' really are. If the connection between soul and mind is anything less than 100% perfect, there are NO moral absolutes.
Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.
I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.
In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.
We get that. It makes no difference.
So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain?
Why? What makes you jump to the conclusion that because two things are connected, therefore one must be caused by the other - and specifically that you get to choose which one that is?
Connected does not mean "causal".
If the "soul" (if it exists) is connected to the brain, and the magnet interferes with this connection, why is it surprising that behaviour also changes?
Because, if the soul-mind connection can be interefered with, that negates the moral purpose of the soul as repository for merits and demerits caused by good and bad actions. If your bad actions can result from a bad connection, then the soul (and the self) should not accrue the demerits, bad karma, stains, evil, or whatever you want to call it. Because if they did, then I could go to hell for walking under a strong magnet.
What do you think I think it means, then, smart guy?
Very interesting. That could very well be the case here, I think.
It isn't a revelation. People just hate the implications.
If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences, the soul can not fairly accrue 'karma' or any kinds of merits or demerits for the actions taken by the individual. The random environmental influences must take part of both the blame and the credit for our actions, in which case, why do we even bother with the concept of free will and a soul? Why not admit there is no real 'self' at all?
Except Milgram showed that a few people are completely immune to coercion by authority. This equipment will probably work on anyone.
Thanks for that link! For years now I've been hearing people talk about house this, house that, and I thought, "When did house music make a big comeback?" Now, thanks to your informative link, I know that House is a TV show.
How can magnets impact my moral choices? Isn't my soul supposed to do that? Is my soul a magnet? Maybe free will is magnetic. Or MAYBE, just maybe, those things don't exist except as concepts in the human mind.
The difference between 'likely to cause harm' and 'did cause harm.' In one question, they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous, even if she made it to the other side safely. Magnetized folks thought, 'well she made it across, it's morally okay' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time.
Cmdr. Taco is hitting the sauce before the sun is over the yard-arm this morning.
So THAT'S why it makes that sound: Sproik! Sproik! Sproik! I'd been wondering.
Too confusing; couldn't understand. So, what orientation does Mimas need to be in to make it early afternoon everywhere along the equator?
Too true.
You do if you're poor. Nobody gives the poor any credit.
So why should we care who gets the merchandising deal from a movie or the song tie-in on a variety show? One reason is that the publishers' sights are set on the public. It is, for example, technically against the law for Girl Scouts to sing "This Land Is Your Land" and "Puff, the Magic Dragon" around a campfire without paying royalties. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers tried to collect such royalties. It backed off only after it faced public outrage—which was fanned by restaurateurs wanting to play the radio without having to pay fees. It now charges the Scouts $1 a year, foregoing real profits while making it clear that the girls sing only by ASCAP's belatedly good graces.
From: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003/feature_zittrain_julaug03.msp
ASCAP attracted media attention in 1996 when it threatened Girl Scouts of the USA and Boy Scouts of America camps that sang ASCAP's copyrighted works at camps with lawsuits for not paying licensing fees.[19] These threats were later retracted,[20] however they have drawn negative attention for cracking down on licensing fees on other occasions as well, such as when they demand that open mic events need to pay licensing (even if most or all of the songs are original).[21]
From the wiki page on ASCAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers#Criticism
It was only public outcry that forced ASCAP to sell rights to the Girl Scouts for a dollar a year.
Your model airplane hobby is not important to your function as a citizen of the US. Education is. Libraries provide a valuable function to society. Being a model airplane pilot does enhance your ability to contribute to society. It is not a positive externality like being educated is. Societies around the world have agreed on the value of public libraries for hundreds of years. You just don't feel like paying your fair share for the benefits you receive. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and we can vote on things like libraries. And then you have to pay your fair share whether you want to or not. You don't get to be the freeloader you'd like to be, so very sorry.
If you had money to waste on hubcaps, cellphones, and other shit, you weren't even CLOSE to poor.