- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Really???But he wasn't Swedish..had never been there..
How can your brain make you think you are Swedish..up to the point of speaking the language??
Mr Boatwright is said to have long ties with the Scandinavian country, having visited it in the 1980s and reportedly moved there in 2003.
And a medieval re-enactment team from Sweden have come forward to say they knew him as ‘Strongbow’, and said he was as proficient at jousting as he was at the local lingo.
As long we appreciate for it's entertainment value that's fine. When one starts to accept it as reality there's a problem. I have no problem watching hero movies with my grandsons but I don't believe Capt. America, Hancock, or Superman exist IRL as depicted in the movies.The great thing about our minds is the ability to appreciate fantasy nonsense.
Without that within us, our politicians would have nothing to say.
Really???
I think we do have an innate sense of morality. We are capable of understanding that there are things we don't want to happen to us, and we have the empathy not to want them to happen to others. But sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality. They don't belong in the same discussion. It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and low pressure fronts.
And in every case I'm sure they've heard the language and/or accent at some point in their lives. There is no "new knowledge" that they've mysteriously gained.ok..I'll give you that one..
How about..??
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | What is foreign accent syndrome?
But he wasn't Swedish..had never been there..
How can your brain make you think you are Swedish..up to the point of speaking the language??
Brain trauma results in all sorts of odd behavior, not just a change in speech or absence of memory.Well, he'd already spoken the language before...I don't know about the bit about his brain making him think he's Swedish.
Brain trauma results in all sorts of odd behavior, not just a change in speech or absence of memory.
Your behavior informs the dog that your unhappy with him and he behaves submissively in reaction. Dogs feel no guilt.
Fair enough. Sometimes they fool us into thinking it is more than trained behavior. Dogs are bred to have an instinct to befriend and be loyal to humans in the same way a honey bee has an instinct to seek nectar in blossoms. No argument.
But if this is intended to be inferred from the above, it does not follow. As you note below, morals seem to change from group to group (and even individual to individual). There's no reason to suppose that human beings cannot each be born with an innate but distinct moral code. In fact, I think that's largely the case.
This sounds confusing? Can you clarify it for me?
Captain Adverse said:To impute an innate moral code into humans at birth is unreasonable. Humans are simply a more developed form of primate. You would have to show that every other primate was born with an innate set of morals. By extension, then all MAMMALS would have to be born with such a code.
To impute a relatively hairless body to humans at birth is unreasonable. Humans are simply a more developed form of primate. You would have to show that every other primate was born with a relatively hairless body. By extension, then all MAMMALS would have to be born with a relatively hairless body.
Captain Adverse said:However, humans have demonstrated a higher level of congnitive ability which gives us the ability to reason. Morals are developed through the process of reason, and are merely accepted standards of conduct within whatever cultural group they develop. If we all shared the same set of "accepted standards of conduct" from birth, what need for any variation? They would automatically be accepted by all disparate cultural groups.
Captain Adverse said:However, if you are born as a "blank slate" and you adapt to your growth environment by learning as you grow, then "accepted standards of conduct" would be developed by each cultural group's experiences and transferred to new members by teaching it to them. We see that every time someone moves to a new environment and attempts to adapt to it's customs and mores.
Captain Adverse said:Conversely, where is your evidence of "innate" morality.
Your argument is fallacious; technically, it has a false premise. To see this, you only need substitute any other uniquely human characteristic in for "moral code" in the above. See how this reads:
Captain Adverse said:It reads like comparing apples and cars. Using a clearly identifiable physical characteristic that separates a species as a substitition for a hypothetical thought process you imagine the species might possess is the real fallacy.
Captain Adverse said:Once you recognize that all of the rest of your arguments fail. We, as a species have minds which can reason at a higher level then those of all our known animal relations, at least that seems to be the case so far. The cognitive ability to REASON is at the root cause of developing moral codes
Captain Adverse said:not some innate mystical quality granted at the time of inception. What, are you some sort of religious philosopher, presuming the existance of a higher power who instill us with a code we then have the free will to alter to our success or detriment?
Captain Adverse said:As for your comment about how studies "suggest" the processes underlying moral development seem almost universal to human beings, that is easily explained by the level of interaction between human beings and differing cultures as expressed in my prior responses.
Captain Adverse said:Even so, history and current empirical evidence shows morals are not equally shared by all cultures. There is no proof morals are or ever were "innate" to humans from birth.
This begs the question. Why is it impossible that human beings, but not other primates, have an innate moral code? Human beings, but not other primates, have other characteristics. Why cannot a moral code be one of them?
Only that the ones they have are very likely inevitable, at least within some broad categorization, at birth.
If one believes in reincarnation, one must admit there is an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Of course, this knowledge would depend on the level of your soul evolution, so it would greatly vary.
Captain Adverse said:Because other primates, to the best of out current knowledge and experience, do not have sufficient cognitive capability to reason at that level of complexity nor communicate the lessons learned down through the generations.
Captain Adverse said:Morals are a development of high-level social cooperation and generational communication.
Captain Adverse said:Our early human ancestors probably didn't have much more use for morals than our ape cousins did, unless one counts "I'm strongest, I get everything and you all fight over the leftovers" as an early development of moral code.
Captain Adverse said:Over time this simple process was replaced with more complex ways of interacting, verbal communication;
Captain Adverse said:and this would aid moral developments even further after encountering other groups and exchanging information. Moral conduct, i.e. how to deal wth each other and how to deal with such groups, comes from retained experiences. We, unlike other apes, are able to pass this down generationally through complex methods of communication; "Songs" or stories.
Captain Adverse said:The only things we get at birth that help this process are the abilities to learn and communicate. We are a tabula rasa with the qualities of a sponge, and we learn our moral codes from our parents and as we grow within our social environment.
Captain Adverse said:That's all; no mystical pre-ordained, innate weathervane of "good or evil."
How so? Exactly what do you mean by this?... But the best evidence we have of primitive human societies suggests they had a well-developed moral code.
Soul level doesn't guarantee remembrance of what constitutes right and wrong...
OK...I'm not sure I agree, but so what? This doesn't do anything to answer the question at all. Suppose what you've said is correct. This doesn't mean that human beings cannot be born with some innate moral capacity or foundation…
…I don't know if you're aware, but this (i.e. Locke's) position is what you seem to be taking here. Perhaps you could state your position a little more clearly, and if it is your intent to revive Locke's psychology, you might state that openly…
…Most modern proponents of some kind of innate moral code or foundation think it's due to similarities in how human brains are wired, not in whether there's some divinely inspired code implanted in the human soul or something.
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.
Much of morality can be traced to evolutionary adaptation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?