Originally posted by PalynkaMorality surely precedes society? What morals do humans exhibit that other great apes do not? Surely the only real difference lies in our ability to communicate, record and analyze further but the basic instinctual morality is little different.
Take, for example, the extremely fast development of law, morality and religion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe rest of your points make sense.
I would say that 1. applies to all living things and 2. requires a certain level of consciousness which goes far beyond a basic nervous system. It would have made more sense if you said that 2. type morality is dependent on a certain level of consciousness. Surely a computer might attain consciousness without a nervous system? Are you claiming that such a computer would have no morality?
To answer your question here though, that's why I had said decision making ability, not nervous system. The current conscious technologies are wetware liek the human nervous system, but when (when) we have artificial general intelligence, I'm confident that it will have some form of in built morality, maybe not like ours, maybe a lot like ours, but something will be there that one could call morality.
Originally posted by PalynkaI only talk of morality, of course that core which was provided by slow biological evolution has developed enormously quickly thanks to the rise of self-conscious brains capable of inner reflection and simulation. Just as it is impossible that the complex morality we possess today could not have arisen due to biological evolution, the evidence for other animals possessing a sense of right and wrong, as well as all humans across all cultures and geographies possessing the same core moral principles shows that moralities origin lies in biological evolution.
The societal evolution that started near the banks of Tigris and Euphrates has been lightning fast for biological evolution. It is surely impossible that the (small) genetic change that has occurred since the dawn of society can explain the speed of these developments. Biological evolution is very slow when compared to recorded history.
Originally posted by WajomaHe had a whole chapter on the moral zeitgeist. Yes, he didn't explain its origins, but he was never trying to. All he was pointing out was that the religious did not have a monoploy on moral matters, that morality transcends culture and religion and lies deep within our evolutionary past, with recent philosophies simply fleshing out that core.
"...to delve into potential origins would have detracted from the argument."
That's an odd statement, morality need not have a religious basis but offer nothing in it's stead. He makes some mention of "zeitgeist" but dosen't bother to clarify it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do plants make decisions?
Yes, but decision making does not require a nervous system. Plants make decisions all the time.
I would break morality down into two components:
1. A general rule of: 'do not harm my genes or genes related to me, giving preference to the genes most closely related to me.'
2. A recognition by a consciousness A that another entity B has consciousness a ...[text shortened]... usness without a nervous system? Are you claiming that such a computer would have no morality?
2 edits
Originally posted by smw6869Well, I don't think it refers to what most people would refer to as a decision, it's more an instinct which results in behaviuor which could be considered moral. Inputs and outputs. Now that it's mentioned for instance I heard of bacterial biofilms (basically pond-scum, but it doesn't have to be on a pond) where all the bacteria are of the same species which have incredibly complex chemical interactions which not only prevents alien bacteria from entering the biofilm, but "punishes" those bacteria which are posing a threat to others in the same biolfilm.
How do plants make decisions?
It's one of those grey areas, is it one organism? Kind of, but each cell can live independantly and in the majority of cases does.
I'm sure there's similar examples for plants and their ecosystems.
All without a nervous system or anything approaching self awareness.
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonI thought I'd never see the day when plants became capable of immoral behaviour.
Well, I don't think it refers to what most people would refer to as a decision, it's more an instinct which results in behaviuor which could be considered moral. Inputs and outputs. Now that it's mentioned for instance I heard of bacterial biofilms (basically pond-scum, but it doesn't have to be on a pond) where all the bacteria are of the same species which their ecosystems.
All without a nervous system or anything approaching self awareness.
Originally posted by PalynkaLol, hit that dandelion with an ASBO.
I thought I'd never see the day when plants became capable of immoral behaviour.
Like I said, it's one interpretation of their behaviour, though it's a very, very simplified version. But if we can assume that morality, consciosness etc. are emergent, then they had to emerge from somewhere, and simplistic systems like this give a base from which more complex behaviours can grow. Not only the hardware, but the software.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never disagreed with that. My point was that the evolution of morality in our species itself has gone far beyond the basic moral traits that can be observed in other species.
Morality surely precedes society? What morals do humans exhibit that other great apes do not? Surely the only real difference lies in our ability to communicate, record and analyze further but the basic instinctual morality is little different.
I'm not negating the importance of nature, I'm affirming the importance of culture.
Originally posted by agrysonThat is very close to my point, even if I believe the hardware (as you put it) is purely biological/genetic, the software is largely cultural. Denying the importance of culture is a fatal mistake. And one that often researchers in exact sciences tend to reduce to biological phenomenons, even when the vast majority of social scientists would tell them otherwise.
Lol, hit that dandelion with an ASBO.
Like I said, it's one interpretation of their behaviour, though it's a very, very simplified version. But if we can assume that morality, consciosness etc. are emergent, then they had to emerge from somewhere, and simplistic systems like this give a base from which more complex behaviours can grow. Not only the hardware, but the software.
Originally posted by PalynkaThen I imagine that what I said on the third post of the second page of the thread would be what you're saying...
That is very close to my point, even if I believe the hardware (as you put it) is purely biological/genetic, the software is largely cultural. Denying the importance of culture is a fatal mistake. And one that often researchers in exact sciences tend to reduce to biological phenomenons, even when the vast majority of social scientists would tell them otherwise.
"Just as it is impossible that the complex morality we possess today could not have arisen due to biological evolution, the evidence for other animals possessing a sense of right and wrong, as well as all humans across all cultures and geographies possessing the same core moral principles shows that moralities origin lies in biological evolution."
Though i realise now I used a double negative. Just remove the not, sorry for the confusion.
The morality we have today is of course the result of social interactions, but when discussing the origins, which I view as "Morality distilled" we see the importance of biology. I think the confusion comes from scientists trying to simplify the problem to make it easier to deal with, personally, I reduce morality to biology because it is then universally applicable. The morality which grows from that through societies and cultures tends to differ and thus is not universally applicable, though arguably coming from the same core.
Hence I'm a moral relativist who believes that there is a single common morality, it's just a matter of which level of complexity you want to look at things from.
Originally posted by agrysonHmm.. Racial profiling, not very moral by todays political correctness! Bad, Bad bacteria...should be ashamed of themselves. ðŸ˜
[b] it's more an instinct which results in behaviuor which could be considered moral. I heard of bacterial biofilms --text shortened-- all the bacteria are of the same species --text shortened-- not only prevents alien bacteria from entering biofilm, but "punishes" those