On the nature of Consciousness

[joncash]

The following is a part of something I've written. I thought I'd open it to you guys for debate:

Within each being who has ever lived exists a Divine nature responsible for morality which has gone mostly misunderstood and misinterpreted by unconscious beings who have seen parts but have never seen the whole. The consequences of this lack of understanding are painfully evident in our history of atrocities.

To understand the source of our insanity, you must also understand the inner-workings of Consciousness, the Divine nature at the core of every sentient being. It is this property of life that is solely responsible for morality as we know it. The reason many argue a subjective morality is that to live in sin, you must also live in delusion and denial. It is a sad state of denial they are in. When we sin, the moral law weighs down upon us so heavily that we cannot bear to face it, so we dont. To modify our moral code from its true, perfect state, we too must also fall from our true, perfect state.

Evil is not in action. We face the action associated with evil, thinking we have faced the sin itself, but we have not. The evil is in the selfish motive, and this horror is one no living being can face. We push these motives into an area of our minds we will no longer look at: an area commonly referred to as the subconscious. This is where the collective insanity that plagues all life comes from. We must shatter our Consciousness into pieces to bear living under the weight of the moral law in sin. We create a new, false self to take the place of Consciousness called the ego.

The ego has been misunderstood by psychology as a necessary part of a persons mind. I am saying different. We create our egos to hide our evil selfish motives from us. The price we pay for this is more than anyone could ever know while stuck in egoic thinking because its more than just our past motives we must deny. Future actions are also looked at through this new warped view that hides our motives from us. Gone is our ability to judge between what is wise and unwise, because motives are exactly that. Only by seeing our own motives with clarity can we see the difference between good and evil. The ego is morally blind.

The tool the ego uses to hide our motives from ourselves is fear. What exactly do I speak of when I speak of fear? I am talking about anxiety. Anxiety in its most basic form occurs when you perform action selfishly with attachment to the results. If one is instead selfless, this one becomes fearless as well. Without attachment to cloud ones vision, fear dissolves, because fear is, in itself, an attachment.

Selflessness is what love is, and is good. Selfishness is what fear hides behind, and is evil. Selflessness and love are inherently rational. All selfishness and fear are inherently irrational. Always.

[catalyst]

Hi Catalyst,

This seems like an implausible story to me. Hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem to be innate as well, not simply cultural.

Hi Adamoriens,

Could you perhaps give me examples (analogies if you like) of why you believe hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem (to you) to be innate, rather than taught?

I ask earnestly as I fail to understand how you can possibly come to that conclusion.



you wrote:

Evolution favours cooperation with in-group members and competition with out-group members.

I suppose then, an unexplainable urge to help a complete stranger (out-group member) in their time of need, is not fathomed into the above equation?

Are you assuming that the competition with out-group members is due to innate hatred?

I am asking these questions Adamoriens as I would like a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

Catalyst.

[catalyst]

Hi Joncash

Okay, let's leave divinity out of this to begin at least. You agree with me that many beings are hardwired for altruistic behavior.

Yes I do, just as beings are hard-wired for other specific things as well.

joncash wrote:

My claim is that all sentient beings possess this hardwiring and the reason for this is that moral realism is true.

To ascribe to moral realism is to believe that moral law is an axiom for necessary existence. Moral law simply just is.

Hard-wired altruism has nothing to do with your theory of "moral realism is true", joncash, as sociological constructs, which determine what is deemed "morally" right vs "morally" wrong, on many occasions fly in the face of this hard-wired altruism and compassion.

Could you please let me know what you deem moral law to be, if of course it is something other than what capital G god allegedly passed onto Moses. Then we might have something to talk about. on that level.

joncash;

Suddenly, you have this very mystical idea arising out of knowing that there is true good and true evil. The next rational question for the mind that truly wishes to know the Truth is: How did that moral fabric get there (and why)?

Again, you are making this auto jump from hard-wired altruism to morals and a claimed comprehension of what is supposedly "true good" vs "true evil". Also, mystical thought never leads to ANY rational questions, especially when you bring the concept of "true evil" into the equation. If perhaps you could give me example of what you consider "true evil" to be, without religious writings, claiming to justify this "true evil" position, then I would have happy to take a look. If of course you can't then it only goes to show me at least, you are basing your theory on belief-dependence and nothing more.

joncash:

Believing in morality gives you the start of a perfectly rational God concept

Realising that (narrowing it down here) MAMMALS are inherently altruistic, does not lead to an auto presumption of a viable god concept....capital G or otherwise.

Cat...xx

[Adamoriens]

Hi Adamoriens,

Could you perhaps give me examples (analogies if you like) of why you believe hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem (to you) to be innate, rather than taught?

Hi Catalyst,

The terms "innate" and "taught" don't apply very well to evolutionary psychology, since evolution is purported to select at both the genetic and cultural levels ("innate" and "taught" respectively). If we take it as a given that there are limited resources and that cultural evolution selects for reproductive success, it follows that the successful party will be one which fosters cooperation for that goal. But if another competitor arises, then the successful group will not only have to foster cooperation and group cohesion, but also behave with hostility toward the competitive other. Hence the human tendency toward thinking one's own group is morally superior (engendering group cohesion) and the prejudice against reproductive competitors. The odd thing is that these tendencies may persist even when evolutionary pressures are greatly reduced, such that we cohere into groups and continue despising out-group members when our groups's ostensible goal is not reproductive success (ie. religions, nations etc.).

http://e1212012.co.uk/Documents/Prejudice.pdf

[catalyst]

Hi Adamoriens,

Could you perhaps give me examples (analogies if you like) of why you believe hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem (to you) to be innate, rather than taught?

Hi Catalyst,

The terms "innate" and "taught" don't apply very well to evolutionary psychology, since evolution is purported to select at both the genetic and cultural levels ("innate" and "taught" respectively). If we take it as a given that there are limited resources and that cultural evolution selects for reproductive success, it follows that the successful party will be one which fosters cooperation for that goal. But if another competitor arises, then the successful group will not only have to foster cooperation and group cohesion, but also behave with hostility toward the competitive other. Hence the human tendency toward thinking one's own group is morally superior (engendering group cohesion) and the prejudice against reproductive competitors. The odd thing is that these tendencies may persist even when evolutionary pressures are greatly reduced, such that we cohere into groups and continue despising out-group members when our groups's ostensible goal is not reproductive success (ie. religions, nations etc.).

http://e1212012.co.uk/Documents/Prejudice.pdf

Thank you for that link and I am more than happy to read it and actually, I have already begun. I was wanting though, your personal observations of what you profess to be innate about irrational fear, prejudice, hatred and bigotry, rather than someone else's take on the matter.

If however their view is one you DO accept as your own, could you please reason with me as to WHY you do?

Also, if you would please answer my other questions as well, again in your own words, not that of someone else, so that when I reply to you, I can do so in a "job lot".

They are:

I suppose then, an unexplainable urge to help a complete stranger (out-group member) in their time of need, is not fathomed into the above equation?

Are you assuming that the competition with out-group members is due to innate hatred?

Thanking you in advance.

Catalyst.

[joncash]

Hi cat,

Okay, it seems like I'm in a different spot in this same debate against several people, so I want to make sure I understand exactly what you believe. I don't think I've been ambiguous about what separates good and evil.

To quote myself:

Selflessness is what love is, and is good. Selfishness is what fear hides behind, and is evil. Selflessness and love are inherently rational. All selfishness and fear are inherently irrational. Always.

So it sounds like you're saying that moral realism is not true. There is no real right, no real wrong. There are merely sociological constructs which are mere conventions we might have made any way we pleased if it were more convenient to our survival as a race.

What moral obstacle is there, then, in your model of morality, to stop a man who wishes to modify these subjective sociological constructs? Adolf Hitler believed that his race as well as others possessed superior traits and thus, it was to the benefit of the human race for him to conquer the world and eliminate races he saw as inferior. What is sensibly looked at by most people as evil seems like it could be regarded as quite acceptable in your philosophy of morality. This proves nothing, but the point I've made at least supports natural inclination of beings to take moral realism for granted.

I agree highly with you about which traits are innate (the good ones), but with all respect, I think you have to be curious how exactly these traits were chosen as the innate ones instead of other traits which may well have done much more for a species' evolutionary viability. Adamoriens is pointing out the same weakness in your moral philosophy in different words. He is quite right. Innate and taught apply much better to moral realism. If morals were a mere convention that could have been made any other way, I believe we would indeed find bigotry and a lot of other ugly things buried there in that subjective place we call morality.

When I was being indoctrinated in church school, I was taught that Voltaire was an avowed atheist and he was properly vilified for it. As it turns out, he knew God in much the same way I know God today. One of his most remembered quotes has stuck with me: "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." Further thought of this truth led me to realize that the absurdity of a belief can be measured the the depth of atrocity it can be used to excuse.

I used your belief to excuse the Holocaust.

[Flail]

Adamoriens wrote:

But if another competitor arises, then the successful group will not only have to foster cooperation and group cohesion, but also behave with hostility toward the competitive other. Hence the human tendency toward thinking one's own group is morally superior (engendering group cohesion) and the prejudice against reproductive competitors. The odd thing is that these tendencies may persist even when evolutionary pressures are greatly reduced, such that we cohere into groups and continue despising out-group members when our groups's ostensible goal is not reproductive success (ie. religions, nations etc.).

This can be observed when Islam confronts Christianity(Mosque controversy) or when a heretic enters the congregation (myself); I have observed it in young people who have a starry eyed new faith and in the 'born again.' I contend that religion is an emotional experience engendered by ritual, pomp and dogma, and not a rational one, which may explain these tendencies.

[Goat]

Hi Catalyst,

This seems like an implausible story to me. Hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem to be innate as well, not simply cultural.

Hi Adamoriens,

Could you perhaps give me examples (analogies if you like) of why you believe hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem (to you) to be innate, rather than taught?

I ask earnestly as I fail to understand how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

Well, for one, they have found a genetic brain "disorder" , a gene mutation, that eradicates ethnic bias (but not gender). Look up 'Williams Syndrome.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100412/ ... 0.176.html

If there is a specific gene that eliminates the fear of strangers, and as a consequence, they do not develop racial stereotypes, then it appears that there is a biological basis for the fear.

From that link above

Children with a neurodevelopmental disorder called Williams syndrome (WS) are overly friendly because they do not fear strangers. Now, a study shows that these children also do not develop negative attitudes about other ethnic groups, even though they show patterns of gender stereotyping found in other children. "This is the first evidence that different forms of stereotypes are biologically dissociable," says Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, director of the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany, who led the study published today in Current Biology1.

[Vampiel]

Interesting theory but without any evidence Im more inclined to believe the observed theories of morality through an evolutionary perspective.

We know for a fact that human morality is not innate and it changes with our age. As our brains develop our judgement also changes. At the early states we judge actions based on their outcome or consequences, as the brain develops we judge them based on intentions. This would suggest that instead of morality being some type of imbibed innate ability from a higher power as you suggest, its a biological mechanism and can change with our biology.

Recently its been found that dolphins an elephants have similar structures in their brain that humans do that is thought to be the part responsible for empathy. Dolphins have helped humans escape from sharks and elephants have helped antelopes escape from enclosures.

Coyotes that bite another to hard while playing will often be cast out of the group and the mortality rate of those cast out is four to five times higher than those who live with the support of their group. This suggests they have a sense of fairness, or code of ethics if you will. The evolutionary reward for this code is they are more likely to survive by cooperating.

Human morality can also be altered by simple electrical pulses to the brain. Magnetic tools used to treat depression have been shown to also effect judgements. When held to the brain and asked stories relating to judgement humans once again judged more on outcomes than intentions. Meaning the part of the brain that developed during childhood is turned off. This clearly shows a direct effect on our morality based judgements.

Because of these developments, I find it difficult to believe morality is anything other than a complex socioeconomic biological survival tool that has evolved to help us and other animals survive.

Here's a few references if your interested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-d ... -work.html (transcript)

REBECCA SAXE: What we found is that people who are having T.M.S. to their right T.P.J. make moral judgments that depend less on the person's beliefs and intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

[catalyst]

Hi Catalyst,

This seems like an implausible story to me. Hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem to be innate as well, not simply cultural.

Hi Adamoriens,

Could you perhaps give me examples (analogies if you like) of why you believe hatred, bigotry and irrational fears seem (to you) to be innate, rather than taught?

I ask earnestly as I fail to understand how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

Well, for one, they have found a genetic brain "disorder" , a gene mutation, that eradicates ethnic bias (but not gender). Look up 'Williams Syndrome.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100412/ ... 0.176.html

If there is a specific gene that eliminates the fear of strangers, and as a consequence, they do not develop racial stereotypes, then it appears that there is a biological basis for the fear.

From that link above

Children with a neurodevelopmental disorder called Williams syndrome (WS) are overly friendly because they do not fear strangers. Now, a study shows that these children also do not develop negative attitudes about other ethnic groups, even though they show patterns of gender stereotyping found in other children. "This is the first evidence that different forms of stereotypes are biologically dissociable," says Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, director of the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany, who led the study published today in Current Biology1.

Hi Goat,

Thanks for that. I read the entire article and it states clearly that:

The results suggest that social fear contributes to racial stereotyping. But WS is associated with other cognitive impairments, such as mental retardation, that may also have a role, Meyer-Lindenberg says.

Although the authors controlled for many factors, such as IQ and socioeconomic background, children with and without WS may have had different experiences of members of other racial groups, says John Gabrieli, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. "To a certain degree, all children are exposed to sex roles from their parents, but not all are forced to think about race," he says. Less exposure to racial stereotypes could possibly explain the lack of racial bias in children with WS, he says.

Meyer-Lindenberg believes his findings will replicate in larger samples and different age groups. In future neuroimaging studies, he would like to tease apart the neural circuits involved in different types of stereotypes.

The study does not answer whether stereotyping is genetically determined or based on experience, Meyer-Lindenberg says. So he'd also like to examine the role of experience, for instance, by finding children who have been raised by two members of the same sex.

So it seems that no real conclusion was reached Goat.

Cat..x

[catalyst]

Interesting theory but without any evidence Im more inclined to believe the observed theories of morality through an evolutionary perspective.

We know for a fact that human morality is not innate and it changes with our age. As our brains develop our judgement also changes. At the early states we judge actions based on their outcome or consequences, as the brain develops we judge them based on intentions. This would suggest that instead of morality being some type of imbibed innate ability from a higher power as you suggest, its a biological mechanism and can change with our biology.

Recently its been found that dolphins an elephants have similar structures in their brain that humans do that is thought to be the part responsible for empathy. Dolphins have helped humans escape from sharks and elephants have helped antelopes escape from enclosures.

Coyotes that bite another to hard while playing will often be cast out of the group and the mortality rate of those cast out is four to five times higher than those who live with the support of their group. This suggests they have a sense of fairness, or code of ethics if you will. The evolutionary reward for this code is they are more likely to survive by cooperating.

Human morality can also be altered by simple electrical pulses to the brain. Magnetic tools used to treat depression have been shown to also effect judgements. When held to the brain and asked stories relating to judgement humans once again judged more on outcomes than intentions. Meaning the part of the brain that developed during childhood is turned off. This clearly shows a direct effect on our morality based judgements.

Because of these developments, I find it difficult to believe morality is anything other than a complex socioeconomic biological survival tool that has evolved to help us and other animals survive.

Here's a few references if your interested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-d ... -work.html (transcript)

REBECCA SAXE: What we found is that people who are having T.M.S. to their right T.P.J. make moral judgments that depend less on the person's beliefs and intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

To the BOLD comment.

Yes, spindle cells. I wrote about this on another thread a while back. Thank you for popping it up here.

Catalyst.