Magnificent what?

This kind of dualistic view is difficult for me to appreciate. It feels artificial and not particularly useful. — praxis

That kind of "dualistic" view is what the world is like. What's your alternate ontology?

Still unclear how you mean this. A non-mental phenomenon can directly cause mental phenomenon, creating sensory data for example. In the same way an outside source, ie words from a book, can in-still values into our minds. That doesnt have to mean the value exists outside or minds, just that the source does. — DingoJones

If A causes B, it doesn't imply that A is identical to B, does it?

And if A is not identical to B, then A or, whatever makes A obtain, isn't literally the source of B, because we only have B elsewhere. How does it make sense to say that A is the source of B when A isn't itself B?

DingoJones Would you like to take a stab at the point I was making with my analogy? Something tells me that you'll fare better than certain others. — S

I suggest hiring a hypnotist who could possibly make us believe that your point is worthwhile.

Concepts are abstractions from what I've appropriated in my immediate existence, which are communicated via referential signifiers, not necessarily words. — Merkwurdichliebe

Can abstractions occur outside of our minds? I don't think they can.

So if concepts are abstractions, they can't be transferred from one person to another in any literal sense.

What I find amusing is that I made the point in plain language right before I first gave the analogy, yet somehow you still managed to miss it and go on about something else entirely. Your entire objection can be summed in that way: cars are rubbish because they don't fly, and my explanation is inadequate because it doesn't explain your unreasonable expectations of it.

It was just a side note, expressing a feeling and not an ontology.

I would have preferred it if you had focused on the rest of the post.

The source of morals cannot be found in human biology, therefore the belief that it can is rubbish. — praxis

Morals have to be found in biology, because they can't occur elsewhere. To occur elsewhere, we'd need meaning, preferences, etc. to be able to occur elsewhere, but they don't occur elsewhere. They're brain phenomena.

Re S's question re the analogy, I'd have to read back through a number of posts. In longer threads like this, where people are posting a lot of long replies, I don't read most of what people are writing--on purpose, because I think that it's problematic that we type so much and gloss over so many issues so quickly.

It was just a side note, expressing a feeling and not an ontology. — praxis

But it's my whole point here. The source of morals is an ontological issue. Morals are only found in biology, because it's a phenomenon that doesn't occur outside of brain activity.

The literalist tyranny of the bleeding obvious!

The tyranny of the bleeding obvious! — Janus

I'm not sure I understand this comment, but if we want to talk about something else, we should ask a more specific, precise question. Like maybe we want to talk about all of the things that influence moral stances. If so, we should ask about that in so many words.

Re S's question re the analogy, I'd have to read back through a number of posts. In longer threads like this, where people are posting a lot of long replies, I don't read most of what people are writing--on purpose, because I think that it's problematic that we type so much and gloss over so many issues so quickly. — Terrapin Station

I reckon you would've got it. Or at least come closer to getting it than other attempts. I doubt you would've responded with some irrelevant nonsense consisting of associating cars with nature and flying with nurture.

We? This little fly has a hard-learned aversion to flypaper...

We? — Janus

Aren't there a number of people participating in threads here?

Sure, so you're prescribing a shared normative protocol?

Sure, so you're prescribing a shared normative protocol? — Janus

I'm giving my opinion, based on my preferences.

So, you're not suggesting that it or they should be of any significance to me?

So, you're not suggesting that it or they should be of any significance to me? — Janus

I'd prefer that it would be, sure. "Shoulds" are our preferences with respect to how things could be contra alternatives.

Aren't there a number of people participating in threads here? — Terrapin Station

There are a number of people participating in threads here. One of those people is sharing magnificent thoughts. And then there's a group which crowds together to pooh-pooh them because they're jealous. :smirk:

No, they,re laughing because you are either naked or your clothes are transparent!
:rofl:

I'm not sure I understand this comment, — Terrapin Station

Morals are only found in biology, because it's a phenomenon that doesn't occur outside of brain activity. — Terrapin Station

Moral behavior is not brain activity, and does not merely involve brain activity, although brain activity may be considered to play a part.

Moral behavior is not brain activity, and does not merely involve brain activity, although brain activity may be considered to play a part. — Janus

Behavior isn't just brain activity (it does require it, and brain activity is a part of it, but not the whole story).

Whether any behavior is moral or not is a phenomenon--a type of judgment--that only occurs in brains.

You could offer evidence otherwise if you want to argue that. Offer evidence that the judgment whether any behavior is moral (or alternately re the conceptual application of some behavior having to do with morality rather than something else) can occur outside of brains. I'll look at the evidence in question if you want to suggest something.

No, they're laughing because you are either naked or your clothes are transparent!
:rofl: — Janus

What lovely green eyes you have.

You could offer evidence otherwise if you want to argue that. Offer evidence that the judgment whether any behavior is moral (or alternately the conceptual application of some behavior having to do with morality rather than something else) can occur outside of brains. I'll look at the evidence in question if you want to suggest something. — Terrapin Station

This is where I predict he'll say something about communities, seemingly oblivious to the fact that communities are made up of people with brains, meaning that his proposed explanation is only getting further away from the source, not closer to it.

As Schopenhauer tells us, the aesthetic response is to what is of no practical significance to us. It is what transports and transforms our consciousness. — Janus

That is the general perspective I'm coming from. It is my understanding that the philosophers following Hegel (perhaps up to the point of Nietzsche) spoke of the aesthetic as a broad category of phenomenological existence. It was not merely restricted to works of art, but all human artifice. I, personally, derive much edification from this perspective, but I understand it to be only one perspective amongst infinite perspectives, some better than others, but all are mere approximations at best.

I agree with much of what you said there, though, and often apparently contradictory ideas just reflect the existence of different possible ways of interpreting concepts such as <reason>, < emotion>, <interest>, <responsibility> and so on, and the different ways in which they can be related together to produce diverse and perhaps apparently incompatible perspectives on our common human experience. — Janus

Indeed, thought is infinite in its reasoning capacity.

Whether any behavior is moral or not is a phenomenon--a type of judgment--that only occurs in brains. — Terrapin Station

All human interpersonal behavior is morally significant, and it obviously does not occur in brains; so no, it is not a phenomenon that occurs only in brains.

All human interpersonal behavior is morally significant, — Janus

If it's extramentally morally significant, what's the evidence of that?

It was not merely restricted to works of art, but all human artifice. — Merkwurdichliebe

And also, let us not forget, aesthetic response to the natural world.

I, personally, derive much edification from this perspective, but I understand it to be only one perspective amongst infinite perspectives, some better than others, but all are mere approximations at best. — Merkwurdichliebe

Agreed: all models are simply models, and can never be what they are modeling.

Obviously, morally significant behavior has actual effects on people's lives, in fact that is what defines it.

I actually do, and have had since I was born; so it has nothing to do with your existence or your "philosophy"; although you may have some difficulty accepting that.