It cannot do this without some variety of order, similar to the way a computer is nonfunctional without software.

If the source of how computers interact cooperatively with each other were asked, it would be insufficient to identify the hardware alone. For one thing, it couldn’t account for the variety of protocols that various computer networks may use. — praxis

Are you a dualist, then? Physical and mental? I'm not sure where I stand on that, but explanations in terms of the physical can explain quite a bit. It seems uncharitable to call them inadequate. I'm both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered.

Ok, I think you are right. “Source” was (at least) the source of confusion. It seems obvious how I meant that in context, but I didn't think of your distinction between cause and source so...now I know.
Ok, so just to check the page here using my matchstick analogy: what is the cause of the flame (primarily, no need for lists. Just give me an idea) and what is the relation between the source of something and the start of something?

Cortical and limbic interactions in the development of self-regulation and free-will

[. . .]Each of these acts is termed “immoral,” but at a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be. With conscious free-will and its bearing on legal and moral responsibility, we normally excuse people whose acts are not caused by their conscious choices, such as sleepwalkers who murder and those with neoplasms who have committed crimes.

Surprisingly, recent research suggests that conscious choice plays a smaller role in our actions than most people assume. In particular, it often comes after brain activity that initiates bodily movements, and many researchers conclude that the conscious choice does not cause the movement (cf. Melillo and Leisman, 2009a,b). That conclusion raises the disturbing questions of whether and how we can ever really be responsible for anything. Known for a while is the necessity to automate as much as possible which arises from the need to reduce information overload on the nervous system due to its relatively limited capacity for instantaneous information processing (Leisman, 1976; Melillo and Leisman, 2009a,b). This is precisely the reason why we neither look nor need to do so when walking down a flight of stairs. The issue of responsibility is both scientific and moral. Freedom exists within a deterministic universe. Our knowledge surrounding consciousness is incomplete, and it may ultimately transpire that brain activity does not cause conscious decision-making or vice versa, but rather a variety of cognitive processes occurring almost simultaneously (Leisman and Melillo, 2012).

That’s a rather long way to get around the question. I think you know I was simply trying to identify an analog for morality in computers. Are you suggesting that the comparison is invalid because there’s something *special* about human morality?

I’m wondering if you’re both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered in the ‘soft’ sciences.

Magnificent what? — Janus

Obfuscation.

I don't understand, what do you see as the relevance of free will (and the responsibility issue with respect to it) to whether moral stances are essentially a matter of "caprice"?

Are you suggesting that the comparison is invalid because there’s something *special* about human morality? — praxis

"Special" just in the sense of being different. I can't really think of an angle from which I'd say the computer example is similar to morality.

Caprice: a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior. (Meaning not a conscious choice, hence no responsibility.)

That is what the caption from my last post confirms. By the way, that quote is taken from a preeminent study on neuro-biology. It says it all

Caprice: a sudden and unaccountable change of mood or behavior. — Merkwurdichliebe

You're seeing it as contra free will--and you made a comparison to aesthetic judgments? Do you think that aesthetic judgments are deterministic?

Do you think that aesthetic judgments are deterministic? — Terrapin Station

I would say that free will plays a large part in aesthetic assessment and the production of human artifice. In aesthetic assessment, the free will corresponds to intellect and creativity.

The ethical is a qualitatively different mode of existence. As the article says, "at a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be". So it does not meet the sufficient criterion for scientific investigation, and must be explained through another discipline (the article assigns the task to the humanities).

Now, turning to the self-reflective being, although he possesses the same survival instinct as any other social animal (qua. survival of his tribe), he is able to negate his necessary biological relation to the group through self reflection. In this, he discovers he is a sovereign individual who, in essence, stands alone from the group. — Merkwurdichliebe

I think that is a possibility that comes with mastery of symbolically sophisticated language; historically it is a late cultural development. I don't believe that individuals "in essence, stand alone from the group". I think that, considered through the lens of certain perspectives, individuals may be seen to stand alone from the collective. One such perspective is Christianity, the faith wherein we stand naked before God, to whom the faithful find their ultimate responsibility belongs.

When the self-reflective being derives its reality from the group, it would seem that biology is the primary determinant. However, when he transcends his relation to the group, could it be said, he liberates himself and takes upon a new form of existence which is qualitatively antithetical to the mechanistic determinations of biology? — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course it can be said that everything about us, as with any other animal, is rooted in biology. It does seem to be the case that the elaborate self-reflection enabled mostly by language, and most spectacularly once it is sufficiently sophisticated by culture, enables us to do the completely unexpected: to act, not merely in accordance with so-called instinct, but "on a whim" or in a highly controlled and deliberate way contrary to our desires. Such possibility can probably be seen actualized in nascent form in some of the so-called "higher" animals.

The instant the self-relfective being realizes the smallest extent of his agency, he is confronted with the primary choice: to remain subservient to the group, or to take responsibility for himself (which may, on occasion, require him to conform to the group). Perhaps he enters the ethical sphere by choosing the latter? — Merkwurdichliebe

I think this is true. There would seem to be little reason to doubt that, even in prime-itive tribal cultures, it is possible for individuals to act contrary to the established traditions and collective wishes of the group. Once an indivdual becomes aware of the possibility of such a choice, she may choose to act contrary to the tribe or more be more circumspect and conform. I think it also depends on the gravity of the action that is being considered.

If it is a "life and death" matter, most prudent individuals will likely conform. Also moral taboos are internalized, but the likely light punishment for transgression of a relatively insignificant taboo may not be too much of a constraint. I don't think "choosing the latter" is the doorway to the ethical sphere, I think that threshold has already been traversed with the lucid realization of the actual possibility of choice.

Surprisingly, recent research suggests that conscious choice plays a smaller role in our actions than most people assume. In particular, it often comes after brain activity that initiates bodily movements, and many researchers conclude that the conscious choice does not cause the movement (cf. Melillo and Leisman, 2009a,b). That conclusion raises the disturbing questions of whether and how we can ever really be responsible for anything.

We can consciously endeavor to condition ourselves so that our responses or subconscious predictions are of a desirable quality. At least in that way we are responsible.

I think that, considered through the lens of certain perspectives, individuals may be seen to stand alone from the collective. One such perspective is Christianity, the faith wherein we stand naked before God, to whom the faithful find their ultimate responsibility belongs. — Janus

Excellent point. It is important we never forget that we are only discussing a perspective, and not some final or absolute truth

Nevertheless, the relation of religion to the ethical would make for an interesting topic. But, unfortunately, I don't think enough of the members here on TPF are able to traverse perspectives as seamlessly as those like Janus the bifrontal.

Also, let's not forget that Kant and the subsequent phenomenological perspective has contributed much to the notion of individuality, but done so methodologically and scientifically, rather than through the cultivation of faith.

I don't believe that individuals "in essence, stand alone from the group". — Janus

Rhetorically speaking, to identify with individuality is antithetical to group identity. Nevertheless, as it stands, whenever two or more individuals relate, they constitute a virtual society and infect each other with culture. You would have to live in the mountains, with the wolves and hawks, if you were to stand alone in the strictest sense.

Once an indivdual becomes aware of the possibility of such a choice, she may choose to act contrary to the tribe or more be more circumspect and conform. I think it also depends on the gravity of the action that is being considered. — Janus

The so-called "free world" is built on that attitude of the right to individual opinion.

We can also consider the weight of the decision to alienate one's self from the group tradition as resulting from a personal conviction of ethical responsibility. Such a thing can be extremely counterintuitive in relation to the natural instinct toward group preservation.

I don't think "choosing the latter" is the doorway to the ethical sphere, I think that threshold has already been traversed with the lucid realization of the actual possibility of choice. — Janus

I can agree with that, the group morality is just as much a matter of ethical judgement as individual morality. But, I might add that choosing the latter would immerse one deeper into ethical existence, since responsibility becomes acutely focused on the individual rather than diffusely on a collective.

I’m wondering if you’re both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered in the ‘soft’ sciences. — praxis

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my questions, but to answer yours: yes, psychology in particular.

We can consciously endeavor to condition ourselves so that our responses or subconscious predictions are of a desirable quality. At least in that way we are responsible. — praxis

Your are mistaking responsibility for recognition.
What you are talking about is an aesthetic assessment, the part about "conditioning" is only a matter of self interest, it has nothing to do with the ethical. The ethical only gains relevance in proportion to how conscious an individual is in relation to his endeavor; and sufficient consciousness of one's personal responsibility to endeavor, qua. conscience, is a necessary (but not sufficient) component of ethical existence.

What would you say that it amounts to for a concept to be "unified" "at a physical level"?

In my opinion, it would be something that is generally agreed upon within the scientific community. Given that conventional scientific methodology directly investigates the material aspect of reality, it has merit in defining its subject matter as such. Yet, because its criterion confines itself to such strict measures, it is restricted insofar as what it can adequately explain, such as the metaphysical.

But this does not necessarily rule out the existence of any metaphysical realities (*which are more likely to be multiversal than any physical reality, pardon the digression). Hence, the ethical, although it may stem from biology, cannot be adequately explained in terms of biology.

In my opinion, it would be something that is generally agreed upon within the scientific community. — Merkwurdichliebe

So we could say that there's a generally agreed-upon definition in the community. So first, what's the evidence that that's the case for "free will" but not for "morality"?

So we could say that there's a generally agreed-upon definition in the community. — Terrapin Station

The scientific community is not some accidental product of the universe, it is an institution governed by strict regulations, which through it's very own agency establishes criteria of standards and practices that could, at any time, be overthrown, if it were scientifically applicable.

So first, what's the evidence that that's the case for "free will" but not for "morality"? — Terrapin Station

Its only evidence if your criteria for explaining morality is in terms of biology, and not, say, in terms of philosophy.

The scientific community is not some accidental product of the universe, it is an institution governed by strict regulations, which through it's very own agency establishes criteria of standards and practices that could, at any time, be overthrown, if it were scientifically applicable. — Merkwurdichliebe

I haven't the faintest idea what any of that has to do with my comment above it.

Its only evidence if your criteria for explaining morality is in terms of biology, and not, say, in terms of philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Say what? I was asking you what the evidence was for something that was claimed.

Say what? I was asking you what the evidence was for something that was claimed. — Terrapin Station

Yes, it was claimed in a peer reviewed publication regarding a study on the relation of neuro biology to ethics. Are you stupid or just plain booty?

Yes, it was claimed in a peer reviewed publication regarding a study on the relation of neuro biology to ethics. — Merkwurdichliebe

And the evidence of it? Was the evidence given in the article?

Then you would agree that biology has shit to say about morality. Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself for masterbatory purposes.

What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking you a question.

Jesus christ!!!

Of course it was given in the article, do you understand what the purpose of a bibliography is?

Okay, so what was the evidence, just a similar claim in another article or book? (Since you mentioned the bibliography)

Everything you have posted recently screams: "I reject everything involved in the process by which scientific methodology establishes facts about the material world."

I cant necessarily disagree with that sentiment.

I'm just asking for the evidence of a claim. If you don't know, that's okay, but I would just say that.

We can consciously endeavor to condition ourselves so that our responses or subconscious predictions are of a desirable quality. At least in that way we are responsible.
— praxis

Your are mistaking responsibility for recognition. — Merkwurdichliebe

Recognizing the responsibly, sure.

What you are talking about is an aesthetic assessment, the part about "conditioning" is only a matter of self interest, it has nothing to do with the ethical. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean an aesthetic assessment?

Of course we can work to condition ourselves for various objectives but since we’re talking about morality we might assume that I was referring to the morality relevant sort.