Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in human[4] and primate species,[5] and in birds.[6]

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni (UCLA) have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help us understand the actions and intentions of other people. In a study published in March 2005 Iacoboni and his colleagues reported that mirror neurons could discern whether another person who was picking up a cup of tea planned to drink from it or clear it from the table.[16]
In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Empathy is a critical element of morality.
“It’s been shown in humans that there is a similar, shared mechanism for ‘self’ pain and our ability to ‘feel’ the pain of others,” Colloca told PRF (see Zaki et al., 2016).
Link
The above imply that mirror neurons will trigger the same pain the neural circuits in the other person [who will feel the same real pain in themselves] when they see pains in others or inflict pain in others.

There is more research to be done, but what is essential is the principle of pain being mirrored across via the discovered mirror neurons [as verified and justified].

As I had proposed, there is an inherent moral potential programmed within all humans [active in some; less active dormant in others; or defective in some].

Morality is related absolutely to 'good' in contrast to 'evil'.
What is evil is always associated with pain.
Thus pain is an auto feedback within a moral system for one to avoid evil.

It is this auto-feedback system that is represent the oughtness and ought-not-ness within the brain as a matter of facts that deters one from committing evil.

In a way, it exists as a physical state within the human brain, i.e.
the ought-not-ness that one ought not to kill humans, else, the mirror neuron will kick-in to activate the auto-feedback to generate pain in one who intent to kill another human.

This is why the majority of humans whilst has the potential to kill do not simply go out and kill humans because they have an inherent moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill human, else it will trigger pain in themselves.

Those who kill humans at present has a dormant, very low active or defective moral potential in linkage to the mirror neuron system which itself could be dormant, very low active or defective. This is typical in psychopaths like pantflasher and others.

My point;
the discovery of the existence of mirror neurons is the clue to the inherent moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by physical neural correlates in the brain.

Peter Holmes, et. al. has always rely on strawman to counter my argument.
Note I don't make claims of moral statements, opinions, out of thin air, but rather as justified above, my moral facts are based on the inherent moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by physical neural correlates in the brain.

Peter, just in case you want to response to the above, note my maxim,
ALL facts are specific to a FSK.
Scientific facts are specific to the scientific FSK.
Thus moral facts are specific to the moral FSK.
[given the above are all credible as justified].
Also do not impose your nonsensical moral FSK on my credible moral FSK.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Iwannaplato »

The science indicates that there is an inherent empathetic quality to humans and other animals.

It does not indicate that there is an inherent morality.

Our brains have mechanism that lead to emotions that lead to all sorts of reactions from craving dopamine hits from sugar to aggression to whatever.

YOu can't say, oh, look, there is a facet of the brain that leads to empathy, and because (I think) empathy will lead to kinder actions and (I think) kinder actions are moral, then being kind, say, is objectively moral.

This kind of reasoning would lead to all sorts of absudities like eating ice cream is moral, look how much kids desire this and how the dopamine cycles in the brain search out ice cream. It is objectively moral to eat ice cream cause there is a brain mechanism.

Again the core problem is...

The science indicates that there is an inherent empathetic quality to humans and other animals.

and that's it.

The category error gets repeated ad infinitum, but futher the cherry picking and actual implications of the 'argument' never get looked at. I put argument in scare quotes because the CORE MOMENT, the leap, is not argued, just stated.

We are supposed to be convinced because empathy could and likely often does lead to actions that fit with many moralities. Well, duh, of course we try to make rules so that what we like is a rule. But we also have contradictory likes and distrusts and aggression and desires that don't fit with many moralities. And in fact moralities have often been put in place precisely out of a distrust of human nature and also to keep those in power in power.

Nothing indicates that a brain pattern creating an emotional state is objectively moral. It just is what it is.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 12:33 pm The science indicates that there is an inherent empathetic quality to humans and other animals.

It does not indicate that there is an inherent morality.

Our brains have mechanism that lead to emotions that lead to all sorts of reactions from craving dopamine hits from sugar to aggression to whatever.

YOu can't say, oh, look, there is a facet of the brain that leads to empathy, and because (I think) empathy will lead to kinder actions and (I think) kinder actions are moral, then being kind, say, is objectively moral.

This kind of reasoning would lead to all sorts of absudities like eating ice cream is moral, look how much kids desire this and how the dopamine cycles in the brain search out ice cream. It is objectively moral to eat ice cream cause there is a brain mechanism.

Again the core problem is...

The science indicates that there is an inherent empathetic quality to humans and other animals.

and that's it.

The category error gets repeated ad infinitum, but futher the cherry picking and actual implications of the 'argument' never get looked at. I put argument in scare quotes because the CORE MOMENT, the leap, is not argued, just stated.

We are supposed to be convinced because empathy could and likely often does lead to actions that fit with many moralities. Well, duh, of course we try to make rules so that what we like is a rule. But we also have contradictory likes and distrusts and aggression and desires that don't fit with many moralities. And in fact moralities have often been put in place precisely out of a distrust of human nature and also to keep those in power in power.

Nothing indicates that a brain pattern creating an emotional state is objectively moral. It just is what it is.
Agreed - and nicely expressed. The fallacy is the same every time: this fact entails this moral conclusion. Here it is again.

'Humans are programmed to do X; therefore, X is morally right.'
'Humans are programmed not to do X; therefore, X is morally wrong.'

These are non sequitur fallacies. And they are easily shown to have grossly immoral implications.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:37 pm Agreed - and nicely expressed. The fallacy is the same every time: this fact entails this moral conclusion. Here it is again.

'Humans are programmed to do X; therefore, X is morally right.'
'Humans are programmed not to do X; therefore, X is morally wrong.'

These are non sequitur fallacies. And they are easily shown to have grossly immoral implications.
I think we could say that when inventing moralities the human tendencies for feeling and action will have effects on the rules and guidelines invented.
I think that would be an ok conclusion. And the complexity of brains and one could even argue contrasting urges and reactions then lead to a variety of moralities.

What bothers me about his kind of posting is that his arguments include implicit steps, ones that likely seem obvious to him. The fact that he leaves them out means that effective disagreeing means doing his work for him first - fleshing out what his argument really is or seems to be - and then showing that it is misguided or fallacious.

In his OP above, some of the unstated argument would be that since empathy might tend to lead to behavior that is like what he considers moral then it is not only causal, and universal (despite some moralities radically deprioritizing empathy and the attendant behaviors and attitudes) but even objective.

Why would a hardwired emotional reaction is a primate necessarily be objective?
It likely in the short term mirror neuron affected attitudes and behavior have been adaptive. Short term in evolutionary terms. It aided group cohesion I would guess and also might improve communication.
But that doesn't mean it is objectively good. I mean, the insects are doing well also and some of them are socially terrifying.
Give us a couple of million years and we can weigh in on long term goodness, here meaning something like health of the species.

And this still leaves us a leap from objective morals.

Let's say there was a God or some Platonic objective moral. Well, humans, it might turn out in the drama of the universe, could be the evil monsters putting all other species in jeopardy. What's good for us might not be Good.

But since he never actually goes in and does the work, but sort of implies the steps, assumes the obviousness, it's a pain in the ass to refute. Also for other reasons.

Your response to my post is much more concise, focusing on the leap as it does.
'Humans are programmed to do X; therefore, X is morally right.'
'Humans are programmed not to do X; therefore, X is morally wrong.'
A kind of side but important issue would be...
if I am programmed to think X is good, I am not the person to judge if that is the case.

Of course I don't need to justify all the leaps and implicit arguments. It is all so obvious.
Never asking the question 'why is the obviousness not questionable?'
And my objectivity on the issue?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:37 pm Agreed - and nicely expressed. The fallacy is the same every time: this fact entails this moral conclusion. Here it is again.

'Humans are programmed to do X; therefore, X is morally right.'
'Humans are programmed not to do X; therefore, X is morally wrong.'

These are non sequitur fallacies. And they are easily shown to have grossly immoral implications.
You are too ignorant of what is morality.

Note the fundamental and primary definition of morality;
Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
As such Morality in general is about promoting 'good' and avoid 'evil' and so our task is to trace its origins to human nature, psychology and the brain.

In addition the secondary feature of morality;
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
As such this body of standards and principles must be alignment with what is within human nature. Thus it must relate to something that is a matter of fact represented by its physical referent, i.e. in this case the moral potentials within supported by its neural correlates of which the physical mirror neurons are part of that potential.

Suggest you counter the OP re Mirror Neurons rationally with proper research.
It is useless to agree with that stupid fool, Iwannaplato who is in my 'ignored list' after noting his stupid arguments from another forum.
Mirror neurons support a lot of other functions [language, culture, etc.] and one of those is related to morality.

Suggest you read [which I am sure you will not] to understand Mirror Neurons and their relation to Morality.
The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human
V. S. Ramachandran [a very credible and popular neuroscientist]

Your sense of morality is too loose which is associated with moral opinions, ideas, thoughts, statements, and the likes which are relative and subjective to different people's views.
As I had stated, you [a moral fact denier] are stuck in an archaic paradigm which is improvised from the defunct logical positivists' ideology on morality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by popeye1945 »

I believe it is a metaphysical realization, Schopenhauer stated once, that when one violates the prime directive of self-survival it is the realization that you are one with the other. I other words empathy and compassion involve expanded concepts of the self. We know instinctively that the other is capable of the same joys and suffering as we ourselves are prone to. I think this discovery of mirror neurons is just underlining that fact. We know too, or should know, that the essence of life is the same across the board, the difference lies in structure and form, not the essence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:53 am I believe it is a metaphysical realization, Schopenhauer stated once, that when one violates the prime directive of self-survival it is the realization that you are one with the other. I other words empathy and compassion involve expanded concepts of the self. We know instinctively that the other is capable of the same joys and suffering as we ourselves are prone to. I think this discovery of mirror neurons is just underlining that fact. We know too, or should know, that the essence of life is the same across the board, the difference lies in structure and form, not the essence.
Whilst I do not agree with Schop Will-in-itself, I agree with almost everything he stated in his two volumes WaWaR and the basic will-to-survive is not only applicable for the individuals but also for the species.

Schopenhauer declared that the true basis of morality is compassion or sympathy [empathy]. Link
Now this true basis, i.e. empathy is related to mirror neurons the physical referent and thus the objective moral fact as proven by science and reinforced within a moral FSK.

This will-to-survive will drive the moral oughtness [the moral fact] to facilitate the individuals to be 'good' [not evil] thus facilitates the individuals' survival and thus of the species.

Yes, the discovery of mirror neurons with one of its function in relation to morality is one fact, i.e. moral fact.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness

Post by Iwannaplato »

and as always
universal objective

it could very well be objective that humans have a tendency to be empathetic (along with other tendencies that may suppress this in certain circumstances or even in general)

but this does not make the behaviors associated with empathy objectively moral.

So, we could have facts about brains and tendencies to react and behave, but this does not produce objective moral facts.
Post Reply