FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:28 am
He doesn't like it when you mention nasty words like 'circular'. But his foundations of morality do rather assume a moral filtering has already occured. The foundational principles that determine what is moral are selected ahead of time by "DNA" and just so happen to have been selected for moral reasons.
Right, and if we assume that is correct. That what is in the brain, the potentials that could drive our behavior, are moral, how do we decide which ones to develop. I mean, I'm with him. I wish there was some more empathy out there. But HE is choosing to focus on mirror neurons, rather than the hypothalomus regions leading to aggression. He has no posts about developing that. Or bemoaning how dumb we are not knowing recent science about that region of the brain. And how IT also has a moral potential, just, perhaps a different moral potential than the mirror neurons. But the Spartans, the Jivaro, those running many corporations, many politicians, do see that part of the brain (without knowing about it, most of them) as moral. Strength, courage, self-assertion, getting things under control and in order (for me and what I value).
But he doesn't mention other brain potentials since they don't match his morality (or better put, what he thinks his morality is). I mention this last because he precisely lacks here cognitive empathy, since he cannot, at least in English, manage to feel his way into any objections to his program, so any objections come from stupidity or immorality. And he seems to lack emotional empathy as well since he has no concern about this....
precisely like people who have not developed the potential of the mirror neurons.
So, we have this overrideing dominating, dismissive presence, creating thread after thread judging anyone who disagree and not just when they get snarky first, telling us to develop our mirror neurons just like a teenager still wrestling with his first surges of testosterone who thinks he knows how all his elders fucked up and could run things better if he was in charge.
I didn't start out snarky with him and met him elsewhere in other forums. But he was so utterly dismissive and judgmental and never, at least in words on the screen, took seriously any objection, that I got snarky.
He might as well be the East India Company or missionaries amongst Native Americans or any other program pusher who is intimately in contact with the ideas in their heads and not much with the 'barbarians' they want to control and tell what is good and right
One other pattern that I have noticed is that he does integrate what people say, without acknowledging it. His posts will soon after a scientific of philosohical objection that can be googled, show information and potentially better arguments to fend off such objections. Without ever admitting, hey good point, let me mull. Using the very resistance he thinks is stupid, outdated and immoral.