|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2008 11:27:39 AM · #1826 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just watched a repeat viewing of The Dark Knight. There are some awesome morality themes in that film. The two ferries scene is particularly interesting.
For those who haven't seen. Two ferries are full of passengers and rigged with bombs. Each has a detonator to the other bomb. In 15 minutes both will blow up unless one blows the other up. One ferry is full of mobsters; the other normal citizens. What do you think would happen? |
Mobsters are goners. |
Good thought. If they don't get to the trigger first. Regardless of what happens in the movie (it's a movie after all), I'm more interested in whether the scenario reveals anything about us. I'd be curious about Dahkota's thought. She views the world through the lens that everybody is basically good. What do you think would happen in this scenario? |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 11:29:21 AM · #1827 |
| It's a freakin' movie and a hypothetical situation. Gotta say that I really just don't care. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 11:37:25 AM · #1828 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
It's a freakin' movie and a hypothetical situation. Gotta say that I really just don't care. |
Yep. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 11:44:16 AM · #1829 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just watched a repeat viewing of The Dark Knight. There are some awesome morality themes in that film. The two ferries scene is particularly interesting.
For those who haven't seen. Two ferries are full of passengers and rigged with bombs. Each has a detonator to the other bomb. In 15 minutes both will blow up unless one blows the other up. One ferry is full of mobsters; the other normal citizens. What do you think would happen? |
Mobsters are goners. |
Good thought. If they don't get to the trigger first. Regardless of what happens in the movie (it's a movie after all), I'm more interested in whether the scenario reveals anything about us. I'd be curious about Dahkota's thought. She views the world through the lens that everybody is basically good. What do you think would happen in this scenario? |
I think that before either side can do anything, Pink Power Princess will gallop through the sky on her magic flying Rainbow Unicorn and her magic sparkle dust will defuse the bombs and fill everyone with feelings of love, peace and harmony. The Joker will have a successful future entertaining at childrens' parties and Batman/Bruce Wayne will start seeing a therapist to help him work through his issues surrounding the death of his parents. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 12:00:02 PM · #1830 |
Public release date: 17-Dec-2008
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]
Contact: Jennifer Faddis
faddisj@missouri.edu
573-882-6217
University of Missouri-Columbia
Selflessness, core of all major world religions, has neuropsychological connection
COLUMBIA, Mo. ΓΆ€“ All spiritual experiences are based in the brain. That statement is truer than ever before, according to a University of Missouri neuropsychologist. An MU study has data to support a neuropsychological model that proposes spiritual experiences associated with selflessness are related to decreased activity in the right parietal lobe of the brain. The study is one of the first to use individuals with traumatic brain injury to determine this connection. Researchers say the implication of this connection means people in many disciplines, including peace studies, health care or religion can learn different ways to attain selflessness, to experience transcendence, and to help themselves and others.
This study, along with other recent neuroradiological studies of Buddhist meditators and Francescan nuns, suggests that all individuals, regardless of cultural background or religion, experience the same neuropsychological functions during spiritual experiences, such as transcendence. Transcendence, feelings of universal unity and decreased sense of self, is a core tenet of all major religions. Meditation and prayer are the primary vehicles by which such spiritual transcendence is achieved.
"The brain functions in a certain way during spiritual experiences," said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the MU School of Health Professions. "We studied people with brain injury and found that people with injuries to the right parietal lobe of the brain reported higher levels of spiritual experiences, such as transcendence."
This link is important, Johnstone said, because it means selflessness can be learned by decreasing activity in that part of the brain. He suggests this can be done through conscious effort, such as meditation or prayer. People with these selfless spiritual experiences also are more psychologically healthy, especially if they have positive beliefs that there is a God or higher power who loves them, Johnstone said.
"This research also addresses questions regarding the impact of neurologic versus cultural factors on spiritual experience," Johnstone said. "The ability to connect with things beyond the self, such as transcendent experiences, seems to occur for people who minimize right parietal functioning. This can be attained through cultural practices, such as intense meditation or prayer or because of a brain injury that impairs the functioning of the right parietal lobe. Either way, our study suggests that 'selflessness' is a neuropsychological foundation of spiritual experiences."
The research was funded by the MU Center on Religion and the Professions. The study ΓΆ€“ "Support for a neuropsychological model of spirituality in persons with traumatic brain injury" ΓΆ€“ was published in the peer-reviewed journal Zygon.
"Our research focused on the personal experience of spiritual transcendence and does not in any way minimize the importance of religion or personal beliefs, nor does it suggest that spiritual experience are related only to neuropsychological activity in the brain," Johnstone said. "It is important to note that individuals experience their God or higher power in many different ways, but that all people from all religions and beliefs appear to experience these connections in a similar way." |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 12:46:36 PM · #1831 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=fir3bird]
Good thought. If they don't get to the trigger first. Regardless of what happens in the movie (it's a movie after all), I'm more interested in whether the scenario reveals anything about us. I'd be curious about Dahkota's thought. She views the world through the lens that everybody is basically good. What do you think would happen in this scenario? |
I cannot control what other people do nor what they think. Also, I can only account for my own actions. In this situation, knowing that regardless of what I do, there is a 66% chance I will die, I would do my best to convince the people on the boat with me to abandon ship, regardless of which boat I was on. I would not encourage them to blow up the other boat, as that would, within my moral code, be wrong. With this scenario, you are assuming one group is not good (mafia) and one group is good (normal people). How would the thought experiment change if the passengers on the second boat, rather than 'normal' people, were the wives, children, and families of the mafia guys. Would the scenario change? Would your thoughts about it? Would your reaction? It is more telling if YOU have a different response depending on who is on the boat. My response will be the same regardless... |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 12:49:20 PM · #1832 |
"The brain functions in a certain way during spiritual experiences," said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the MU School of Health Professions. "We studied people with brain injury and found that people with injuries to the right parietal lobe of the brain reported higher levels of spiritual experiences, such as transcendence."
So that explains it! |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 01:04:24 PM · #1833 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=fir3bird]
Good thought. If they don't get to the trigger first. Regardless of what happens in the movie (it's a movie after all), I'm more interested in whether the scenario reveals anything about us. I'd be curious about Dahkota's thought. She views the world through the lens that everybody is basically good. What do you think would happen in this scenario? |
I cannot control what other people do nor what they think. Also, I can only account for my own actions. In this situation, knowing that regardless of what I do, there is a 66% chance I will die, I would do my best to convince the people on the boat with me to abandon ship, regardless of which boat I was on. I would not encourage them to blow up the other boat, as that would, within my moral code, be wrong. With this scenario, you are assuming one group is not good (mafia) and one group is good (normal people). How would the thought experiment change if the passengers on the second boat, rather than 'normal' people, were the wives, children, and families of the mafia guys. Would the scenario change? Would your thoughts about it? Would your reaction? It is more telling if YOU have a different response depending on who is on the boat. My response will be the same regardless... |
Certainly that's consistent with your previous statements. One of the interesting things I find about this thought experiment is if anybody a) doubts that one boat would blow up and b) pushing the detonator yourself would be considered moral? |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 01:54:48 PM · #1834 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=fir3bird]
Good thought. If they don't get to the trigger first. Regardless of what happens in the movie (it's a movie after all), I'm more interested in whether the scenario reveals anything about us. I'd be curious about Dahkota's thought. She views the world through the lens that everybody is basically good. What do you think would happen in this scenario? |
I cannot control what other people do nor what they think. Also, I can only account for my own actions. In this situation, knowing that regardless of what I do, there is a 66% chance I will die, I would do my best to convince the people on the boat with me to abandon ship, regardless of which boat I was on. I would not encourage them to blow up the other boat, as that would, within my moral code, be wrong. With this scenario, you are assuming one group is not good (mafia) and one group is good (normal people). How would the thought experiment change if the passengers on the second boat, rather than 'normal' people, were the wives, children, and families of the mafia guys. Would the scenario change? Would your thoughts about it? Would your reaction? It is more telling if YOU have a different response depending on who is on the boat. My response will be the same regardless... |
Certainly that's consistent with your previous statements. One of the interesting things I find about this thought experiment is if anybody a) doubts that one boat would blow up and b) pushing the detonator yourself would be considered moral? |
For the purposes of the "thought experiment" it's required that everyone take the scenario as "fact": in other words, the situation is exactly as described. One boat, or both, WILL be blown up, but you have it in your power to determine which of the three outcomes actually occurs.
Any waffling by introducing doubt as to the "facts", any waffling that introduces a hypothetical 4th outcome that is not stated in the "experiment" itself, is meaningless.
But then, that's basically what both sides of this thread have been doing for 100's of pages now :-) I have never seen so many red herrings in one place in my life...
So c'mon, Doc. Sticking to the "facts", how do YOU resolve this conundrum. And yes, "by slipping into a catatonic state" is an acceptable answer :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 01:58:37 PM · #1835 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So c'mon, Doc. Sticking to the "facts", how do YOU resolve this conundrum. And yes, "by slipping into a catatonic state" is an acceptable answer :-)
R. |
WWJD? |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 02:21:47 PM · #1836 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think that before either side can do anything, Pink Power Princess will gallop through the sky on her magic flying Rainbow Unicorn and her magic sparkle dust will defuse the bombs and fill everyone with feelings of love, peace and harmony. |
Jeez, let me explode my own ferry first.... |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 02:31:07 PM · #1837 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So c'mon, Doc. Sticking to the "facts", how do YOU resolve this conundrum. And yes, "by slipping into a catatonic state" is an acceptable answer :-)
R. |
WWJD? |
Well, He smote the moneylenders in the temple, and His Father obliterated Sodom & Gommorah, so the smart money says he'd blow the Gangster Ferry to smithereens, but who knows?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 02:32:21 PM · #1838 |
| He could just walk away.... :-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 02:34:00 PM · #1839 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
He could just walk away.... :-) |
Oh, SNAP!
R.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2008 03:06:28 PM · #1840 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So c'mon, Doc. Sticking to the "facts", how do YOU resolve this conundrum. And yes, "by slipping into a catatonic state" is an acceptable answer :-)
R. |
WWJD? |
Well, He smote the moneylenders in the temple, and His Father obliterated Sodom & Gommorah, so the smart money says he'd blow the Gangster Ferry to smithereens, but who knows?
R. |
And during his crucifixtion he said something to the effect of "forgive them Father - for they know not what they do". |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 03:08:17 PM · #1841 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
He could just walk away.... :-) |
If both groups on the ferrys denied his existence - he just might. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 03:15:17 PM · #1842 |
| Just having a little fun here, Flash. This gets too deep and heated once in awhile, and I kinda wonder about morality exercises I don't think very many of us will face any time soon (which boat to blow up?) A more realistic exercise (and no, can't think of one) might be more appropriate and cause folks to give more serious thought to the matter. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 03:23:41 PM · #1843 |
| A real life story where there is only one ferry. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 03:56:59 PM · #1844 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So c'mon, Doc. Sticking to the "facts", how do YOU resolve this conundrum. And yes, "by slipping into a catatonic state" is an acceptable answer :-)
R. |
Hell if I know. Here's why I find the experiment interesting. I do think that if this somehow played out in real life one of the ferries would be blown up within minutes. Given hundreds of people on each and given very little time to think and given the chance to live, it would be a race to detonate the other ferry by somebody. Don't most people agree in their gut with this assertion? Maybe the criminals detonate the normals or vice versa, but someone is blowing up.
This truth reflects my basic problem with the argument that our morality is hardwired in our brains; that it has evolved in a genetic sense. First, I think that people would be initially skeptical that it would be "moral" to detonate the other ferry. It's possible an argument could be constructed that would say it was, but our initial feeling would be that it would be immoral. Second, it goes to show that when the chips are down, we have trouble acting "morally". My biggest question with the hardwired morality theory is why it is so hard to listen to something that is hardwired within us? If "right" action is that which is genetically encoded within us, why isn't it much easier to act "rightly"? Why is it so hard? Why does our language reflect that our "base instincts" are typically those we consider immoral?
At the very least it indicates to me that human morality has advanced far beyond its genetic rudiments. At most it indicates that human morality is a construct that is designed to actually combat what IS genetically encoded within us (selfishness, greed, deceit, self-preservation, etc).
I'm open to a response from the genetic contingent.
EDIT: I thought this was a great line by the Joker: "You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
Message edited by author 2008-12-17 16:51:38. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 06:19:52 AM · #1845 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This truth reflects my basic problem with the argument that our morality is hardwired in our brains; that it has evolved in a genetic sense. First, I think that people would be initially skeptical that it would be "moral" to detonate the other ferry. It's possible an argument could be constructed that would say it was, but our initial feeling would be that it would be immoral. Second, it goes to show that when the chips are down, we have trouble acting "morally". My biggest question with the hardwired morality theory is why it is so hard to listen to something that is hardwired within us? If "right" action is that which is genetically encoded within us, why isn't it much easier to act "rightly"? Why is it so hard? Why does our language reflect that our "base instincts" are typically those we consider immoral?
|
Achoo, survival is not immoral. All life forms have the basic survival instinct, from amoeba to human (including plants). It is hard-wired. When presented with a life or death situation, every life form will either fly or fight (playing dead is a flight instinct, and it too is hard-wired). Humans, like all other life forms, have no choice in the response. However, because humans are imbued with reason, they can modify it (keep your head while all around are losing theirs). But, this too seems to be hard-wired. Some people freeze, some flee, some fight, some make rational decisions based on circumstance. No one truly knows what they will do until presented with a situation that forces a reaction. We can play Monday Morning quarterback but its all meaningless conjecture. Morality kicks in when we are able to reason; it works that way for animals also. Altruism is a conscious choice, not an unconscious reaction (there are those that will argue that there are people that risk their lives for others without thought for their own safety but, knowing quite a few of them, I will argue that higher reasoning has already happened in an analysis of the situation - and they are not in a fight or flight situation for their own survival).
So, my assessment of the boat situation is that the majority of the 'mafia' people will have the fight instinct and will do just that - fight for survival. The normal people will be split between fight and flight, with a few falling into catatonia, and a few being able to assess the situation through higher reasoning. Some will get off the boat, some will help others off the boat, some will try to blow up the other boat, and some will fall to their knees and cry or pray. Its not that they have forgotten their morals, it is that their lower brain doesn't, for the short term, allow them higher reasoning and thus choice.
For a much more fascinating study on morality, which I find very difficult to rationalize, try The Stanford Prison Experiment (alternate Wiki summary). The outcome of this experiment still shocks me, and I find it difficult to explain in what I believe in an inherently good world. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 10:11:26 AM · #1846 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This truth reflects my basic problem with the argument that our morality is hardwired in our brains; that it has evolved in a genetic sense. First, I think that people would be initially skeptical that it would be "moral" to detonate the other ferry. It's possible an argument could be constructed that would say it was, but our initial feeling would be that it would be immoral. Second, it goes to show that when the chips are down, we have trouble acting "morally". My biggest question with the hardwired morality theory is why it is so hard to listen to something that is hardwired within us? If "right" action is that which is genetically encoded within us, why isn't it much easier to act "rightly"? Why is it so hard? Why does our language reflect that our "base instincts" are typically those we consider immoral?
At the very least it indicates to me that human morality has advanced far beyond its genetic rudiments. At most it indicates that human morality is a construct that is designed to actually combat what IS genetically encoded within us (selfishness, greed, deceit, self-preservation, etc).
I'm open to a response from the genetic contingent. |
Your problem is in the use of "hard wired". Our responses couldn't possibly be hard-wired for every situation. What has evolved is the ability to weigh a multitude of inputs (sensory, memory, instinct), process those weights, and come up with a plan of action. But that kind of system will typically come up with multiple results, sometimes with very close weights, leaving us unsure whether what we feel is the right decision is really the best. How many decisions have you ever made in your life without at least some niggling doubt over it. This artificial situation has been created in such as way as to maximize the amount of doubt over the decision for most people. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 11:23:30 AM · #1847 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Your problem is in the use of "hard wired". Our responses couldn't possibly be hard-wired for every situation. What has evolved is the ability to weigh a multitude of inputs (sensory, memory, instinct), process those weights, and come up with a plan of action. But that kind of system will typically come up with multiple results, sometimes with very close weights, leaving us unsure whether what we feel is the right decision is really the best. How many decisions have you ever made in your life without at least some niggling doubt over it. This artificial situation has been created in such as way as to maximize the amount of doubt over the decision for most people. |
Well, this I can agree with. I do think, however, it's quite different to say we've evolved the ability to reason instead of saying our morality is evolved. As I mentioned in discussion earlier, I don't necessarily doubt we've evolved instincts, but morality, to me, is the reasoned system to "weigh a multitude of inputs" (I like how you put it). The ability to reason could also be evolved, but I highly doubt the "system" (ie. the algorithm) is evolved. It's different and separate; either a construction of our mind/society or a Supreme Being. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 11:57:59 AM · #1848 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
For a much more fascinating study on morality, which I find very difficult to rationalize, try The Stanford Prison Experiment (alternate Wiki summary). The outcome of this experiment still shocks me, and I find it difficult to explain in what I believe in an inherently good world. |
An interesting read. Listen, I don't begrudge you for trying to have a positive outlook on the world. It would be nice to go around believing that everybody is willing to help you or others as a default reaction. I just don't think it describes the world I see very well. The Prison Experiment could reveal that a bit, but it seems to have had enough issues that I'd be reticent to base my argument upon it. Too many real world examples can be had anyway ranging from the logistical machine required to exterminate millions of Jews (a project so big it doubtlessly required many, many "normal" Germans to go along) down to warrentless communications tapping in the name of "security" to not paying the parking meter because we're only going to be "a few minutes". When I look in the mirror I know all the darkness harbored inside of me.
Anyway, it's not necessarily fun to view the world as broken, but it does describe the world quite well.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 11:58:59. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:04:55 PM · #1849 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Your problem is in the use of "hard wired". Our responses couldn't possibly be hard-wired for every situation. What has evolved is the ability to weigh a multitude of inputs (sensory, memory, instinct), process those weights, and come up with a plan of action. But that kind of system will typically come up with multiple results, sometimes with very close weights, leaving us unsure whether what we feel is the right decision is really the best. How many decisions have you ever made in your life without at least some niggling doubt over it. This artificial situation has been created in such as way as to maximize the amount of doubt over the decision for most people. |
Well, this I can agree with. I do think, however, it's quite different to say we've evolved the ability to reason instead of saying our morality is evolved. As I mentioned in discussion earlier, I don't necessarily doubt we've evolved instincts, but morality, to me, is the reasoned system to "weigh a multitude of inputs" (I like how you put it). The ability to reason could also be evolved, but I highly doubt the "system" (ie. the algorithm) is evolved. It's different and separate; either a construction of our mind/society or a Supreme Being. |
Why can't it have evolved? We can tackle such problems quite efficiently using Heurisitic Algorithms in computer science. I see no reason to attribute this to anything other than intrinsic ability (the system we are born with) applied to our own experiences. Why should this system be any different from other systems in our body? You're an doctor, right? Is our immune system the result of divine intervention, or the evolutionary result of millenia or organisms adapting to survive in their surroundings? Or is your litmus test based on the role of reasoned thought in the system? Do other animals not reason? Have you ever watched a squirrel figure out how to get to a bird feeder? The fact is that animals do think and reason, so why is it such a stretch to believe that they may have some equivalent to what we call morality? I suggest that they do, but because their heuristic may be different from ours, that we may not immediately recognize it. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:15:35 PM · #1850 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: I thought this was a great line by the Joker: "You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." |
As much as I am loath to discuss a basically unrelated hypothetical...
Having just seen the movie in question... don't you think it's a bit ironic that in this so called 'experiment' none of the three options actually occurs, and that people, when the chips are down, prevent both the boats from blowing up, completely invalidating the quote just posted?
Let's hear it for sappy Hollywood sentimentality? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 12:29:34 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 12:29:34 PM EDT.
|
