Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09621 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 8 May 2000 13:54:42 +0100 Message-ID: <39166ED2.B77C20A0@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 08:37:54 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB14A@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> This would be very interesting if it wasn't entirely flawed in a number of
> ways:
>
> First, how does one define a moral statement? 'breaking the law' has
> nothing to do with morality much of the time, to give just two examples,
> were civil rights marchers in 1960s America morally wrong when they broke
> segregation laws? Are homeless people, with no money morally wrong to steal
> food, and even if they are, is this likely to stop them?
These are interesting questions because they focus on the margins where things
are in flux. Any system of morality has a strong core and weak margins where
laws cannot be exactly defined because of practical conflicts. Focusing on those
as examples of how the system is necessarily compromised by conflicting value
systems is useful and interesting, but these instances of inconsistency don't
prove that it is a general rule that no one knows what morality is.
The source of inconsistencies is a very interesting and revealing research area.
A lot of them these days are due to very rapid cultural and social changes due
to new technologies and economies introduced into the society. For example,
moral structures are largely fixed from sometime in the teen years to the early
twenties on average. People plan their lives around these laws and then cultural
change comes along and makes some of these laws obsolete. But no matter to those
who have already learned them because at that point they cannot change much of
their moral center. This issue is at the heart of generational conflict. It can
make life very difficult and complex for those working in companies where fully
four generations are all in conflict about basic ways of doing things.
I mention this type of conflict as one of several sources of inconsistencies,
but it is probably the most salient because it impacts everyone profoundly.
As to what morality is, I suggest that you look at the actual experiments. But
in general moral principles have to do with being able to look beyond yourself
to see the broader consequences of your action on others. This subject has been
well researched at least since the time of Piaget; it is a fascinating subject.
>
>
> Second, and concomitent with the the first, how does one define a statement
> devoid of moral content? The one cited of 'walking is good for your
> health',
No, I highly doubt that. One thing about moral laws - at least the explicit ones
- is that they cannot have the appearance of self interest; that is the whole
point of morality - that they are laws that are above self interest. (I'm not
saying self interest isn't involved, but it cannot be open and obvious).
> would undoubtedly be seen as more of a moral statement by sections
> of the healthcare industry, or those who see exercise as an essential part
> of living.
>
> Both of these criticisms don't matter, the neuro-scientists would probably
> say, but then a third point is who did they sample? 10 people is an
> abysmally low sample, and they will undoubtedly have selected people with
> very particular moral frameworks- because we all have one.
>
Most scientists would agree with you on this point. But when you get 100% of
the subjects that seem to respond to the same situation in exactly the same way
at a deep brain level, it is a compelling case to continue the research based on
that assumsption by first replicating it with other subjects. MRI experiments
are expensive, so it will take time. But 100% is at least compelling.
>
> Memetics challenges fundamental ideas about questions like morality (i.e.
> that our morals are not innate, but are memes), and perhaps some people
> think that if you can prove morality exists in a particular part of the
> brain, then the theory must be wrong, and (to quote Robert Wright's book) we
> are indeed a 'moral animal'. Personally, I don't buy this at all.
>
I would like to suggest that you have hit on a key part of memetics. It is aimed
at resolving the feeling that most people feel that some part of their lives (or
even their entire life) is "without meaning" which I put in quotes because it
would be useful to define exactly what we mean by that. I can't think of an area
of life in which people have this feeling doesn't pertain directly to values
that are changing so quickly that each generation has different ideas about
them. I read Susan Blackmore's last two chapters in Meme Machine as her being in
intense agony about these questions - a sense of loss of community. Yes, the fax
and the windows O/S which she finds "useless" have indeed fractured a sense of
community by making face to face relationships less important. Where she used to
hand carry papers and messages to her colleagues on campus and use the occasion
to "catch up on things" and build community, she now has fax and e-mail and may
rare if ever see the recipients. That IS a profound change, and it is
disquieting. But while blaming them on memes as things in themselves may give
some solace, it won't get her very far from a practical point of view.
>
> Vincent Campbell
> > ----------
> > From: Wade T.Smith
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2000 2:31 am
> > To: Memetics Discussion List
> > Subject: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center
> >
> > Researchers Identify Brain's Moral Center
> >
> > http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtPrint/EMIHC000/333/7228/280174.html?k=ba
> > s
> > ePrint
> >
> > May 4, 2000
> >
> > SAN DIEGO (Reuters Health) - The brain's moral center<the bit that sorts
> > "right" from "wrong"<has been identified on brain scans, researchers
> > reported here at the American Academy of Neurology's 52nd annual meeting.
> >
> > Drs. Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza and Jorge Moll of the Neurology and
> > Neuroimaging Group, LABS and Hospitais D'or, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, used
> > magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to find out which parts of the brain
> > were working when people were asked to make moral judgments.
> >
> > Ten subjects (six men and four women), aged 24 to 43 years, were asked to
> > make a series of moral judgments while lying inside an MRI scanner.
> >
> > On headphones, the study participants listened to a series of statements,
> > such as "we break the law if necessary," "everyone has the right to
> > live," and "let's fight for peace." In each case, the subjects were asked
> > to silently judge if each sentence was "right" or "wrong."
> >
> > The participants also listened to sentences with no moral content, such
> > as "stones are made of water" or "walking is good for health," and judged
> > these in a similar fashion.
> >
> > Results from brain scans taken as these judgments were being considered
> > showed that making moral choices was associated with activation of the
> > brain's frontal poles<an area known as Brodmann area 10.
> >
> > According to the research team, their findings tie in with previous
> > observations that people who injure this area of the brain may exhibit
> > severe antisocial activity.
> >
> > Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited.
> >
> > ==============================================================This was
> > distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 08 2000 - 13:54:58 BST