1. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110957 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 9:37 am

I am not against civilisation or law, etc. I'm just pointing out that they have to be based on illusions to work.

That's actually quite insightful. It reminds me of Daniel Dennet saying there may be some things it will *not* serve us to look at too closely.

\d

2. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110943 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 9:08 am

Can you FEEL the power of the dark side?

Ha, what an amusing thread. And it ends-up being the *midichlorians after all. Little buggers.

* edit: got my star wars voodoo wrong.

3. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110909 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 7:47 am

We must be honest and realise that morality as prescriptive truth is merely a form of control over others, just as religion is.

Who's morality prescribes to whom? In today's world it's power-based. I think we can split hairs but there are basic "rights" and "wrongs" that get all mixed-up when we have no clarity.

Being relative about things is also where I find myself, simply because every surface one scratches reveals even more complexity. OTOH, spades are spades and we need to protect ourselves against other people. What to do?

\d

4. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110905 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 7:40 am

Interesting - so attempting to empathise with people of any race and sexual orientation is "subconsciously maintaining the power of a certain class"?

I think it's because of your avatar. He's obviously a red skull and thought you were a white guy. He doesn't know that you are really that orange streak of cloud in the backdrop :)

\d

5. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110896 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 7:14 am

Capitalism. The ethos of maximizing corporate financial return leads to predatory behavior. It does not seem possible to provide a "fairly" priced product or service these days (perhaps it never has been and there were no good old days).

Good points. My thinking is that all that is bound-up with our human-nature and there won't be any real compassion amongst strangers as long as we behave the way we do -- and that won't change until light is shed on the reasons. Perhaps it will turn-out that this 'evolved' way is the only one that works. I really hope not.

\d

6. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110892 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 7:04 am

What should he do with his money? - make MS software free?

Why not? Seriously, what harm would it do? Why would it not work? I am not too smart, and I imagine there are economic reasons, but if MS open-sourced everything the world would be drastically different, and a better place in the long-run.

Does that make me a fool? I'm open to new information.

\d

7. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110888 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 6:52 am

the recent open-sourcing of Solaris and Java show the way for the future.

Which is (Java) not entirely complete. It seems obvious (to me, with caution) that business reflects the minds of humans and that reflects the whole survival game - thus secrets and advantages and greed are all a shallow API over the basic genetic drive to replicate -- goes to your last point about our evolution and I wonder if we have the capacity to change ourselves enough to overcome that basic programming.

Surely the open asking of questions and the bold facing of the process of answering them is our best hope. The reactions to the probing of morality are the same as those to the probing of Faith, but without doing that we will always be our own worst enemies.

Sorry, preaching to the choir here :)

\d

8. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110885 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 6:44 am

I think some morals based on instinct will survive indefinitely, and we won't be able to override too much for too long. After all, that instinct has been tuned by millions of years of evolution.

And I really hope we evolve ourselves out of the dead-ends that are so fatally built-in. Xenophobia and so forth. Bring on the nanotech I say!

\d

9. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110883 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 6:33 am

Not sure how to quote, so I'll wing it:

>The demonising of Gates is absolutely pathetic.
I wasn't "demonizing", I think my post was very clear that I doubt my self. You overreact.

>I think it is a reasonable position based on
>evidence, such as the company losing lawsuits
>resulting from shady business practises, being
>fined by the EU for not complying with court
>orders, and being a convicted abuser of their
>monopoly position. They have a documented history
>of attempting to hold back competing technologies
>and services using less-than-honest business
>practices.
Exactly. There *is* evidence and none of that strikes me as 'moral'.

I am apt to be naive, but I can't help thinking that the Open Source world is where new standards of altruism (and what profit entails) will come from. I just hope it all proves to be effective in the long run.

To me, the way things seem now (MS is one example), there is always someone winning on the backs of others. Always a back-hand to a favour. Again, I could be wrong.

\d

10. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110842 by donn on January 13, 2008 at 12:11 am

Gates and Microsoft and morality... I don't know, my feeling is that there's something deeply fishy there.

Unproven beliefs:
1. Whatever money is 'given' away has a purpose: to indoctrinate more young minds into using MS only software.
2. Whatever perception of the 'good' that MS software has done overlooks all the bad things done to get to the top of the pile. How much suffering has been caused by their ruthless business practices?

I cannot shake the feeling that MS software and drugs-pushing are the same thing. All the techniques are there: free samples, low initial prices, lack of choice, dumbing-down effects, high-cost of resistance. It's gone past that now, the price is not low in the west anymore, but viva Africa!

I want to, but can't shake the moral equivalence of MS (not just Gates) and Mother Teresa. It upsets me to hear smart people like Pinker and Dawkins giving them so much respect. It upsets me because I suspect I am seeing a biased picture (due to the respect I have for them) and yet, there are all these seemingly abundant facts on the ground that tell the seedy story of MS.

It's hard to confront a belief like this, but I must say that I may be wrong about MS etc.

\d

11. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81592 by donn on October 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

What the heck, another reply by poem:

~ Why ~

How does religion
answer why?
We can ask this question
because we try
by degrees to
do, not die.
To find conclusion
ask, don't lie.
Invert the meme:
Why does religion
answer how?
Does this make any
sense right now?
In the end, it's
only us
asking why, how
and thus.

/d

12. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81571 by donn on October 24, 2007 at 11:06 pm

I'll try by way of a poem:

~ Wonder ~

We're no different
from the constituent stuff
minds depend by
dust and fluff.
Binary coded to multiply,
selected naturally tough.
Twisting uncertain gyres,
golden sectioned Nautili,
unfolding ferns spire.
Wonder stalks wonder
new worlds to magnify.
Does it ever tire,
rend end asunder?
Charmed spin,
Charged snail --
The snake forever
consumes its tail.

/d

13. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67641 by donn on September 4, 2007 at 5:17 am

This is a little late, but I have been writing and part of that was in reaction to the article. I felt I should post it anyway:

I agree entirely that knowing how the moon shines is irrelevant to the experience, if it was not then it would not be experience. We cannot other than experience the moon shine upon the sea.
We would be cold indeed if this did not move us to poesy and art; but should it not also move us to philosophy, mathematics and science? Why are these human endeavors scorned?

She pours derision upon "scientists" as if they were a unified phalanx of clones; that aside, do you see how she fears explanation? She is content to bathe in a shallow pool of placebo explanation; of emotion and mystery.

Is it not a kind of crime to deny the other, perfectly natural (and one suspects, god-given in her religion) faculties of the human animal? Why can we not find wonder in the minutiae of the facts?

Why can we not marvel at the nature of that light, the nature of reflection, what it can teach us and how questions bloom across the branches of reality like a cherry tree trembling in the wind? What is she so afraid of?