|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The next person I hear...
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Autenrieth Road: This is a statement not just that one's brain chemistry reacts differently to same-sex vs. opposite-sex couples
I suspect that I'd have a rather strong reaction in my brain chemistry when looking at porn with a lesbian couple. Does that mean that they are morally ok?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I had FTFY'ed and edited out IngoB's scare quotes. What he actually said was:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
everybody still knows that a marriage between a man and a woman is a different sort of thing than a "marriage" between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
This is a statement not just that one's brain chemistry reacts differently to same-sex vs. opposite-sex couples, but also, via the scare quotes, that legally and morally we are not justified in treating them as the same.
When I see couples where one partner is a lot taller than the other, I always wonder "how do they have sex?" (Yes, yes, I know how they have sex, but the difference in where their faces would presumably be relative to each other always seems strange to me... OK, fine, I'm just digging in deeper.)
Anyway, as long as we're doing armchair fMRI experiments, I would suspect that my brain has a different reaction when shown a couple close to the same height vs. when shown a couple of very different heights and asked about them being married.
But nobody wastes their time asserting that
quote:
everybody still knows that a marriage between two people of similar heights is a different sort of thing than a "marriage" between two people of very different heights.
And if someone says that both types of couples are married and their marriages are the same, no-one thinks it's very important to say "aha, gotcha, your brain reacts differently to them, therefore they're really different, so different in fact that one is a marriage and the other is only a "marriage"."
It seems a mad line of argument to me. Show me a film of some fat hairy-arsed guy pumping up and down in sex, and I would probably have the ick reaction. But I don't really want to ban him from having sex, getting married, or shaving his arse.
From the brain to the legislature in one smooth and insane trajectory.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These discussions always seem to get back to some kind of essentialism or oughtism. Marriage is essentially X - well, I don't think the state should be getting involved in that, and as far as I can see, the state tends to agree, well in many European states, and presumably the US.
Balls. Given that marriage is a condition that is legally recognised and has legal consequences, the state has to define it in some way, and that involves deciding what it must or must not entail.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted: that was in reply to LeRoc]
There's a lot more in determining morality than doing brain scans.
[ 01. July 2015, 15:27: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
My sex life would, in fact, be entirely compatible with what "natural moral law" apparently thinks I should be doing. ie: I do not have any sex-drive-related reason why I should fool myself into not listening to NML, because it won't really place any further restrictions on my behaviour. I still utterly DISAGREE with it.
You are a human being, your motivations can be a bit more complex than simply following biological desires. For example, you may have decided that you would like to support gay people in following their biological desires, may have noted that one way their desires gets attacked is by arguing using natural moral law, and hence gained strong ulterior motives to utterly disagree with it.
Or indeed your own disagreement could be perfectly "objective", being based on a clear-headed assessment of all available facts to the best of your mental abilities. Who knows.
However, I'm hardly saying something outrageous when I point out that people are really good at rationalising their desires and ulterior motives. And matters of sex give rise to strong desires and ulterior motives quite readily. You can of course turn the tables here and say that I am compromised in my thinking. Again, who knows.
However, the statement that an approach based on difficult philosophical analysis may find it tough to generate much impact in matters of sex is, I believe, highly plausible.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. Only productive sex is natural (not just a leap of logic, but demonstrably false by spending some time actually observing nature, including human nature, including those lovely monogamous heterosexual couples we've all heard about).
First, I don't know what you mean by "productive". If you mean by that in principle capable of causing conception, then fine. If you mean by that actually causing conception, then this is not what the discussion is about.
Second, this comment quite simply does not use the right meaning of "natural". "Natural" here does not mean "as can be found in nature" (range) or "as common in nature" (frequency), but rather "as appropriate to the kind of thing this is" (purpose). While indeed both range and frequency usually give strong indications about purpose, it is thinkable that neither range nor frequency correspond to purpose. For example, assume we find the wreck of an alien race since long died out, and in it we find many thousands of metal discs. These become quite popular for decoration, as coasters or as tokens in games. But their actual function was to store information in subtle rearrangements of the metallic structure, which we do not have the technology to detect. In this case, without being aware of it we are abusing these metal disks and what we do with them is no indication of their actual purpose. Obviously that is a constructed example, but the point is that simple observational bookkeeping is not enough to determine purpose. One has to make a functional analysis.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
2. Only productive sex is moral. There are any number of things I do with my body and mind which aren't goal-directed, and yet no-one seems to object. Is chewing gum immoral because it isn't food? Is wordless singing immoral because it fails to praise God? Is punching the air immoral because I've failed to strike an evildoer? Is using an exercise bike immoral because I haven't travelled anywhere?
Your purpose in using an exercise bike is exercising, which strengthens your cardiovascular and locomotive systems and hence contributes to your flourishing. Your exercise bike does precisely not twist your limbs into shapes that would compromise their functional integrity. And if somebody tried to sell an exercise device that achieved strengthening at the price of ruining your joints or the like, then we would precisely consider such a device as unsuited for purpose, and the attempt to sell it as immoral.
Punching the air if in the form of shadowboxing is basically the same case minus the exercise bike. Likewise punching the air to release pent-up frustration is a purposeful action aimed at restoring mental balance, a good thing. None of these abuse the muscular apparatus of your arm in a way not corresponding to its functionality. Or if they do, for example if your inept punches have such poor form as to tear muscles in your shoulder, then indeed these are bad and continuing to ruin your shoulder this way would be immoral. Furthermore, if you are in the habit of randomly punching the air for no good reason, then that is is somewhere between a quirk and a mild psychological disturbance, and possibly something you should have looked at by a doctor.
The purpose of wordless singing is probably an expression of a happy mental state through your vocal chords, entirely in keeping with their functions. It is clearly part of human nature to express itself beyond the direct praise of God, and it would be indeed unnatural to be restricted solely to that. While it is certainly moral to sing the praise of God, it would be immoral to restrict all vocal expression to that. Chewing gum is perhaps the only mildly relevant item on the list. It has aspects that are OK, like perhaps getting rid of superfluous nervous energy, and it does not engage the body in acts directly contrary to its purposes (except perhaps by delivering a bit too much saliva to the stomach). However, as far as it provides a certain illusion of eating while providing no sustenance, it can be seen as problematic.
Natural moral law theory does get a bit murky when we have to decide on the importance of things, or at least my (actually quite limited) readings of it make it seem so. I can still argue that sex is generally more important to us experientially and behaviourally than chewing gum. But just how much more important, and where precisely is the line that let's us say that chewing gum is at worst a minor issue which we can let slide, whereas sex is something of too much importance to the individual to get wrong? Mind you, I think the usual conclusions are reasonable, but the actual arguments become less watertight there. Well, at least the one's that I have seen.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These discussions always seem to get back to some kind of essentialism or oughtism. Marriage is essentially X - well, I don't think the state should be getting involved in that, and as far as I can see, the state tends to agree, well in many European states, and presumably the US.
Balls. Given that marriage is a condition that is legally recognised and has legal consequences, the state has to define it in some way, and that involves deciding what it must or must not entail.
OK, but secularism is minimalist, isn't it? Or rather, it is becoming mimimalist. I'm talking about the essentialism of 'procreative sex', or 'romantic love', or 'till death do us part', which are being, or have been, stripped away.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Autenrieth Road: There's a lot more in determining morality than doing brain scans.
Exactly, that's what I was trying to show. In fact, I find the brain scan argument rather ridiculous.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Dear vile, smug German Catholic,
I don't actually read your posts any more. I have an arrangement. I scroll past.
Occasionally I spot a sentence as I scroll past. I think that happened over in Dead Horses a little while ago.
More commonly, I read a bit of what you've written because someone else quoted it, cutting your endless ramblings down to manageable size.
Even more commonly, I can just figure out the gist of what you've said by the responses of others - usually strongly denying whatever you said.
My scrolling has briefly indicated you've quoted me just now. That is the sum total I intend on finding out about whatever thoughts you just vomited up all over your keyboard.
Dear everyone else,
Feel free not to quote him or do anything else with whatever he said. You can if you really want to, but there's no need to do it on my account. The amount of time I save by not having to read the longest posts on the Ship is a real bonus.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The problem with the natural moral law is that it's not a natural law. Natural laws are objective and can be discerned experimentally or inferentially from experience. If everybody's equipment is working right, they're going to come up with the same number for the acceleration due to gravity, modulo variations which can also be explained naturally.
We only know what the natural moral law is because we have the Catholic Church to tell us. Otherwise we would disagree all over the place and have no arbiter (the role played in science by controlled and measured observation) between us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It doesn't even work on its own terms - what happens to ideas which have changed throughout RC history? Was it a "natural law" that heretics should be burned? Or just a very bad idea?
And if it is about precedence, what happens when Orthodox and Roman Catholic teaching disagrees? What happens if there are ancient first century communities found which did not follow the patterns of the RC church? Do these not have precedence?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These discussions always seem to get back to some kind of essentialism or oughtism. Marriage is essentially X - well, I don't think the state should be getting involved in that, and as far as I can see, the state tends to agree, well in many European states, and presumably the US.
Balls. Given that marriage is a condition that is legally recognised and has legal consequences, the state has to define it in some way, and that involves deciding what it must or must not entail.
OK, but secularism is minimalist, isn't it? Or rather, it is becoming mimimalist. I'm talking about the essentialism of 'procreative sex', or 'romantic love', or 'till death do us part', which are being, or have been, stripped away.
Actually the 'till death us do part' thing may be in part a suitable parallel. I believe that there are some jurisdictions (outside the Anglophone world, I think, but I can't remember where) which offer two types of marriage, one time-limited and one not; but the expectation in the UK jurisdictions at least is that marriage is intended to be life long, although not all couples will achieve this and so there is provision for marriages to be dissolved.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This is not just bullshit, it's bullshit based on a deeply flawed premise.
It is neither one, nor the other. My first suggested experiment did not involve any "ick factor" anyhow. Rather, it was using reaction times to detect when your brain needs extra computing to come to a conclusion. You can interpret this mechanistically in various ways, but a speedier reaction upon seeing a man and a woman would quite literally mean that your brain finds it easier to classify such a couple as "potentially married". Without doubt we would also see influences from other factors, for example age difference. But I'm pretty certain that we would get this effect, and that does tell us something about the internal mental representation. For example, a speculative mechanism would be a learned higher "override" of a lower classifier.
The "ick factor" experiment was more aimed at claims that one sees all sex as equal. If one would see the insula activated, then it would suggest a likely disconnect between emotional and cognitive response. Once more the idea would be to demonstrate a learned higher "override" of a lower response, but this time involving emotions. Obviously there are also many other ways of making sex appear "disgusting", but that's neither here nor there. The point is that there would be a demonstrable disconnect in this case.
That we tend to find sex between our parents "icky" is interesting and worth further study. However, I did not claim at all what you consider "bullshit", namely that an "ick" reaction to gay sex proves that gay sex is immoral (or some such). Actually, there certainly are some relationships between reactions of disgust and morality, but anyhow, this was simply not what I was talking about.
What I did rather talk about was Autenrieth Road's claim that she doesn't even know the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage (anymore). This is, I'm rather sure, demonstrably wrong. We can detect her brain knowing the difference, even if her learned behavioural response is to deny it (nowadays). Whether one or the other is right or wrong is a different issue, my point was that this world is not so brave and new that people literally have a single category "marriage" in their brains now. Or at least I don't think so, and I think one can test that claim.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dear vile, smug German Catholic,
I don't actually read your posts any more. I have an arrangement. I scroll past.
That negates his advantage. See, as much as he pretends otherwise, I don't think he is trying to use logic or reason to convince anyone. (Like, he can't think any of that is either, can he?) his tactic seems to be inundation and repetition to the point of forcing acquiescence.
Can't really blame him, after all, it was done to him.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Autenrieth Road: There's a lot more in determining morality than doing brain scans.
Exactly, that's what I was trying to show. In fact, I find the brain scan argument rather ridiculous.
Ah, I see now. I misunderstood the point of your post.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
his tactic seems to be inundation and repetition to the point of forcing acquiescence.
Indeed.
It is fairly well established that Ingo likes fighting metaphors of various kinds to describe the Ship. Whether it's a good old-fashioned medieval joust or whatever.
I think he reasons that he has won if he's the last person left on the field of battle.
Which of course is not remotely the same as having convinced anyone of anything. Well, apart from being convinced that he's a total jerk who thinks that the goal of argument is to drive the other person away.
I really wasn't kidding when I said I found him one of the most graceless people I've ever had this much conversation with. Not just on this topic, on any topic. So I figure the best response is simply not to give him the oxygen. Responding is exhausting. Scrolling, I'm finding, is quite relaxing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What I did rather talk about was Autenrieth Road's claim that she doesn't even know the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage (anymore).
That wasn't the rhetorical force of what I was trying to say, anymore than the rhetorical force of you banging on about how they're different is just to point out a difference, with no intent to draw legal and moral implications from the difference.
quote:
This is, I'm rather sure, demonstrably wrong. We can detect her brain knowing the difference, even if her learned behavioural response is to deny it (nowadays). Whether one or the other is right or wrong is a different issue, my point was that this world is not so brave and new that people literally have a single category "marriage" in their brains now. Or at least I don't think so, and I think one can test that claim.
Fine though. Have it your way for the most naive interpretation of what I'm trying to talk about. Sure, there is an obvious difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Sure, my brain reacts differently. My brain reacts differently to a whole lot of things. Some of those things you're eager to hang morality on and argue "see, they're different and that means this one isn't really marriage".
What brain scan results have to do with a discussion about whether or not opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are both marriages, or whether one is true marriage and one is fake so-called marriage, I have no idea.
As near as I can tell, you're banging on about it because you have speculations about which brain scan results are potentially malleable, and which are im-malleable, and you think this says something about which things we should consider legally and morally the same in essence, or not.
The statement "everyone knows these are different" was used by Krystor in that blog post you linked in which he's crowing that (paraphrase) "everyone knows these are different, so everyone is going to continue being disgusted by them and think same-sex so-called married couples aren't really married and nothing has changed for them after the Supreme Court decision and nyah-nyah-nyah they're still disgusting and icky." (If nothing has changed, the antis can all quit belly-aching and swearing resistance, since nothing has changed ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) .)
Your quibbling about what we mean when we say "know" reads in that light as a rhetorical strategy to push your and Krystor's implicit argument of "there is something different about these couples than those couples, therefore these couples are not really married."
Let me revise and see if this meets your quibbling standards: "there are obvious differences between lots of different kinds of couples, which I notice consciously and which can be measured by doing brain scans of me, and probably a lot more kinds of differences which I don't notice consciously but which can still be measured by doing brain scans of me, showing that I do notice them unconsciously. However, for me same-sex couples who are married are married in all ways that matter to what the definition of the word marriage is for me (morally), and now is (legally) for the United States and many other countries, in the same way that opposite-sex couples are married, interracial couples are married, different height couples are married, etc."
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
As near as I can tell, you're banging on about it because you have speculations about which brain scan results are potentially malleable, and which are im-malleable, and you think this says something about which things we should consider legally and morally the same in essence, or not.
Sort of... If your mind really was "undifferentiated smooth" concerning this topic, then that would be a problem. I would be roughly in the position of convincing a colour-blind person that two colours they perceive as identical are in fact different colours. However, if you are in fact perceiving the difference but only "post-processing" it to be false or irrelevant, then my job is more like convincing somebody who can see both green and red just fine that an Irish costume should be the former but not the latter, that this colour choice matters. I only need to change the "post-processing" that you do.
Oh, and I am neither Krystor nor will I underwrite every word he wrote in the blog article I linked to. However, I think he does make some good points in that article.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Good luck working on my post-processing.
There would have been much easier ways rather than hauling out the speculative brain scans to try to check whether I really meant to express that I can't see the difference in physical appearance between typical same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
If your rhetorical strategy really depends on whether I personally have a difference in reaction times detectable in your armchair mri experiment, then you haven't gained anything to direct you because you have nothing more than the speculation you started with as to the actual result of the experiment.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
There would have been much easier ways rather than hauling out the speculative brain scans to try to check whether I really meant to express that I can't see the difference in physical appearance between typical same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
It's not whether you can distinguish two men, two women, or a woman and a man by their physical appearances. That is not the point. Obviously you can usually do that... It's about whether and how your mind classifies these couples as "potentially married".
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
If your rhetorical strategy really depends on whether I personally have a difference in reaction times detectable in your armchair mri experiment, then you haven't gained anything to direct you because you have nothing more than the speculation you started with as to the actual result of the experiment.
I don't have a rhetorical strategy. And I think I have said something interesting.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Part of the problem with "Natural Moral Law" when it moves from a concept to a "system" is that as a "system" it is not particularly natural, does not always have much to do with morals, and isn't even particularly good as a basis for law. It is so flexible as to be unsuited for the purposes to which it is usually put; it's like using a kite string for a sword.
All of these are unsubstantiated assertions. As for all human inquiries, there are various approaches and disagreements within the study of natural moral law.
No doubt we will all pray that your ability to perceive unsubstantiated assertions will someday be equally good when applied to your own writings.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Am I the only one I find myself wondering if Ingo goes back and gives it to his wife good after each post, to prove his marriage is indeed valid and ours are not?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Am I the only one I find myself wondering if Ingo goes back and gives it to his wife good after each post, to prove his marriage is indeed valid and ours are not?
Ew. Yes, yes you are.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This thread is not puerile enough, please try harder.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...I don't have a rhetorical strategy. And I think I have said something interesting.
quote:
IngoB: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
IngoB: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
IngoB: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
IngoB: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
IngoB: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
IngoB: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
IngoB: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
IngoB: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
IngoB: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
IngoB: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Am I the only one I find myself wondering if Ingo goes back and gives it to his wife good after each post, to prove his marriage is indeed valid and ours are not?
Not any more. Thanks for that.
Mind you, I'm now finding the term "recovery phase" could be equally apt in both situations...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's not whether you can distinguish two men, two women, or a woman and a man by their physical appearances. That is not the point. Obviously you can usually do that... It's about whether and how your mind classifies these couples as "potentially married".
Since the brain scan stuff is purely armchair science as far as the results of my own personal brain scan, you know just as much diddly-squat about that and about me as before.
If you want to assume the results are one way or another, be my guest.
If you want to say, "oh but almost everyone (or even everyone) scanned so far reacts and shows a difference, so I'm being scientific and objective about what I assume about you, and not just making convenient assumptions to suit my preconceived beliefs", be my guest.
What is it you were trying to achieve by raising the brain scan idea? I can't help you out by telling you what my unconscious knows, because -- newsflash -- it's unconscious. But you're smart enough to have known that from the beginning, so... what are you trying to achieve?
I don't think it matters what brain scans say one way or another, for me or anyone else, as far as what we should conclude about same-sex marriages as a matter of morality and law (separate realms, I know), but knock yourself out demonstrating how it bolsters your position.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What is it you were trying to achieve by raising the brain scan idea?
He gets to use big long sciency words, which is reward enough. Social 'scientists' love doing that, pretending their subject is actually predictive rather than the post-Enlightenment equivalent of hepatomancy.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't think it matters what brain scans say one way or another, for me or anyone else, as far as what we should conclude about same-sex marriages as a matter of morality and law (separate realms, I know), but knock yourself out demonstrating how it bolsters your position.
Perhaps such a brain scan would indicate you were brought up in a society that didn't have SSM. And if we scanned your great-grandkids 40 years from now, it would show they were. BFD.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
If I look at a picture of two people before drinking a Hobgoblin, and then look at a picture of two people after drinking a Hobgoblin, my brain scan will give a different result.
This is important for the morality of marriage, because, er ...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I really think we should do this experiment.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
But mousethief, don't you know science is cruelly objective? Don't go bringing in alternative interpretations here, you wouldn't want to undermine the appearance that IngoB seems to want to convey that the results of these scans are scientifically and objectively significant for determining that same-sex marriage is only fake marriage.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Alright, I need to admit something. I know it is wrong and if you analyse it there's probably some sexism in there, but it is true. When I see a (straight) couple where the woman is taller than the man, my first gut reaction before my intelligence kicks in is: this looks kind of funny.
I know, I know. It's stupid and it's wrong. I have some very good friends who are in such relationships, and they have been married for years and I like them very much. And there are probably Shipmates who are in such relationships, and I apologise to them. But you can't always control your first gut reaction. And my first reaction is this. There you go.
Now, if you would do an experiment where you would show me pictures of couples and ask me "do you think they are married?" I think this would show up. I would probably hesitate a microsecond longer with couples where the woman is taller than the man. Or it would show in my brain scan. Or whatever.
So, natural moral law says that when a couple where the woman is taller than the man "marries", it is not a real marriage.
C'mon IngoB, this brain scan argument is complete and utter crap.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
LeRoc, from what IngoB has said so far, in the merest sliver of a response to similar kinds of examples that I have raised, one needs to bolster the current brain scan results with the speculation that the responses to same-sex couples are immutable, while responses to other differences in couples are mutable.
I am in awe at the objective science, free of any possible bias fueled by preconceived notions, on display here.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Autenrieth Road: This is a statement not just that one's brain chemistry reacts differently to same-sex vs. opposite-sex couples
I suspect that I'd have a rather strong reaction in my brain chemistry when looking at porn with a lesbian couple. Does that mean that they are morally ok?
It is moderately common to provide students in various medically allied professions explicit information about the range of sexual behaviour humans engage in. The follow up discussions invariably include that hetereo and homosexual people are aroused with explicit video material of things not part of their preference. Essentially everyone is turned by everything. Which also tells us that sex is only a portion of attraction and orientation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I look at a picture of two people before drinking a Hobgoblin, and then look at a picture of two people after drinking a Hobgoblin, my brain scan will give a different result.
This is important for the morality of marriage, because, er ...
I really think we should do this experiment.
I will be the first to volunteer. Any sacrifice for science.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Since the brain scan stuff is purely armchair science as far as the results of my own personal brain scan, you know just as much diddly-squat about that and about me as before. If you want to assume the results are one way or another, be my guest.
Most actual scientific experiments come about by scientists following up on their hunches, rather than by some neutral "let's just measure something". So would this one.
Incidentally, the key experiment is a simple reaction time measurement requiring a projection screen, a clock and a button, not a "brain scan". It's a simple little experiment to do...
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What is it you were trying to achieve by raising the brain scan idea?
I've already explained that above, at length?!
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
C'mon IngoB, this brain scan argument is complete and utter crap.
What would be "crap" would be to draw the kind of conclusion about natural moral law from this that you did. However, I have not done that. At all. Nowhere. The only people who have stated such "crap" are other posters, like you now, who apparently assume that whatever I say must always be understood as contributing to just one train of thought only...
What I have done is to discuss this in terms of the brain's ability to classify, pointing out that the results I expect would be suggestive concerning the internal representation of the concept "marriage". Basically, I expect we would see the "conservative" view as faster reactions peeking out under the "liberal" view as slower (more difficult, possibly multi-stage or top-down corrected) reactions.
You now say that you think I can even detect your prejudice concerning appropriate body sizes for lovers this way, Maybe so. But this would just confirm the power of this method (rather beyond my own expectations), rather than somehow refuting it!
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
LeRoc, from what IngoB has said so far, in the merest sliver of a response to similar kinds of examples that I have raised, one needs to bolster the current brain scan results with the speculation that the responses to same-sex couples are immutable, while responses to other differences in couples are mutable.
Sorry, but I have difficulties recognising anything I have actually said here. It's OK if you don't understand my responses, and perhaps they weren't clear enough in spite of their considerable length - but you then should avoid inept paraphrases thereof.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
LeRoc, from what IngoB has said so far, in the merest sliver of a response to similar kinds of examples that I have raised, one needs to bolster the current brain scan results with the speculation that the responses to same-sex couples are immutable, while responses to other differences in couples are mutable.
I am in awe at the objective science, free of any possible bias fueled by preconceived notions, on display here.
The idea that anything in the brain is immutable just strikes me as pretty bizarre. I mean, just this week I watched a documentary which showed that:
(1) the brains of obese people respond in a very different way to the brains of non-obese people to images of fatty or sweet food, and
(2) gastric bypass surgery turns off the elevated brain response in obese people, in a way not currently understood but repeatedly observable.
A few weeks ago, another program showed how pain response in the brain differs and how people can actually consciously control pain response with certain techniques.
The idea that, in contrast to things like pain and appetite, our response to pairings is hard-wired in a universal fashion is just completely ludicrous. It's fairytale stuff.
[ 02. July 2015, 02:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted with Orfeo; this is in response to IngoB]
At this point, from all you've said, as far as I can tell, you raised the brain scans as a thought experiment to check whether I truly don't react differently unconsciously to the suitability of marriage for same-sex couples vs. marriage for opposite-sex couples, or whether I do react differently.
You have indicated that this is so that the answer to the question will let you know how to proceed next in the discussion at changing my mind.
Given that I haven't had such a brain scan done, and obviously can't give you any information about things I am only aware of unconsciously:
I have no idea why you raised the brain scans in the way you did at all.
If you had started the discussion by saying something along the lines of "these brain scans have been done and most people have these differential responses, and I suspect you do too," that would make sense to me as an assertion of something you believe, and we could have immediately proceeded to discuss what significance the results of such brain scans have or don't have for the precipitating question, which was whether same-sex marriages are real marriages or fake marriages.
We could also have discussed what difference conscious vs. unconscious knowledge makes in assertions about the world, and whether we ever intend or interpret the word "know" as being a statement about conscious states only, and whether that's appropriate, and whether it would be helpful to be clearer about distinguishing which kind of knowledge we're talking about.
But you appear to have doubled down on the idea that you didn't intend to talk about generalities, but in fact were looking for confirmation from me personally about something about my own unconscious, which by definition I can't give you.
That's the main point.
And I'm completely baffled, because it seems like you have chosen such an entirely illogical way of proceeding (that is, trying to get me to confirm something about my unconscious which by definition I won't be able to confirm for you) that I find it hard to believe that that is what you really intend.
If that's not what you intend, then there has been a complete breakdown of communication because in that case I have no idea what point you're trying to make or what you're trying to find out or where you want the discussion to go.
Have such scans actually been done? If so, can you give reference(s)? Either electronic or paper references are fine; electronic references are usually more convenient but I have library resources that should permit me to track down paper references, or paywalled electronic references.
~~~
A minor point is that I was trying to understand why you threw in your speculations that responses to same-sex couples are immutable, while the responses to interracial couples are mutable. Since you reject my interpretation, I will acknowledge that I have no idea why you threw in those speculations in the context of the discussion. That's a minor point, and I'm happy to leave your speculations out of the conversation unless you raise them again as relevant to some future point you wish to make.
[ 02. July 2015, 02:46: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Incidentally, the key experiment is a simple reaction time measurement requiring a projection screen, a clock and a button, not a "brain scan". It's a simple little experiment to do...
Thank you for the correction. I had thought you mentioned fMRI scans, which is why I've been referring to brain scans. (And I'm open to correction on whether or not "brain scan" is an appropriate word in connection with fMRI scans either.)
The kind of experiment you describe here is essentially the same as what I understand the experiments on people's reactions to black vs. white to be. I'll try to refer to the experiments you describe more accurately than "brain scan".
Do you have references for the reaction experiment you just described, or has this experiment not been done and any results are hypothetical at this point?
I'll look for references to the black/white experiment.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Orfeo, this is the post from which I was recalling IngoB's speculations, in particular his third paragraph:
here.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, this does not really touch the point I was making, namely that everybody - including you - still "knows" this at some level. And while this is admittedly entirely speculative at this point in time, I will make the following prediction: we will (perhaps: eventually) be able to find adults who do not have such instinctive "race" knowledge (and we will likely find them in the most "cosmopolitan" places, i.e., this is learned, if at an early stage). Whereas we will never find adults who do not have such instinctive "sex" knowledge (indicating either that this is "hardwired" into the brain, or that no stable society can exist that does not sufficiently maintain and teach this differentiation, or likely both).
Since IngoB has disavowed my pastiche, it would be better to base your responses on what IngoB himself said rather than my mistaken interpretation.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Incidentally, the key experiment is a simple reaction time measurement requiring a projection screen, a clock and a button, not a "brain scan". It's a simple little experiment to do...
Thank you for the correction. I had thought you mentioned fMRI scans, which is why I've been referring to brain scans. (And I'm open to correction on whether or not "brain scan" is an appropriate word in connection with fMRI scans either.)
The kind of experiment you describe here is essentially the same as what I understand the experiments on people's reactions to black vs. white to be. I'll try to refer to the experiments you describe more accurately than "brain scan".
Do you have references for the reaction experiment you just described, or has this experiment not been done and any results are hypothetical at this point?
I'll look for references to the black/white experiment.
The reaction time experiment presumably is meant to describe something like an implicit association test; this site has tests designed to measure unconscious attitudes in a number of areas. "The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key."
The mention of fMRI was part of IngoB's musings about your likely reaction to "some nice heterosexual and homosexual porn".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Thanks, DaveW. I'm familiar with those types of reaction time tests.
IngoB also mentioned neuroimaging in connection with the original, non-porn question:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[...]my claim that "everybody still knows that a marriage between a man and a woman is a different sort of thing than a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman."
I'm pretty sure that I can objectively show with psychological experiments and neuroimaging that you, personally, do still "know" this difference
IngoB, suppose I posit that reactions in general or even among everyone on such tests about "are same-sex couples as suitable to be married as opposite-sex couples" would be as you (say has been found? hypothesize will be found?). Suppose I even posit that those results will never change, and the black/white results might change.
What bearing does this have on what we should conclude about same-sex marriages vs. opposite-sex marriages in the realms of morality and law?
If they have no bearing on that question, why did you bring them up?
[ 02. July 2015, 03:59: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Orfeo, this is the post from which I was recalling IngoB's speculations, in particular his third paragraph:
here.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, this does not really touch the point I was making, namely that everybody - including you - still "knows" this at some level. And while this is admittedly entirely speculative at this point in time, I will make the following prediction: we will (perhaps: eventually) be able to find adults who do not have such instinctive "race" knowledge (and we will likely find them in the most "cosmopolitan" places, i.e., this is learned, if at an early stage). Whereas we will never find adults who do not have such instinctive "sex" knowledge (indicating either that this is "hardwired" into the brain, or that no stable society can exist that does not sufficiently maintain and teach this differentiation, or likely both).
Since IngoB has disavowed my pastiche, it would be better to base your responses on what IngoB himself said rather than my mistaken interpretation.
Well it makes no difference. The fact that most everyone can recognise a male or a female (assuming this is true) has got nothing meaningful to do with how one responds to a male or female.
It's just the trigger. The trigger for what?
Everything I said still stands. Both obese and non-obese people recognise the food images, but their responses to those images is different. Pretty well everyone can recognise a pain stimulus, but the response to the stimulus is most definitely not automatic and hardwired. That idea was thrown out decades ago. It was old hat by the time I was studying neuroscience in the mid-to-late 1990s.
Seeing a clown is the trigger for delight in some people, and fear and revulsion in others. Ingo basically suffers from the equivalent of a clown phobia and wants to insist that all human beings naturally suffer the same phobia.
[ 02. July 2015, 04:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The funny thing is, if you understand a bit about Cultural Anthropology (which I'm sure IngoB does), then one thing that becomes clear is that there is nothing 'natural' about our concept of marriage as two people who love eachother enough so that they will stay together and care for their children.
When cultural anthropologists study societies around the world, the first thing they discover is how different concepts of 'marriage' are in different cultures, who can marry whom, what happens with possession, with children ... In fact, this enormous variety of ideas about 'marriage' is their main way of identifying and classifying cultures.
If there is a constant in this whole variety, it is only one. In the vast majority of cultures, marriage is not a contract between individuals, but a contract between families (where the concept of 'family' can also vary very wildly). Our idea of marriage between individuals is a) a very recent invention b) very much the exception instead of the norm. That it has become to be seen as the norm has much more to do with Western cultural domination of the world than with anything else.
There are individual people involved of course, but who they are varies wildly. In some cultures, the people who marry can only be family members in a complex degree. In some cultures, the people who marry aren't the ones who are actually going to have sex. In some cultures, children aren't seen as belonging to their biological parents (and don't even know who they are). And in some cultures, the people who marry can be of the same sex.
The idea that there is something natural or universal among humans happening in our brains when we think of the concept of marriage is preposterous. If there is, it is because it is taught.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
LeRoc, I still remember, and appreciated very much, the description you gave a few (several?) years ago, in the context of talking about uncontacted tribes I believe, about an example of one kind (among many possibilities, all equally different from what we're used to) of society they might have, based on tribes you're familiar with, and how very very very different their assumptions and culture are than ours (and also why contact would be so very very damaging to them).
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I really wasn't kidding when I said I found him one of the most graceless people I've ever had this much conversation with. Not just on this topic, on any topic. So I figure the best response is simply not to give him the oxygen. Responding is exhausting. Scrolling, I'm finding, is quite relaxing.
You say that, but watch out for carpal tunnel syndrome.
As for IngoB, given he's supposed to work in neuroscience, I wonder how he couldn't have figured out that people's brains respond to the unfamiliar differently than how they respond to the familiar. All the brain scan shows is unfamiliarity or disgust.
Just keep arguing IngoB.. you've convinced so many people.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Bingo works in neuroscience? Epilepsy is tedious* enough without the knowledge that he might even be tangentially involved.
*yup. Tedious is the word.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These discussions always seem to get back to some kind of essentialism or oughtism. Marriage is essentially X - well, I don't think the state should be getting involved in that, and as far as I can see, the state tends to agree, well in many European states, and presumably the US.
Balls. Given that marriage is a condition that is legally recognised and has legal consequences, the state has to define it in some way, and that involves deciding what it must or must not entail.
OK, but secularism is minimalist, isn't it? Or rather, it is becoming mimimalist. I'm talking about the essentialism of 'procreative sex', or 'romantic love', or 'till death do us part', which are being, or have been, stripped away.
Actually the 'till death us do part' thing may be in part a suitable parallel. I believe that there are some jurisdictions (outside the Anglophone world, I think, but I can't remember where) which offer two types of marriage, one time-limited and one not; but the expectation in the UK jurisdictions at least is that marriage is intended to be life long, although not all couples will achieve this and so there is provision for marriages to be dissolved.
I realized that there is a book called 'Minimizing Marriage' which seems to be about this stripping away, which I mentioned. Author: Elizabeth Brake. She seems to be suggesting that the state pulls back, and stops valorizing marriage, or stops giving it moral prestige, or turns it into a minimal legal contract.
This sounds a bit like some libertarians, who recommend the state withdrawing from personal relationships, although this seems unlikely to happen, partly because of children, and also various legal rights, e.g. inheritance.
But there are some interesting aspects to these arguments - e.g. need a marriage be sexual, the question of polygamy, internet relationships, and so on. I suppose in the end, you might have friends getting married, for legal reasons. (And in fact, they probably already do).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have no idea why you raised the brain scans in the way you did at all.
Thought process: "Those ideological statements about knowledge... I bet it's not as simple as that, I bet there's some kind of high level override over lower level cognition happening there. ... Hey, wait ... I bet I can show that experimentally. Cool! <types comment>"
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
And I'm completely baffled, because it seems like you have chosen such an entirely illogical way of proceeding (that is, trying to get me to confirm something about my unconscious which by definition I won't be able to confirm for you) that I find it hard to believe that that is what you really intend.
I didn't ask you to confirm anything, other than possibly by sitting down to do these experiments.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Have such scans actually been done? If so, can you give reference(s)?
Experiments like the two I have described have certainly be done, so the tech is readily available. The specific ones I have described have probably not be done. But I have not searched the literature, and I'm neither a cognitive psychologist nor a psychophysicist by trade...
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
A minor point is that I was trying to understand why you threw in your speculations that responses to same-sex couples are immutable, while the responses to interracial couples are mutable.
If I used the word "immutable" at all, then only in accommodation to you. You came up with that word...
Anyway, I was just thinking ahead. If one can show that there is a low level classifier that still maintains a "marriage" vs. "gay marriage" distinction in people who declare that there is no such distinction, then one can ask whether that low level classifier is merely a remnant of "bad education", and hence could be absent in future generations due to "good education". And one can ask similar questions about a potential low level "race" classifier. My point was that these two are not necessarily the same. In particular, it could be that "race" classification can be unlearned, or rather, never learned, whereas "proper couple" classification cannot be removed. There are reasons why this could be the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What bearing does this have on what we should conclude about same-sex marriages vs. opposite-sex marriages in the realms of morality and law?
For better or worse, it would mean that morality and law face a perpetual uphill battle against human low level cognition, if they want to maintain that there is no distinction. Now, the meaning of this and its evaluation is where we leave the realm of science. I would of course conclude that we see here quite simply the embodied realisation of the "natural moral law" designed into human beings. Basically, we would have hit upon (one of) the brain mechanisms supporting correct moral evaluation. But of course you could also evaluate this as a typical "design flaw" carried over from "less enlightened" times, showing merely that evolution is no substitute for good moral reasoning. Science cannot show which interpretation is true. But science can supply this data which would demand interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The funny thing is, if you understand a bit about Cultural Anthropology (which I'm sure IngoB does), then one thing that becomes clear is that there is nothing 'natural' about our concept of marriage as two people who love eachother enough so that they will stay together and care for their children.
Marriage was the main topic and guiding organisational principle of cultural anthropology in early Victorian times, perhaps. They have diversified a bit since then, best I can tell... Anyway, minus the modern West, please do tell us about the variation cultural anthropology has found concerning what sexes are matched up in marriage, and whether that has anything to do with producing offspring. And you can skip any statement beginning with "they found some tribe in the rain forest..." Simple global stats will do.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Bingo works in neuroscience? Epilepsy is tedious* enough without the knowledge that he might even be tangentially involved.
Understanding underlying mechanisms of brain disease is indeed part of my work. I'm not working on epilepsy at the moment though. That you would rather I did not is duly noted.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Dingo's posts re neuro remind me of J. Phillipe Rushton. Just different measurements and a different focus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This is not just bullshit, it's bullshit based on a deeply flawed premise.
It is neither one, nor the other.
It is bullshit. Regardless of the effect you might be able to summon with such experiments, a similar effect could be shown to exist for a myriad of other irrelevant aspects, such as skin colour, religion, language traits, or political affiliation. Moreover, you have not even a shred of reason to assert that said effect would be consistent or meaningful.
And it is deeply flawed - because all these aspects are indeed irrelevant. Human pairs of adults should be allowed form officially-recognized marriages. To whit: access to legal partnership privileges, family medical benefits, end-of-life decision authority, to celebrate their loving partnership, and all that jazz.
If you want to consider your Magical Catholic™ marriage as being better and different, that's just fine. You already do exactly that with most human marriages anyway. And nobody is asking for everybody to have access to Magical Catholic™ marriage, making your teleological arguments look petty and pointless. How about you move on to addressing global warming, like you've been instructed to do.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
