Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[Saint Guinefort]

Speaking of cool science: The "hate circuit" in the human brain appears to have been found!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028205658.htm

The study, by Professor Semir Zeki and John Romaya of the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology at UCL, examined the brain areas that correlate with the sentiment of hate and shows that the 'hate circuit' is distinct from those related to emotions such as fear, threat and danger – although it shares a part of the brain associated with aggression. The circuit is also quite distinct from that associated with romantic love, though it shares at least two common structures with it.(ibid)

And:

The 'hate circuit' includes structures in the cortex and in the sub-cortex and has components that are important in generating aggressive behaviour, and translating this into action through motor planning, as if the brain becomes mobilised to take some action. It also involves a part of the frontal cortex that has been considered critical in predicting the actions of others, probably an important feature when one is confronted by a hated person.

The subcortical activity involves two distinct structures, the putamen and insula. The former, which has been implicated in the perception of contempt and disgust, may also be part of the motor system that is mobilised to take action, since it is known to contain nerve cells that are active in phases preparatory to making a move.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I know of no math equations that can predict an individual's behavior. Statistics will give indicators of most likely responses based upon averages, but that's it.

That would be a mathematical/scientific approach.

Given that science NEVER demands absolute proof but rather deals in probabilities the statistics of which you speak are, indeed, the scientific model that explains behaviors.

In fact the science of Psychology is predicated on this very thing. Which is why any psychology paper worth it's salt will have statistical analyses and p-values to support the explanations.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That would be a mathematical/scientific approach.

Given that science NEVER demands absolute proof but rather deals in probabilities the statistics of which you speak are, indeed, the scientific model that explains behaviors.

In fact the science of Psychology is predicated on this very thing. Which is why any psychology paper worth it's salt will have statistical analyses and p-values to support the explanations.

What's the math equation for Hate?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

What's the math equation for Hate?

I think you are missing the point. There is no equation for "hate"...but there clearly is a physical aspect to the brain responsible for it. That physical aspect can be characterized and understood through physical scientific techniques.

As to why people might feel hatred if you want to characterize that it will be in the field of psychology where population studies can be undertaken to understand what stimulates hatred in people.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think you are missing the point. There is no equation for "hate"...but there clearly is a physical aspect to the brain responsible for it. That physical aspect can be characterized and understood through physical scientific techniques.

As to why people might feel hatred if you want to characterize that it will be in the field of psychology where population studies can be undertaken to understand what stimulates hatred in people.

Exactly my point. The link describes the circuitry for hate but not the reason why a person hates.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Exactly my point. The link describes the circuitry for hate but not the reason why a person hates.

THere is no equation for The Law of Superposition, but it's a scientific law.

Hate is nothing more than a suite of neurochemical reactions in the brain. Yes there are stimuli which trigger it but if that part of the brain was re-arranged through something like an injury that hatred may never arise.

Or perhaps the hatred will arise even without valid stimuli. Everyone has been angry about stuff that really wasn't rational to be angry about.

There's no "equation" for a HUGE amount of scientific things.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

THere is no equation for The Law of Superposition, but it's a scientific law.

Hate is nothing more than a suite of neurochemical reactions in the brain. Yes there are stimuli which trigger it but if that part of the brain was re-arranged through something like an injury that hatred may never arise.

Or perhaps the hatred will arise even without valid stimuli. Everyone has been angry about stuff that really wasn't rational to be angry about.

There's no "equation" for a HUGE amount of scientific things.

Are you now equating geology with psychology? What "Law" are you claiming prevails in human morality? Psychology? Philosophy? That's partly the point of this thread.

Why do some people hate and others don't? What "Law" or equation allows us to predict who will hate and who won't?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Are you now equating geology with psychology? What "Law" are you claiming prevails in human morality? Psychology? Philosophy? That's partly the point of this thread.

Why do people hate and others don't? What "Law" or equation allows us to predict who will hate and who won't?

Hate is the most essential of all human emotions according to the great Dr. Irwin Corey.
He makes perfect sense.
Without hate, revenge is meaningless.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Are you now equating geology with psychology?

Both are sciences and both take in qualitative as well as quantitative concepts.

What "Law" are you claiming prevails in human morality? Psychology? Philosophy? That's partly the point of this thread.

Not all things that can be described by science result in "laws". Just as not all science things have an "equation". Doesn't make them any less amenable to scientific inquiry.

Why do people hate and others don't?

I bet the answer lies in the "hate circuit" in the brain as well as the mix of neurochemicals. For instance, there are drugs one can take which will increase feelings of hatred and violence, even without a specific stimuli. That means there's a purely physical component to all of this.

What "Law" or equation allows us to predict who will hate and who won't?

Well, as an example, some chemicals can do it. Or even a massive brain injury like Phineas Gage suffered. After his injury he apparently went from a solid citizen to a rather nasty character dramatically different to what he was before the injury wiped out a big chunk of his brain with a railroad tool.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hate is the most essential of all human emotions according to the great Dr. Irwin Corey.
He makes perfect sense.
Without hate, revenge is meaningless.

I didn't recollect him. Funny and interesting guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Corey

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not all things that can be described by science result in "laws". Just as not all science things have an "equation". Doesn't make them any less amenable to scientific inquiry.

Cypress should be happy to know you finally agree with him.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed.

Agreed. Some people think it's weak and dishonest to trick others with socks.

Agreed, but many Germans of the day would disagree.

Agreed. There's no mathematical formula for morals. Only generalities such as "Is the white lie intended to deceive or harm? Is it to comfort and soothe?"

Agreed on the different and appropriate areas for discussing morals. This is akin to the Scientism thread; science may provide some insights to behavior, but it doesn't provide much insight to human morality or the lack of it. What is the scientific answer to the cruelty of the Third Reich? The atrocities committed by Russians in Ukraine?

Science knows a lot less than most laypersons realize.

They didn't consult any physics textbooks at Nuremberg. The motivation and underpinnings of the proceedings were based on the tenets of natural law.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Science knows a lot less than most laypersons realize.

They didn't consult any physics textbooks at Nuremberg. The motivation and underpinnings of the proceedings were based on the tenets of natural law.

What is this "natural law"? Nothing more than a suite of codes and moral principles for human conduct.

The systematic murder of millions of innocent people is wrong because it harms the stability of the social network. Is murder always and universally wrong? It certainly is for social animals like humans. But not for the well-fed housecat that goes out and kills a songbird despite not being hungry. It is no less "murder" (killing of an innocent) but we don't consider it a moral wrong.

I already dispensed with "filial piety" in an earlier post.

Clearly this "natural law" of which you speak is hardly something that humans have embraced either. One cannot FAIL to embrace the law of gravity but one can EASILY toss aside "natural law". There's no imperative to follow this "law" except for our mutual agreement as social animals to follow this "law".

To simply decree something a "law" doesn't make it somehow an incontrovertible aspect of the universe.

But with science we can understand WHY things like "Murder" and "deceipt" are things we should avoid. But they don't apply universally. They apply to us, the social animals who made them up. And for good reason...our biology depends upon them. We are social animals. That's how we survive.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Science knows a lot less than most laypersons realize.

They didn't consult any physics textbooks at Nuremberg. .

What's the point of citing Nuremberg?
Guilt and innocence is nothing more or less than the opinion of the winners.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

What's the point of citing Nuremberg?
Guilt and innocence is nothing more or less than the opinion of the winners.

Sadly all too true. America did a great job of attempting a genocide against native Americans and we parlayed that into about 60 years of western movies rather than the national shame it should have conferred upon us.

Even during WWII America was hardly "the good guys" when they imprisoned all the Japanese Americans.

And America, for it's primary role in Nuremberg, was ambivalent enough about the plight of the Jews early on in WWII so it's hardly like the folks running Nuremberg were necessarily acting on a "universal moral truth scale" but more of a late-discovered morality that hadn't infected them previously. Even Hitler leveraged the great Henry Ford's grotesque antisemitism to do his deeds. And the history of Europe has been one of numerous pogroms. OFTEN CARRIED OUT BY THE VERY CHURCHES THAT HELPED ESTABLISH THE SUPPOSED MORAL LAWS we are talking about.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress should be happy to know you finally agree with him.

For three months I gave asked atheists to give me the mathmatical equations or scientific laws that people can use in real life to tell them when or if it's ever okay to lie, if it's okay to hate, what's the boundary between generosity and prodigality, choose who to be friends with, etc.

Despite repeated requests, no quantification, no scientific laws, no equations have ever been provided.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

For three months I gave asked atheists to give me the mathmatical equations or scientific laws that people can use in real life to tell them when or if it's ever okay to lie, if it's okay to hate, what's the boundary between generosity and prodigality, choose who to be friends with, etc.

Despite repeated requests, no quantification, no scientific laws, no equations have ever been provided.

It's because they don't exist even though some people claim they do. Sad.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

For three months I gave asked atheists to give me the mathmatical equations or scientific laws that people can use in real life to tell them when or if it's ever okay to lie, if it's okay to hate, what's the boundary between generosity and prodigality, choose who to be friends with, etc.

Despite repeated requests, no quantification, no scientific laws, no equations have ever been provided.

Are you of the opinion that all things in science have a mathematical formula? Why do you ignore things like Steno's Laws? Or descriptive biology?

ALSO: what "natural law" defines when it is allowable to lie or not? Because even with this great "natural law" of which you speak, people lie all the time. There is no law saying one cannot lie. There is a "law" that says one should not lie, but that's primarily an evolutionary survival mechanism (stable social networks for a social animal which is why we have to encode it in our social contracts, eg "The Ten Commandments" etc.).

A "natural law" against lying would indicate that lying is somehow "wrong" outside of a specific narrow context. And clearly that is not true since the animal kingdom is replete with cases where animals "lie" about their appearance in order to fool predators.

There is no universal "law" against lying. It just is. It is harmful in certain situations and not a thing in others.

 

[Cypress]

It's because they don't exist even though some people claim they do. Sad.

So the conclusion here is that science does not provide enlightenment or guidance on the types of normative knowledge people seek or use in real life on a daily basis.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So the conclusion here is that science does not provide enlightenment or guidance on the types of normative knowledge people seek or use in real life on a daily basis.

Only if you ignore other people's expressed points.

I find that when my ideas are challenged I grow. That was what I found most interesting in university...the chance to grow. Even if I didn't necessarily agree with the challenges I hope I never acted as if the challenges were not there.