I don't get this. The same people who are arguing in favor of the government spying on its own citizens, are also trying to say that they're against tyranny?

Y'know, there's really more to this whole "freedom" thing than just arguing in favor of war all the time. Tyrants are the ones spying on their own people, so when you argue in favor of the government's right to spy on its own people, you're arguing in favor of tyranny. And not in some hypothetical, theoretical sort of way. We're talking practical, tangible tyranny here.

Y'know what's really funny is that one of the purposes of the American government is to keep the American people from being spied on.

I'm seriously starting to think we'd be better of with Monty Python's Flying Circus in charge. It would be a shade less surreal.

Yes. I understand the "traditional model". And, that's what you'll find in the dictionary, too.

However, there is science involved in this equation.

There is a whole science of belief models, which "rolls out" into things like, how morality applies to human behavior.

What I was trying to tell you, in so many words, is that morality isn't a "thing" - it's a process. It's an active process. It's specifically not a "set of rules".

See, this is what science brings to the table - a precise definition of terms.

What you're talking about there, and what your dictionary is talking about, are "values".

That's the "set of rules" - the "values".

The "morality", is something entirely different. The "morality", is the application of those rules, to human behavior.

See the difference?

I mean, this is a very subtle distinction, but very important.

Lemme see if I can even draw it for you here (see note at the bottom of the post):

.................morality
.....................|
.....................|
.....................V
values/beliefs ----> behavior

And then, how that plays out in the brain, is kinda like this:

......---------------> time
....-----------------------
...|...............i................|
..................t=0

This depicts your "brain activity" as a "moving window through time", so like,
motor activity would be at t>0, and sensory activity would be at t<0, that kinda
thing. So that point there, that I've labeled "t=0", that represents "now, the current
moment". So, your brain processes, are kinda like this "moving window through time".

So, where "morality" acts, is right at that exact instant, t=0.

Which, in terms of brain function, is what we call a "singularity" in physics.

And that's exactly what the brain does, it "unfolds" that singularity.

So that process right there, that "unfolds" t=0, that's exactly where "morality"
resides, and that's exactly why it's "subjective".

Morality is a "process", that's going to act "upon", the way
your values play out into your behavior. See?

That's precisely WHY, morality is "internal". It's part of the "subjective milieu". There's no WAY, anyone on God's green earth, can reach inside your brain and determine your "choice of what to do next". It's a physical impossibility. Think about it. They can "coerce your behavior", but what they're really doing, is coercing the part of you that's making the choice, not the choice itself. What they're really doing, in "coercion", is imposing "constraints" upon your choice there, which is the exact same thing, that what you're calling "morality", is supposed to do. Correct?

SO - mm.... maybe we should stop right there, and do a "reality check".

Is this making sense so far?

I'm trying to kind of "define a model" here, and I mean, you know, if you're not interested I'm not gonna continue with it, but I mean, this is kinda the "modern, operational" equivalent of the "traditional version" that's in the dictionary there.

It's "almost" like, an Einsteinian model, compared to a Newtonian model. It's "quite more advanced", that way, but it's also elegantly simple. So... yeah. Thoughts?



edit: ah heck, that graphic didn't work, I'm gonna try to fix it, let's see...... there, okay, that worked - just ignore the periods there......

Here - here's another way of explaining it.

"Values", are what you "store in memory". They're things like "thou shalt not murder".

"Morality", is how you apply those values.

Morality, is how you personally, select from among your set of values, "which ones" to apply, in any given situation.

See? "Morality", is a process. It's an "active choice".

"Values", are static. They're the "total collection of everything you have to choose from", when you're making a moral choice.

Make sense?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Yeah, a lot of people look at "non-traditional models" that way.

Those, are kinda, the same type of people, that tried to burn Copernicus at the stake, yes?

I mean, someone around here, has a great quote from Schopenhauer in their sig, it's really pretty accurate "most of the time".....

Here - I'll try to explain it a different way - see if this makes sense.

Think about it in terms of the concept of "boundaries".

A "boundary", is kinda like, something you tell yourself "I will never do".

Like, let's take an example: let's say, you're of the "moral persuasion", that "I will never steal from anyone". So, okay, you know, on any "normal" day, that'll "work" just fine, right? But, what happens the next day, when you're out of a job and homeless livin' in the park, and you're FORCED to steal food from someone, just to survive?

Well, you know, that "boundary" there, has just "moved", hasn't it?

See? So, in the "moralistic" model, what they're kinda telling you, is that those boundaries, aren't supposed to move. They're supposed to be "firm" - "rigid" - correct?

But, when you open your eyes and look around, you'll find that this concept is directly contradicted by facts in evidence - the "traditional model" there, runs contrary to human nature.

The reality, in human nature, is that the boundaries always move. There's no such thing as a human being for whom the boundaries don't move. Even Jesus Christ himself, suffered from "moving boundaries".

So, I mean, to me, sittin' there saying that my boundaries "should" be rigid, is exactly the same thing as saying that your sh** doesn't stink like mine. You know, it just doesn't pass the laugh test. It's immediately contradicted by facts in evidence. It's just like Young-Earth creationism, that way.

See? So I mean, this is exactly the hypocrisy that you hear out of Bushie. Out of one side of his mouth he's gonna be spoutin' "democracy" like it's some kinda "superior" deal, and then out of the other side of his face he's gonna go wink and conveniently look the other way whenever he feels the need to coerce someone. I mean, that's just typical behavior. of someone who's using the wrong model, in the space of morality.

If they were using the right model, or at least a useful one, they wouldn't run around doing idiotic stuff like Bushie's doing. You know, "we will not talk to our enemies". That's just idiotic - man, I'm sorry, but I just don't know any other way to say it. That's "f**** brainless", know what I mean?

I mean, the "operational" piece there, is "walk softly and carry a big stick". You wanna be very careful how you're usin' that stick, right?

So, like, part of the "smarts" here, I'm suggesting, is, things like this.

For instance, bringing a useful model to the table.

And, the concept that, it "sometimes" is useful, to take things off the table, as well.

And usually, that latter piece there, would be the things that people "don't" agree on.

Yes?

So, I mean, if you're gonna claim there's a "sufficient threat" to where you really shouldn't be talking "at all", in my view you better have a very good reason for saying that.

'Cause I mean, the benefit in terms of information-gathering alone is worth that particular trip, and I mean, if your "ideology" is standing in the way of that kind of thing, then that makes you a very dangerous man, when you're an "elected representative acting on behalf of We the People".

You know, these kinds of things, I mean, if you want to apply "useful boundaries", that would be the place to start, yes?

And I mean, all the technology and all the military might in the [U}universe[/u] isn't gonna help you if your policy is misguided, correct?

So you know, one of the very big dangers of moralism, is that information tends not to flow "outward" anymore. And I mean, that's exactly what you see with Bushie, right? 'Cause what happens in the moralistic mindset, is that they don't "get" the idea of information exchange, like they do in science. If you tell 'em they're "wrong", they hear that as an insult to "them personally", instead of to the information that you're complaining about. They dont' "see" the part about the information, they only "see" the part about you being rude.

Another example - the riots in Paki. A moralist looking at that, is gonna go, "look at all those rude, PRIMITIVE, people" - and then, you know, it also might be followed by some kinda comment like, "they're just like those blacks in LA", or some such nonsense - you know, they're looking at "behavior", instead of the "reasons" for it. They got some kinda "expectation" that people "aren't supposed to get piised off", right? But where the moralist comes down on that, is he's gonna clobber you over the head, instead of sending you to "anger management" class, right?

You know, and the moralist, when he sees "anger" (eg someone getting "animated"), he's gonna see "threat level", 'cause that kind of behavior is "unacceptable", while the scientist, is gonna be the guy goin', "woah dude, calm down.... now tell me what's wrong" - and that serves two purpose: a) it gets the guy talking instead of fighting, and b) it results in the delivery of INFORMATION to the scientist - and I mean, a good scientist can have the guy's entire belief system pegged inside of five minutes, know what I mean?

So, see what I'm sayin' here?

It's like that "Bush-hating" thing - that's another example. These guys who're going to point at the "Bush-haters", what they're really telling you is, that you oughta be paying more attention to the "act of hatred", than to the "thing that's being hated". Right? They're introducing a subtle VALUATION into your thought process, which you may or may not be aware of.

So, I mean, all this stuff, right?

It just occurs to me, that a lot of these clowns in government, could use a good education.

And I mean, you know, we gotta get some good people in there, right?

Not these clueless idiots we got now.

Yeah, I'd say, pretty soon, there's gonna be this kinda "clarion call" from Uncle Sam......

Blade, do you want to be shown exactly "why" this is an accurate model?

Or, do you like, "not care"?

I've gotta totally agree with Blade on this one. You don't make up your own definition of terms on a board and then expect everyone to use your definitions. That would be the ultimate in pretentious stupidity. You use the dictionairy definition - period.

Is that like telling people the Senate voted to shield wire tap collaborators when they haven't?

I think some consistency is in order.