"I would dispute the theory of evolution being an argument for deregulation of air traffic controllers". Geoff C
I would not. The event was dictated by societal evolution which is part of evolution biological. Boris Shoshensky -- "GEOFF CREALOCK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: William: I have not read Hauser's book. Most probably I would learn something. In the meantime, what Hauser would need to show me is how some observations of brain processes translate into values. If the argument is that a species prospers under "certain" conditions, I can understand. If the observation is that "certain" conditions enhance some function, that's fine. Whatever the observation, I, at the moment, have difficulty in leaping from cellular, atomic or behavioural observations to "good', "moral' or "beautiful", rather than "more", faster' or "more plentiful". If evolution is an allowed concept here : - ) I would dispute the theory of evolution being an argument for deregulation of air traffic controllers. Geoff C >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:19:01 -0700 (PDT) > >Right off. The brain is the source of what we can know and think. >Neuroscience is merely trying to reveal the mechanics of the brain. It is >not attempting to decide what's good. Why not read what I said and then >read Hauser's book (and see his very exhaustive bibliography)? No one has >said that science will proclaim what's good. It may "lay the groundwork" >for our discovering why we have evolved to favor what we believe is moral. > >Wc > > >--- On Sat, 11/1/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 10:56 AM > > Mando: Right on. Inevitably it is a human mind which decides > > what is good. > > Science can describe and most scientists have ethics but > > the broadly good > > and beautiful and moral must be decided by humans - not > > science. > > Geoff C > > > > > > >From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > >To: [email protected] > > >CC: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse > > >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:06:38 -0700 > > > > > >William, > > >If beautiful is known to be variable between > > individuals, > > >then morality may also have the same variability, I > > >would think. So how does science justify good? > > >mando > > > > > >On Oct 31, 2008, at 4:53 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > > > >>There is a new field of bioethics, related to > > neuroscience. See Marc > > >>Hauser's book, Moral Minds, 2006. He argues > > that humans have evolved to > > >>favor moral, just judgments. This has some > > application to aesthetics > > >>because if the good is moral and if the moral is > > beautiful then the good > > >>is beautiful. Perhaps a new field of > > bioaesthetics or evolutionary > > >>aesthetics is forthcoming. If the mind has > > evolved to benefit from moral > > >>judgment and if the same could be true of > > aesthetics then the same might > > >>be true of creativity. In other words, biology > > and evolution may favor > > >>moral creativity. The groundwork for this > > possibility is being cleared by > > >> biology and neuroscience. > > >> > > >>I want to clarify what I think is the chief > > difference between art theory > > >>abnd art criticism. Art theory tries to determine > > what sort of art is > > >>exemplified by a cultural identity. It doesn't > > need to describe specific > > >>artworks or art objects. Art criticism is an > > examination of particular > > >>artworks in direct or only loose relation to art > > theory and art > > >>philosophy. Its main subject is existing art > > objects. > > >> > > >>WC > > >> > > >> > > >>--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Chris Miller > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>>From: Chris Miller > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse > > >>>To: [email protected] > > >>>Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 10:45 AM > > >>>While William is lurking as he waits for > > Cheerskep to > > >>>improve his behavior > > >>>-- I'd like to give some more thought to > > differences > > >>>between the discourses of > > >>>art criticism/philosophy and the discourses of > > >>>neuroscience. > > >>> > > >>>First - by noting that discussions of > > neuroscience, just > > >>>like discussions of > > >>>art, include the category of journalism: the > > writers who > > >>>address the general > > >>>public in daily newspapers as well as monthly > > science > > >>>magazines. > > >>> > > >>>I can't find popular magazines devoted > > specifically to > > >>>neuroscience (as there > > >>>are for astronomy or aeronautics) -- but it is > > a frequent > > >>>subject in magazines > > >>>that cover all the sciences -- especially with > > articles > > >>>that deal with the > > >>>popular subject of "creativity" > > >>> > > >>>But while "creativity" seems an > > appropriate topic > > >>> for neuroscience, > > >>>"judgment" does not -- while, as > > William notes, > > >>>Art Theory is concerned with > > >>>"establishing past and future > > validation" and > > >>>"the goal of Art Criticism is > > >>>judgment" > > >>> > > >>>Can neuroscience address issues of judgment ? > > >>> > > >>>Presumably, it could show which parts of the > > brain are > > >>>involved -- but as > > >>>soon as it asks which judgment is better than > > another, it > > >>>has left its area of > > >>>expertise. > > >>> > > >>>For example -- perhaps a study might show that > > damage to a > > >>>certain area of the > > >>>brain removes the ability to distinguish the > > art or > > >>>aesthetic quality of a > > >>>Jackson Pollock painting from that of a > > randomly selected
