What is Moral Folk Theory?

C

coberst

Active member
What is Moral Folk Theory?

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences are:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

What is Moral Law Folk Theory?

Moral Law Folk Theory, encoded within objectivist philosophy, holds “that there are absolute moral laws, that they can be discovered by reason, and that they can be applied directly and objectively to real situations.”

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

Folk Theories are based upon the book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Philosophy in the Flesh

Moral Law Folk Theory is based upon the book by Mark Johnson Moral Imagination
 
coberst said:
What is Moral Folk Theory?

What is Moral Law Folk Theory?

Moral Law Folk Theory, encoded within objectivist philosophy, holds “that there are absolute moral laws, that they can be discovered by reason, and that they can be applied directly and objectively to real situations.”

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

Folk Theories are based upon the book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Philosophy in the Flesh

Moral Law Folk Theory is based upon the book by Mark Johnson Moral Imagination
Click to expand...

Don't the works of Stanley Milgram counter this to some degree in that people over ride their sense of right and wrong and continue to administer punishment when ordered to do so by a superior.

To me that would indicate that our moral law's are only as strong as the environment they are tested under.

It was Milgram's work that led to the agentic state theory, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.
 
Last edited:
coberst said:
What is Moral Folk Theory?

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

Click to expand...

Yes I also agree with that, so I decided to do whatever both my two heads decide to do in the rite moment.

It was difficult, but based on my polytheist beliefs, born when I saw the light long time ago one night I was totally pissed and I met them;

EARTH, which took care of me while lying on beach.
FIRE, which gave my lighter in that fiesta nite.
WIND, which refreshed my face and allowed me to continue translating from pub to pub.
WATER which made the ice cubes for my spiritual drinks letting me be nearer divinities)

Now I know I have never the right for nothing and let the heads think for me with not any censure.

Good post mate. :bravo:
 
MontyB said:
-snip- To me that would indicate that our moral law's are only as strong as the environment they are tested under. -snip-
Click to expand...

IIRC this has been widely assumed as fact since quite some time (Rosenhan, and, as you mentioned, Milgram), magnificently captured into a movie in "The Experiment" (where some volunteer students, normal people, are separated into a "Warden" and a "prisoner" group and which gets out of hand completely):

[yt="The Experiment", US Trailer]mw5sUfMcQpc[/yt]

The Experiment, Excerpt


It is what happened in Auschwitz, in Abu Graib, etc., and its inbread.

Rattler
 
rattler said:
IIRC this has been widely assumed as fact since quite some time (Rosenhan, and, as you mentioned, Milgram), magnificently captured into a movie in "The Experiment" (where some volunteer students, normal people, are separated into a "Warden" and a "prisoner" group and which gets out of hand completely):



It is what happened in Auschwitz, in Abu Graib, etc., and its inbread.

Rattler
Click to expand...

I have enjoyed reading about Milgram because it goes some way towards understanding how otherwise normal people can carry out actions such as those you have mentioned.
This is one of those topics that really does spark an interest.
 
rattler said:
IIRC this has been widely assumed as fact since quite some time (Rosenhan, and, as you mentioned, Milgram), magnificently captured into a movie in "The Experiment" (where some volunteer students, normal people, are separated into a "Warden" and a "prisoner" group and which gets out of hand completely):


It is what happened in Auschwitz, in Abu Graib, etc., and its inbread.

Rattler
Click to expand...

Remember me about some experiences lived





Lo que no mata engorda. Lo que no mata te hace más fuerte. (what doesn´t kill you, feeds you or makes you stronger)

Cheers
 
I agree with this post. The world is from chaos and looking for meaning in it is pointless. That is why humans impose order and meaning.

I still believe moral relativists are spineless. If you believe nothing strongly enough to say "This is right, that is wrong," with certainty you are pathetic. Nothing metaphysical about it, just your own feelings and beliefs. Of COURSE it's different for everyone, but that's no reason not to fight for your interpretation and hold it above the rest. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 
I fully understand your stance and POV, but *my* belief is that the "ability to doubt" our own beliefs is what makes us different as species and leads us into a (hopefully) brighter future, as doubting whether what you believe is right or wrong is the only power that will make you advance voluntarily and with illusion (and, standing still is going backwards, in my book).

"Spineless" is something else (acting *against* your beliefs, valid even when you find yourself under serious pressure), from my POV.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
I suspect that when parents are asked what are the most meaningful things in your life they will answer “My kids are the most meaningful things in my life”. A kid might say anything when asked the same question. It may be their car, their boy friend, their new hair style, their new bike, etc. The parent has had more time and experiences about which to organize what is meaningful in their life than does a kid.

The great truth of the nineteenth century was that produced by William Dilthey, which was the answer to the question “what do humans constantly strive for?” “It was “meaning” said Dilthey, meaning is the great truth about human nature.

“Everything that lives, lives by drawing together strands of experience as a basis for its action; to live is to act, to move forward into the world of experience…]b]Meaning is the relationship between parts of experience[/b].”

Man does not do this drawing together on the basis of simple experience but on the basis of concepts. Sapiens impose symbolic categories of thought on raw experience. Her conception of life determines the manner in which s/he values all of its parts.

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.”

What are some of the fundamental considerations we must focus upon when we speak of creating meaning?

Meaning is an abstract concept. What is an abstract concept? Webster informs me that concept is defined as “an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances”. I would say that there are two types of ideas, i.e. concepts: concrete (generic) and abstract.

A concrete concept is the neural network that is created in the brain when we have a physical experience. An abstract concept is constructed, often unconsciously, by one or more concrete concepts. An abstract idea might usefully be thought of as similar to a molecule. The molecule is made up of one or more atoms and the abstract concept is made up of one or more concrete concepts. That is to say the conceptual and inference structure of a concrete concept is mapped into the “mental space” containing the abstract concept.

The concrete concept is an “objective” concept while the abstract concept is a “subjective concept”.

Examples of objective concepts becoming part of subjective concepts:

Infant feeling warm when held mapping into subjective concept of affection.
Sensing a foul smell into abstract idea of a movie “that stinks”.
Sensing the rise of milk while pouring into a measuring cup leading to a subjective judgment that prices are too high.

We are meaning creating creatures. We are creatures who create abstract ideas about which we live, die, and kill. Our task is to comprehend this fact and through the sophistication thus achieved we may be able to create abstract concepts suitable to permit our survival for a few more centuries.


Meaning is fundamental. Truth and falsity are species of meaning. Meaning begins when we select from the vast universe something upon which we focus our attention.

Iraq may be slightly meaningful to me until my grandson informs me that he has joined the army. At that moment Iraq has taken a giant step in meaningfulness to me.


Let us take the word "Iraq". Some time in my life "Iraq" became meaningful to me because I became conscious of it. Out of all the things in the universe I became conscious of a concept that is named Iraq and in so doing this word referred to a concept that I was conscious of and thereby it, the concept, became meaningful to me.

Several years ago America invades Iraq and the concept begins to load up with all kinds of concepts from my experiences. That is to say the meaning of Iraq grows in importance.

A few weeks ago my grandson tells me he is joining the army. Bang, Iraq now becomes a priority meaning to me.


 
Sorry, Coberst, you forgot to point the source: “Beyond Alienation” Becker.

And, forumites, we are not the only ones suffering, she/he spams the whole net, some examples (all the exactly same text from above, all under "coberst", in all forums 1 post per day, same time of day, never a comment,... machine allright)... (interestingly some forums have banned him):

You can also find his *next* posts for here in the forums where she/he posted more, sorry if I take the surprise out... :), sometimes he joins some fragments with others, but its all the same...:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Happiness-Is-Achieved-Through-Meaning_24272.html

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18940

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41264

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/happiness-is-achieved-through-meaning-10279.html

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-forums/15360-in-the-beginning-was-the-meaning.html

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=59851

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-243251.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/369256-we-meaning-creating-creatures.html

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19286&st=0&p=89800&#entry89800

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=3096

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=518987


... and so on.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
. I feel that this is probably because they are no more than serial pests who cut and paste similar garbage on this and other sites merely to reinforce their own feelings of self importance.

I am not here to ease the burden of his inadequacies.
Click to expand...
Thank you Rattler, I never bothered to check, but it seems that my suspicions about this clown were correct after all. I wouldn't mind betting that I'm correct about another idea I have about him as well.

It appears that some persons just cannot help themselves.
 
Last edited:
Now having become curious, I did some more research on the guy (he clames to be male), it is indeed fairly interesting to follow his post wb a bit through the net:

I do now suspect he is a kind of Turing-Machine that simulates to be a human (others are on the same track: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Coberst-15598t.php).

In some threads people to actively communicate with Coberst, and his posts create the illusion of a communication, i.e. as if he was acctually answering to other´s people inputs.

An example here, when you read through the thread it really seems to be a communication going on:

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?p=1837617#post1837617

But, when you do some research, you will soon find out that all those (there are more) seeming communications are nothing else than again a serious of (*the exact same* all over) copy+pastes from other threads, just recombined to give the impression of being a personal reply.

E.g. what figure as "replies" in the above mentioned thread you can find in other forums/blogs/threads as either the introducion of a news user (Coberst) 0or as a "standard" answer to other questions forumites ask him:

Here http://www.ufoseek.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4041 you see the exact same text as in post #10 in the above mentioned example thread: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showpost.php?p=1837617&postcount=10, just in a very different context and creating a different interpretation angle.

Try and google "I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning.", you will come up with a lot of entries from coberst in the most different forums (and totally different areas) that use this phrase, sometimes with the full text as seen above, sometimes condensed to just a few lines, sometimes to describe his profile, sometimes as replies to questions, as e.g. here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81752

The most impressive communication isllusion using above text in this thread: http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=131984

Fascinating.

Whoever programmed that machine made a fairly impressive job, he/it seems human and people communicate with it, are even discussing his supposed graduation from OSU in 1959 (another text that is used by it in various combinations)... http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41471

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Sweet Jeez,..uz,... He even copies and pastes his profile it seems. His keyboards must last for ever. :-D

I loved reading it. Once again it seems I was correct when I spotted him for a pseudo intellectual in my first answer to one of his early posts.
 
I remember long ago there was this program on the macintosh computers which was like IRC chat except you talked to a computer "character." It would use key words in your sentence to actually answer your questions and statements.
Sometimes it would be weird, other times it would seem rather like you were talking to your computer.
I can't remember the name of that program though. I think it was like a dude's first name or something.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I remember long ago there was this program on the macintosh computers which was like IRC chat except you talked to a computer "character." It would use key words in your sentence to actually answer your questions and statements.
Sometimes it would be weird, other times it would seem rather like you were talking to your computer.
I can't remember the name of that program though. I think it was like a dude's first name or something.
Click to expand...

I remember this program vividly (tried to pass the "turing Test" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test), it was named "ELIZA" and from 1966 originally.

It is online here, you can try it out http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html works nicely... :) A modern (and much more sphisitcated) bot who *almost* won the TUring Test in 2008 (he convinced 3 of 12 to be indistinguishable from a human, with 4 he would have made it) is ELBOT (try it here http://www.elbot.com/)

Yep, I think Coberst is something along those lines, a Spambot, as I have now come up to locate him in around 1.000 froums posting regularily (always the same articles, but not necessarily daily. He does re-runs, even).

Rattler
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top