Pete

> Gravity isn't really a tug by objects themselves in space

 

well yes, everyone believes that. Specifically, that it's not the objects "tugging", but a distortion in spacetime.

I don't believe that myself. A gravitational field, at least as it was defined by Einstein, has a relative existance and does not require that the spacetime be curved (what you called distorted). Spacetime curvature refers to the presence of tidal forces. Its quite feasable to have a gravitational field with no tidal forces. A uniform gravitational field is just such an example. In fact that's what the weak equivalence principle depends on. I.e. the weak equivalence principle states

A uniform gravitational field is is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.

Einstein viewed the gravitational force to be quite real, i.e. that there is a gravitational force acting on objects which are in the field. His general theory of relativity states that the force is frame dependant and thus is an inertial force and as such inertial forces, like the Coriolis force, are real forces too, contrary to what Newtonian mechanics holds to be true.

Pete

Whoa, no need to be derogatory.

Who was being derogatory? I most certainly wasn't. Not at all. I was merely saying that long posts like that will often be ignored because readers often don't want to take the time to read long posts like that. I certainly never mean to be derogatory by any means.

FayeKane - I hope you understand that I was by no means trying to be derogatory. Far from it in fact. I appreciate people who check their views with others for feedback. That is highly commendable and I compliment you on your effort. I just wanted to let you know that if you didn't get many responses that it wasn't due to your question per se. It may just be that the reader may be very lazy, like me.

I'll try to read it later when I have the time and patience. Good luck.

Pete

You need to comprehend a little better, this ain't particle physics being discussed.

I may have over reacted to this comment. It now seems to me that you may have been providing constructive criticism whereas I originally thought you were trying to be condescending. If that is the case then I want to humbly appologize for over reacting.

Best wishes

Pete

I'm unofficially taking a course in the gradute Classical Mechanics this semester. The text we are using is

Classical Mechanics - Third Edition, by Goldstein, Poole and Safko (2002. I'm trying to solve Exercise 17 in Chapter 2. The problem reads

It sometimes occurs that the generalized coordinates appear seperately in the kinetic energy and the potential energy in such a manner that T and V may be written in the form

 

[math]T = \Sigma f_i(q_i)(dq_i/dt)^2[/math] and [math]V = \Sigma V_i(q_i)[/math]

 

Show that Lagrange's equations then seperate, and that the problem can always be reduced to quadratures.

Where reduced to quadratures means expressed in terms of definite integrals which can be evaluated analytically or numerically. I can't see how to do that. I'll post the differential equation that results when one uses that Lagranian L = T - V later tonight. Thanks in advance.

Pete

Educate me. Here's what I think I know about SR. Please tear my understanding of it to pieces if it's wrong. I want to be humiliated now rather than someday.

If you don't get any/many responses its probably because your post was too long to read.

Pete

If we assume a dedicated neurological 'centre for morality', then it is likely to have come to be because it provided an advantage to the individuals that showed a propensity for 'moral' behaviour (in this case I mean behaviours supportive of, or at least not detrimental to other members of an ingroup), and thus provided an advantage to the group as a whole.

My thoughts exactly. By the way, just because I've read that some scientists have postulated the existance of a moral center and I think that they had good reason to do so, it doesn't mean that I blindly accept it as God's given truth. It only means to me that it becomes a legitimate question for me to ask about and to inquire into.

Glider - Thank you so much for all the effort you put into this post. I'm swamped with work right now so I won't be able to absorb it all until later. I wanted to thank you for your effort so that you, and others who have contributed to this thread in a positive way, know that I truly appreciate your efforts.

Pete

You need to comprehend a little better,

That's the dumbest thing I've read in this forum in a long time. My comprehension is just fine thanks. Although your response to my post makes me question yours.

..this ain't particle physics being discussed.

No shit Sherlock. What exactly was your point? That a particle physicists must try to dumb down before they read your comments? Or perhaps you think that particle physicists don't understand the scinetific method as well as an evolutionist/psychologist? Let me guess; You think that being a particle physicists does not mean I'm qualify to understand what people have explained to me here? Whatever your point was it must be a very poor one.

So it is with morality. We are born with a brain that will grow and allow us the capacity for morality. Different external conditions will have an effect on the final result of the brain itself and the specific morals we adopt. Living in a kill or be killed world will result in a much different morality than a peaceful one.

I started this thread to investigate the reasons behind the existance of our morals. As iNow said

We are definitely hard wired for certain responses, such as empathy, and there exists a strong argument that this served as an evolutionary advantage.

Glider seems to agree

PS. The sociobiological approach suggests that morals that ethics, or a ‘sense of morality’ has evolved with us, evolving from social behaviours adventagious to group survival.

Since you ignored what I said in my last post I'll remind you of it

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

While what the scientists said in the articles I read might be wrong, i.e. we might not actually have a moral center, it doesn't mean that I don't comprehend what I'm reading.

By the way, at the very best, someone being wrong is not due to a lack of comprehension. It just means that they're wrong. Sheesh!

Just like drinking excessive water is bad for your health, and can even kill you. I'd recommend a ban on water!

Yes! You are definitely on to something here, but you have only scratched the surface. Look what happened to the poor Apollo 1 astronauts. They died because the fire in the capsule spread far too fast because of the 100% oxygen atmosphere. We must add oxygen to the list of banned substances.

Since all murders were done by humans I say we get rid of the whole lot of those pesky humans.

Pete, and D H, and anyone else who feels singled out - don't take it personally. I know that's easier said than done sometimes, but it is often very frustrating for those of us who have been asked to defend these positions time and time again by one person after another.

Its best not to make assumptions about another peoples motives when they are asking a question, unless, of course, you know them. The only concern we should have is what a person actually posts. While you frequent this forum and see people asking the same questions over and over you have to keep in mind that they're probably asking the question for the first time. Many forums and newsgroups have an FAQs for this very reason.

Because of this, it's hard for some of us to be as calm as we should be in conversations like this, and I know I am prone to that as well.

I hear that. I too had that problem for a long time until I learned how to deal with it. Do they start insulting you or become condescending or something like that? When I see the same person posting the same content over and over I simply don't read them after a certain point. Its easy for me to do this with newsgroups since the newsreader I use has a "Block Sender" function.

I think that the wise thing to do is to assume that the person asking the question doesn't have ulterior motives until it is demonstrated otherwise.

After all each of us has areas in which we don't have first hand knowledge or expertise. In my case my expertise is in physics. In your case its biology.

After all you wouldn't want me to roll my eyes if you asked why, in light of the expression E = mc², photons have no mass even though they have energy, would you? This particular question comes up quite frequently in relativity forums. But I know that, more often than not, the person asking the question is honestly trying to learn something.

To us it's rather akin to having one person after another approach you and say, "But are you sure the earth isn't flat? Because I think/heard that..." After the 28th person, it's hard to resist rolling your eyes and sighing, even if that person is just genuinely unknowledgeable and seeking answers and well deserving of patience.

I used to be that way until I learned what was actually causing me to roll my eyes in the first place. After I learned that I learned how to deal with it. Now when I get tired of answering a particular question I merely ignore it and let someone else have a whack at it.

But that being said, hopefully we can move past this bump, have everyone try to be a little less prickly, and concentrate and any more specific questions that Pete might have.

Most certainly. As I mentioned above, the first few responses were consistent with what I had assumed in the first place and in that sense I got my answer at that time.

That said, this is an interesting topic to me and as such I like discussing it. So even though the question was answered I am very interested in the topic of discussion. After all this is a discussion forum, not a QA forum per se.

I think this religion thing started because I responded to a comment someone made with the response The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I phrased it that way to emphasize that the source I was referring to is taken to be the source of morals for many people. I think this may be how suspicions about religion intentions came up. But I don't think its wise to jump to any conclusions about a persons motives simply by the question they asked. I've always wondered how evolution accounts for morals even when I was an agnostic. So there was never a good reason to assume it had to do with religion, even if it actually was in this case.

Morality is subjective' date=' as in I don’t think you can find some absolute standard morality for all human culture, more so in time.

[/quote']

What led you to this conclusion? What you say is not obvious at all. I highly disagree with it in fact.

 

Are you familiar with the story of Phineas P. Gage? I learned his story when I was studying psychology in college. This man worked with explosives. There was an accident one day in which an explosion occurred unexpectedly and caused a three and a half foot long, one inch and a quarter in diameter, steel rod to be shot through his head. It went in and out but the man actually survived. In fact he stood up and could walk with some help and was able to talk normally. He recovered from the injury with one exception - he could no longer make moral and ethical decisions. This remained a puzzle for some time. This case, in part, led scientists to hypothesize that there is a part of the brain that one might call the "Moral Center." I can't see how that could change between cultures.

 

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

 

Pete

This is exactly the problem. You don't know what a coloumb force is. What you mean and what you post is the law of coloumb, not the comoumb force of friction!

I came to learn how the frictional force became associated with the Coulomb force. The reason being is that the Coulomb force (as in the force between two charged particles etc.) is the cause of the frictional force at the microscopic level. I.e. friction is a result of charges interacting at the surface of the two materials in contact.

Pete

Ok, we have

 

[math]X^{\mu} = \frac{dx^{\mu}(\tau)}{d\tau}[/math]

 

for "some" path.

Hmmm! Interesting notation. I've never seen anyone use [math]X^{\mu}[/math] for four-velocity

For massive particles we can always reparametrise so that [math]\tau[/math] is the proper time. And we can show that

[math]\eta_{\mu \nu}X^{\nu}X^{\mu} = -c^{2}[/math],

ok.

But is that what FayeKane said?

No. If she did then we wouldn't have to guess.

In the rest frame I guess it is ok to say that matter moves through time a speed c.

Pete

i have my most profound doubts

There is an article in the American Journal of Physics which discusses a box containing a gas of photons. The author explains the mechanism responsible for the photons contribute to the mass of the gas/box system.

The mass of a gas of massless photons, H. Kolbenstvedt, Am. J. Phys. 63, 44 (1995). The abstract reads

Using minimal formalism, we demonstrate that the massless photons, constituting the radiation in a cavity, contribute to the mass of the cavity in agreement with Einstein's mass–energy formula. We assume that a photon has energy and momentum related to frequency by E=h[math]\nu[/math], p=h[math]\nu[/math]/c. Restricting velocities to nonrelativistic values, we impart a uniform acceleration to the cavity. Reflection from a moving mirror produces a Doppler shift, and thus the momentum delivered to the front and rear walls can easily be calculated in the laboratory frame. A simple application of F=ma leads to the usual conclusion that the mass of a gas of photons of total energy U is U/c². An alternative argument based on calculations in the co-accelerating frame is also given.

Pete

Mass is energy moving through time at c? Can you clarify what you mean? From the point of view of the mass he travels at speed 0 through space and speed 1 (one second per second) through time.

When I see people make this statement they are usually referring to the magnitude of the 4-velocity, which, of course, is c.

Pete

Yes, it was obvious to me and probably most what the real question in your mind was, because this kind of thing comes up so often. ....

That's why I have never and will never discuss religion in a science forum. People are too ready to jump to conclusions which don't apply to me. People are also to ready to stereotype theists like myself.

Anyway, is your question answered? Even if you don't accept it, you have seen that "an atheist" can indeed "account for morality," yes?

I didn't assume that they couldn't in the first place. Why would you assume otherwise? I asked because I never thought about this before and assumed that there was a psychological/biological/sociological reason.

Pete

I'd caution you against making arguments based on authority. What evidence are these philosophers offering that supports such an assertion?

At this point all I'm doing is learning. I'm a very long way from making any sort of arguement and to be honest I plan on stearing clear of discussions like this. I'm only interested in the subject for my own contempation of morality.

And I didn't say that I'd accept it or use it in an arguement. I said that if someone claimed otherwise I would not be easily convinced. There's a difference. Think about it though. I don't personally know anyone on this forum. At best they might mention if they have a degree or are a scientist etc. But I really don't know anybody. So, for example, why would I believe you over, say, a book I'm reading on philospophy? In this case I don't know you but I actually know the author of the philosophy book I'm reading. Would you have me make an arguement using the material in this thread? I wouldn't because I don't simply believe something because a stranger told me so.

Authority is a valid source of knowledge. I understand that it is a word that has a bad ring to it for many people.

Its not worth my time to take each assertion an authority makes and trace it back to its source(s). I have no intention of becomming an expert in this field so I have no choice but to accept authority on this matter. However I plan on reading more about this in the future and I'll compare it with comments by other authorities and make a decsion later in life. I'm not in any kind of hurry. I have plenty of time to contemplate morality.

If there is one thing behavioral ecologists have learned, it's that almost no complex human behavior is solely nurture or nature - most have a healthy complement of both.

Good point.

Not necessarily. But your original question was to the origin of morals; not if human-designed laws are the same as evolved behaviors.

All that means is that the way I asked my question was not the way I should have asked it. After all when one is asking a question they are doing so from a standpoint of ignorance. Sometimes the answer to your question is that you didn't ask the right question.

As for your first few questions, I think these were already addressed by Paralith, Glider, and me. Please ask questions if you're not sure how or where.

When I first read this I, for some odd reason, interpreted it very differently and it seemed quite rude. I know that you're not rude from other threads so I went back to reread this and see that I misinterpreted it. I appologize for my own rude responses.

As far as why I started this - I didn't explicitly want to state the purpose because that kind of thing can derail a discussion. When someone seemed to be assuming I was heading somewhere totally different I mentioned the purpose for posting this. Your response I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious. seemed rather sarcastic to me and I very much dislike sarcasm.

Pete

I think it has mostly been stated by iNow, Glider, myself, and several others.

Yup. That was done in the first few posts and was consistent with what I had assumed in the first place. There were some things like giving your life to save someone elses that I'm trying to figure out how the details work. I keep hearing that humans don't have instincts so I felt it best to start a thread on this. Regarding instict - Is there an expert here who actually knows this as a fact? I'm not certain if what was stated above are facts or educated guesses. Philosophers hold that evolution has not been able to explain morals so I'm not easily convinced that they're wrong. I'm wondering if evolutionary social behaviour and is the same thing as morals. I have a tendacy to think that morals are learned behave, i.e. nuture rather than nature.

I'll have to think on this. I'll get back later.

Thank all of you for your help.

I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious.

The original question is "where do morals come from?" Excluding religion from the discussion of this topic doesn't make much sense because religion historically played a big part in the development and promulgation of morals.

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

I don't tend to take the bible into account ...

I regret mentioning it. I was merely trying to get my point across that murdering and killing are not the same thing.

As a scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of clear definitions.

Absolutely. That's why I provided definitions for those other terms.

When you said "murder," I assumed you meant any killing of any other.

I'm not sure why you assumed that. We're clear now I assume?

I didn't realize you'd wished to keep answers confined to killings within some arbitrary and local group, but that's fine.

Even if it did, do you really care?

I asked because I've ran into people on the internet in other discussion forums who got upset when people continued to discuss a point when they believed that they had already answered that person's question. I don't know the people on this forum that well yet so I asked you if it would bother you so I know for future reference. I may have a great deal of respect for a person's knowledge and wisdom but that doesn't mean that I'd accept everything that they say. Okey dokey?

Pete

To the contrary, I think Pete's observation about "murder" is very important. I don't think he's appealing to the Bible as an authority so much as holding it up as a very important example in sociology, which it most certainly is. Morality as an instinctive adaptation to exist in social groups wouldn't be inherently generalized. It would only apply to those individuals considered to be in the same group, because that is where its advantage would lie, just as there is an advantage to literally dehumanize the "other."

Excellant point! Thank you!

You don't see the point because you are blinded by modern morality. Killing people in the name of God was not viewed as murder. In fact' date=' it was the other way around: it was immoral in some circumstances not to kill! The Old Testament dictates that some people must be killed -- murderers, for example -- and also includes explicit instructions emanating from God on how to kill in warfare and who must be killed.

[/quote']

Actually I was hoping to leave religion out of this. I was merely attempting to point out that murdering someone is something different than killing them. In Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. That's different than, say, killing the enemy in war, or to killing somone in self defense or the death penalty.

 

Pete

There doesn't seem to be a forum here for geology so I'm posting this question here.

Is there any geological evidence which supports all the flood myths that exist in so many different cultures? I.e. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

I see a lot of hypotheses there but no mention of evidence.

Pete

You steal and murder the "outsiders" to maximize your own groups success (and also steal from them).

And I'm aware of what was answered. I hope it doesn't bother you that I choose to continue to discuss this?

The idea of the expression of morality, however, tends to differ across populations. Your question is difficult to answer primarily because I don't know what YOU mean when using the term "morality," but regardless of your definition, we "get morals from" the complex interplay of our genetics, our environment, and our experience.

I'm usually comfortable with the dictionary definition of most words I used. E.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Sounds good to me.

Depends on what you mean by "instinct," ..

See - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>

2 a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

This also sounds good to me.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example or two of a "biological component" that is not related to genetics?

I have no idea how there could be a biological cause other than gentic. But since I'm not an expert in biology I was leaving room open for it just in case.

Pete

Morals are just what society deems to be acceptable as if you don't conform with them then society won't accept you and humans are inherently social animals who work in groups to succeed.

That would imply that moral differ from society to society. What about those behaviours which remain the same between all societies? I would hazard to guess that there is a common theme between all societies such that each must have that component in order to remain stable. E.g. I can't concieve of of any society in which stealing or murder would be considered acceptable behaviour.

Thanks

Pete

Take a look at the book The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

Pete

Does psychology have an explanation of how we came to have morals? I heard that humans don't have insticts, is that true? If so the morals can't come from instinct and if so, i.e. nature plays no role then all that seems be left is nurture. Thoughts?

Pete

Wow. That's a lot and most of it I'm not sure is meaningful enough to answer or is readily answerable. But first things first;

Just that the math would have to physically show each individual facet of how the information traveled if it did indeed travel.

Sorry but I have no idea what that means. Can you give me an example by analogy from, say, communication using radio waves? Thanks.

Pete

There's also an e-book.

Any person teaching a course will be aware of the cost of the books and should not use one that is clearly out of the price range of most of the students.

 

With that in mind, Pete, why do you want this book specifically?

Note: I looked at half.com and the book costs $176.77

Pete