People who think Einsteins wife is responsible for his work

[G_frog]

you're right, if i took out the "noticeably" it would work, but thats just logic chopping. This is why I said in my first post on the subject that it is hard to imagine a society where intellect is unrewarded. perhaps if i'd stipulated 'the exercise of intellect' i might have avoided this whole sorry discussion.

edit: 8:30 to be precise, getting in at 00:17 - in theory. roger plans to join us.

[G_frog]

stop nibbling round the edges! we're going round in circles.

the first two - perhaps three, depending on what sort of company you prefer - of the 'other factors' you list are quite likely to be correlated with intelligence to some extent.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'm only going to respond to the 'person who went to cambridge' comment, because the latter pair aren't to do with intelligence (necessarily), and the latter of the former pair is more about getting into university than a job, to my mind at least.

Employers wish for guarantees. That is why there is such a culture of work experience, and qualifications and the like. The employer wants to know the very minimum he will get from his charge, and wants this minimum to be an acceptable one.

So much is obvious.

It follows, surely, that he will prefer to pick a graduate of a good university, for it is much more likely that such a one will have the required intellect, rather than just your 'man off the street'?

Why would the employer take unnecessary risks?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Certainly it requires no intelligence to go to Cambridge

I think the burden of proof is with you on this one.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

It may well be that attendenace at Cambrdge may gurentee an ability to get certain types of work done, but it is no guarentee of intelligence. It might be a guarentee of good English speakign skills, of the ability to retain information and having rich parents who sent you to public school. It is lamost certainly a guarentee that you are middle class.

If this is so, why does Cambridge take in numbers from each sector proportional to those that apply?

Surely, if public school education is as vital as you say it is, then a larger proportion of that sector would get in?

You're also ignoring the fact that many people who go to public schools (such as myself) only went because of a very large scholarship, which was gained because of.... intellect!

[edit]

and the thing about being well spoken isn't really relevent at all to the interview process; if you have a problem with basic english that is not grounded in neural chemistry, however, this might be a sign of a problem with the intellect at large. I refer you to the point I made about the employer. Cambridge wants to take the best.

Oh, and another point... when all students pay the same fees (unlike in the american universities) surely the incentive is to intellect rather than to monetary considerations? Cash for places is a scandalous situation, and one that has been pariahed where it has been found.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

burden of proof:

Oxford
This year: 53% from state schools, 49.5% women
1980: 56% from state schools, 35% women

Cambridge
This year: 53% from state schools, 46.5% women
1979: 50% from state schools, 20% women

What the hell is that meant to prove?

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well only if you accept intelligence as some sort of magic wand which illuminates all, maybe what you call intelligence would just translate a sability to do homework or concentrate in a boring lecture, there are many many more skills. Certainly it requires no intelligence to go to Cambridge or have a smart Dad or have a good personality. As I said aagin intelligence may be a factor but is reduced to an insignificant bias fairly rapidly by social and educational factors.

I really don't think native intelligence is an insignificant bias in getting into top universities (at least in the UK). nor are parental genetics - and possibly stimulation at a young age - insignificant in intelligence.

since attending a university is pretty much a pillar of the definition of middle class your argument is circular.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and the universities themselves say that the greatest barrier those of 'lower class' backgrounds face is the fear of application. Marge Hodge, the former (?) higher education secretary, received the combined anger of the university administration, CUSU and the student body in general when she made statements to the press decrying 'cambridge elitism' (meaning not the good kind of elitism, that exists in a meritocracy, but the kind that relies on heritage and wealth)

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

It may well be that attendenace at Cambrdge may gurentee an ability to get certain types of work done, but it is no guarentee of intelligence. It might be a guarentee of good English speakign skills, of the ability to retain information and having rich parents who sent you to public school. It is lamost certainly a guarentee that you are middle class.

I would like to say that it is you that keeps introducing the idea of guarantee, i have spoken of correlation alone.

i've never reliably got any kind of work done in my life, yet here I am. If you mean just the ability to do it, okay, but I think we could define a set of kinds of work which required intelligence. Did you mean such a set by 'certain kinds of work' or not (if you did not, i think you have a misconception of the kind of work actually required of students at cambridge).

most people here speak english fluently, its true; i suspect the ease with which i comes to them is one of the perks of intelligence i was talking about earlier. on the other hand fluency in prose is highly variable.

the ability to retain information is a definite help, but its not essential, whereas comprehension is.

the rich parents/public school idea is true to a limited extent. It would be absurd to suggest that a better (academic) education is no help, and equally absurd to suggest that public schools do not, on average, provide a better enviroment for such an education - because money talks, unfortunately. It is hopeful that the figures suggest that this makes very little difference in practice, though it is possible the state schools are failing to push forward able candidates.

[JonnyBGood]

Apparently university educations are a middle class pursuit. Over here we don't have interviews (except in extremely rare areas) and college places are gained solely on points scored in the Leaving Cert (a fairly objective exam in which the examiner isn't aware of where his students are from or what gender they are or anything). It's also free (although registration fees have gone up to 700 euro from 60 euro over the past three years). For some reason it still seems that a huge proportion (I won't quote statistics because I honestly can't remember them) of college students are still from the middle classes. Private schools are fairly common in Dublin as well, but there aren't really that many nationally.

[Proteus]

Only posh, rich people go to Cambridge?

That's news to me.

Perhaps I'm at a different Cambridge to the one T&F is thinking of...

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well actually I was not thinking of it at all I was merely quoting the statistics gathered by Cambridge which say that 50% of attendees are from Private schools.

And of course all private schools only accept posh, rich people.

Which is why they are all in the South, and why they refuse to give scholarships.

It's all clear now!

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I haven't got the statistics of middle class attendees I suspect it is about 80%.

So I'm not allowed to base observations on actually observing who is here, but you're allowed to invent statistics at will?

And do you know who makes up most of the middle class? People with good jobs. Do you know why they have good jobs? Because they're clever!

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I realise that when you went to Cambridge you probably carried out a detailed social survey of all the students there, so you probably know more than me.

I'd rather base my opinions on reality than statistics.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well a tiny proportion of private school kids have scholarships, but with regards to the original point that does not mean they are clever.

Eh?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Only the 80% statistc was invented and my source is the Prime Minster speech writer, who went to Cambridge I belive, as did the PM.

Actually the PM went to Oxford.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I went to UCL, I have to say that I knoew mayb e a couple of dozen students there, naturally that is not an accurate sample of an insitution that size, especially since I was unlikely to socialise with the nobby possh types was I.

I'm sorry if I know more people than you.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So your brilliant argument is that peopel awho go to univeristy are middleclass becasue they go to univeristy, but there are plenty of non-middle class people at unverisity as well, you are a genius aren't you. Wil you be telling me next that all people who go to university become middleclass in order to comlpete your circular argument.

Yes. I don't think it's an unreasonable belief that the vast majority of people who get Cambridge degrees go on to have good jobs.

Both my parents came from working class families (my mother's father was a boilermaker in the Belfast shipyards and my father's father was a factory inspector in Birmingham), are clever, went to university, got good jobs, and are now very definitely middle class.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What reality that you happened to go to Cambridge, why does that make you an expert?

So being in a place doesn't make me more qualified to talk about it than someone who is only looking at government statistics? Well that is remarkable.

P.S. I'm off to dinner now, so don't bother expect me to reply any more because I won't be here.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well actually I was not thinking of it at all I was merely quoting the statistics gathered by Cambridge which say that 50% of attendees are from Private schools.

And I told you that 50% of the people who apply are from public schools.

Surely taking proportionally the same number of pupils from both areas implies there's bias towards neither areas (I know of a counterargument to this, but I want to see if you can get it).

Furthermore, your assertation that people who appear 'clever' do so by hard work, and not by some 'natural gift'. I personally (wow he's arrogant, referring to himself! No I'm not, I'm merely stating fact) acquired top grades with nigh on no effort involved, independent of any flaws in the system.

[edit]

And of the people I know at Cambridge... most of them are from the North East (this is coincidental rather than with forethought), some of them do work hard, others are layabouts (such as myself). Some are well spoken, some aren't, but then you'd expect that from people looking primarily for a singular aptitude.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and another point: as we're generally talking about the extremes of intelligence, which you deny to any great level exists, surely we should not be concentrating on those who have to work hard to understand things, have to revise for long hours and do similar tasks. Surely, we should concentrate on those who have the ability to do as well if not better than those people with little work involved, people who can gain intuitive commands of areas with little effort, people who are smart.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For some reason it still seems that a huge proportion (I won't quote statistics because I honestly can't remember them) of college students are still from the middle classes.

This seems fairly obvious though. If you are intelligent (or sucessful, whatever), you are generally going to be a positive educational influence on your children. Ignoring class for a moment, it seems fairly obvious that "educational aptitude" would be a fairly socially heritable trait. My mother was fairly poor, but was an avid reader. I grew up thinking reading was a normal pursuit. There are people at my current job (call-centre based) whom would never think of reading a book (or, if they did, an ultra-trashy novel). Their parents, generally speaking, are the same.

The results are obvious, of course. Now, once you factor in crappy schools being in crappy areas, plus ill-health being more common among poorer people, it's hardly shocking that middle class people's children tend to do better.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

surely we should not be concentrating on those who have to work hard to understand things, have to revise for long hours and do similar tasks.

Who is "we" in this case? I presume you mean society, in terms of resources invested via schools, etc.

I don't really seen any evidence that concentrating most of our resources on our top 10% would achieve an overall "better" result than concentrating on the bottom 10%. This would seem entirely down to political preference. Would a society with more geniuses but more random delinquents be better to live in?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The results are obvious, of course. Now, once you factor in crappy schools being in crappy areas, plus ill-health being more common among poorer people, it's hardly shocking that middle class people's children tend to do better.

I think that's a circular argument, although it may have been designed to be.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who is "we" in this case? I presume you mean society, in terms of resources invested via schools, etc.

In this thread.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think that's a circular argument, although it may have been designed to be.

Well, yeah obviously. You can't have inequality of condition if you want equality of opportunity, generally.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

In this thread.

Oh, well we as random individuals not making important decisions can focus on whomever we want. My own in education is probably heavily weight to 15 year old schoolgirls with dubious morals. But if we're talking investment of resources (or something like that) then my point stands.

[Vermillion]

Christ almighty.

Intelligence most certainly does exist, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Certainly there are things which affect intelligence as one develops. If you take two children and were somehow able to measure their intelligence, then keep one in a box for 10 years and send the other to school, who at the end would test as the most intelligent?

Intelligence is affected by many things: parenting, environment, and I am sure a thousand other things. However, one of the most tried and tested ways of influencing an individual’s intelligence is education. Education teaches people to think critically, to deal with problems, to broaden their minds with literature, science, languages, maths and so on.

Education is and always has been the driving factor behind advanced intelligence, and I am not saying this off the top of my head. Do you think it is a co-incidence that in the last 150 years, education has become common, then standard, then required among youth? Do you think it is a co-incidence that the educational bar of what level is standard continues to rise? Do you think that it is a co-incidence that standardising and enforcing education has accompanied the largest growth in human scientific, cultural, and technological development in our history?

Spurious examples do not help the case either. Yes, there are cases of near-autistic style geniuses, home schooled with a pencil and library book who go on to do great things. However, the vast, and I mean VAST majority of the world’s geniuses are products of an advanced educational system. That education refines and promotes their intelligence, and in turn is far more likely to lead to success.

I am a product of three universities, including the LSE and Oxford. I have what is considered to be one of the highest degrees available to people in my discipline. My peers at school were from all over, from all backgrounds and finances (my family, by the way, is not wealthy at all) and they were all intelligent when they got into the program, and they were all (with one possible exception, but we will not talk about her) more intelligent by the time they left.

In the course of my education, from as far back as I remember (about grade 2) until now, my class was far more diversified, with all levels of intelligence, and this played out. Now academic education is not the be all and end all, one of the guys in my High school never went to university, but did college instead; now he can make a radio out of blender parts and cheese, whereas I don’t know how to replace the power-steering fluid on my car. Clearly his intelligence manifested differently. But to those who dropped out of high school, either due to lack of intelligence of lack of drive and foresight, they suffered for it, and the world recognises, justifiably so, that my education is emblematic of my intelligence, which is why I now have authority, power, and a quite respectable income, while some of my grade school peers who did not choose education are working at the local supermarket.

Am I ‘better’ than them? No, I do not believe so.
Am I ‘smarter’ than them? Yes.

The link between education and success is not accidental, it is causal, and this is not because of some wealthy old boy’s club, it is because education remains the most consistent, best demonstrator and evidence of advanced intelligence.

[MrL_JaKiri]

In the discussion of whether there is such a trait as intellect, I felt it prudent to comment on, if not the extremes, then at least two areas with difference rather than the large common ground.

[moo-moo]

Originally Posted by I'm Idler

I'm idler

not some faggot professor named moo-moo

stop lying

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This seems fairly obvious though. If you are intelligent (or sucessful, whatever), you are generally going to be a positive educational influence on your children. Ignoring class for a moment, it seems fairly obvious that "educational aptitude" would be a fairly socially heritable trait. My mother was fairly poor, but was an avid reader. I grew up thinking reading was a normal pursuit. There are people at my current job (call-centre based) whom would never think of reading a book (or, if they did, an ultra-trashy novel). Their parents, generally speaking, are the same.

The results are obvious, of course. Now, once you factor in crappy schools being in crappy areas, plus ill-health being more common among poorer people, it's hardly shocking that middle class people's children tend to do better.

Maybe it's genetic!








I'll get my coat.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Intelligence most certainly does exist, but it does not exist in a vacuum.

I think it's slightly unfair to argue against the point 'intelligence doesn't exist', since I don't think anyone was maintaining that argument per se.

Intelligence certainly exists as a layman's term. I know what someone means when they say "That man is intelligent" - as I've said before, this is like saying "That man is black". I know what they mean, but this does not mean black or intelligent are particularly meaningful scientific terms.

The issue is whether any real comparisons can be made. You point out that your high school friend had a technical education, as opposed to your academic one. Which of you is "smarter"? Is that even a meaningful statement? If it is, do we mean "which of you could do the other's one job, if forced", or what?

The whole thing seems to be too much of a mess to speak confidently about it. You say you are smarter than a high school drop out. Fair enough, although surely that goes back to T&F's point earlier that we begin measuring intellectual stamina, determination, aptitude, etc? Once again though, this comes back to the informal definition of intelligence, or "smarts".

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Intelligence certainly exists as a layman's term. I know what someone means when they say "That man is intelligent".

But that must mean that its measurable in some way

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I know what they mean, but this does not mean black or intelligent are particularly meaningful scientific terms.
.

I thought science was just about trying to measure things objectively?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The whole thing seems to be too much of a mess to speak confidently about it. You say you are smarter than a high school drop out. Fair enough, although surely that goes back to T&F's point earlier that we begin measuring intellectual stamina, determination, aptitude, etc? Once again though, this comes back to the informal definition of intelligence, or "smarts".

The issue seems quite confused: intelligence doesnt "exist in nature" for the same reason something like 'love' doesnt exist in nature - its a concept that humans abstract from the actions of living entities they encounter. However, that which its abstracted from obviously has objective existence, and theres no reason to believe that it isnt both quantifiable and measurable.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The issue seems quite confused: intelligence doesnt "exist in nature" for the same reason something like 'love' doesnt exist in nature - its a concept that humans abstract from the actions of living entities they encounter. However, that which its abstracted from obviously has objective existence, and theres no reason to believe that it isnt both quantifiable and measurable.

This crosses over into an interesting area, namely whether or not something which has to be expressed in human terms can have an objective existence, ie morality, emotions, intelligence and so on and so forth.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

But that must mean that its measurable in some way

If my friend says "That girl is beautiful" I will know very roughly what he means. Does that means beauty if quantifiable? Or fear, or danger, etc.

The same thing could be said of lyour point on ove. Who loves their partner more? Do we hold national contests?

(I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I can never tell confidently)

More generally : If education does influence the type of intelligence which Vermillion is talking about (at times) I'm not sure what an objective score would tell us.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This crosses over into an interesting area, namely whether or not something which has to be expressed in human terms can have an objective existence, ie morality, emotions, intelligence and so on and so forth.

Everything you know, think or experience has been 'expressed in human terms', given that you are a human. This doesnt mean that it hasnt been derived from objectively existing entities, which can be suitable objects of scientific study; if inteillenge is a concept, there must be something from which it has been abstracted.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Everything you know, think or experience has been 'expressed in human terms', given that you are a human. This doesnt mean that it hasnt been derived from objectively existing entities, which can be suitable objects of scientific study.

Something that can only be expressed in human terms though. Science, geography, geology all would exist without human beings and could be expressed somehow. Could we say the same about whatever I listed above?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If my friend says "That girl is beautiful" I will know very roughly what he means. Does that means beauty if quantifiable? Or fear, or danger, etc.

sure, why not?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The same thing could be said of lyour point on ove. Who loves their partner more? Do we hold national contests? .

Well obviously you'd have to define a suitable framework to measure it within. Behaviourism could be a valid one in this case - you could compare 2 peoples actions towards their partners in order to tell who "loves them more".

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

More generally : If education does influence the type of intelligence which Vermillion is talking about (at times) I'm not sure what an objective score would tell us

What? Are you claiming transitive things arent measureable?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Something that can only be expressed in human terms though.

As opposed to what? The act of expression implies an entity expressing it.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Science, geography, geology all would exist without human beings and could be expressed somehow.

Exist in what way? Could be expressed by whom?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What? Are you claiming transitive things arent measureable?

No, I'm saying there's no real point. If intelligence is as highly influenced by education as Vermillion states (which is probably correct) then all you wouldn't really need to measure these things, independently at least.

And saying things like beauty are objectively measurable (at least in theory) is silly, and haven't you done that troll before?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As opposed to what? The act of expression implies an entity expressing it.

As opposed to something not human. What the hell did you think my point was? I'm saying that if, tomorrow, we met moderately advanced aliens they'd probably have a basic understanding of maths, recognise maps representing space but would they have a ****ing clue about morality?

Exist in what way? Could be expressed by whom?

If human beings didn't exist it's a reasonable assumption to state that the law of gravity would still take place. Could be expressed by something not human as I said above.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As opposed to something not human. What the hell did you think my point was? I'm saying that if, tomorrow, we met moderately advanced aliens they'd probably have a basic understanding of maths, recognise maps representing space but would they have a ****ing clue about morality?

Yeah, they'd have to given that they were conscious.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If human beings didn't exist it's a reasonable assumption to state that the law of gravity would still take place.

Not really, there'd just be falling objects. I suppose if there were another known entity that had cognitive faculties similar to (or greater than) humans you could talk about human-independant reality, but youve only moved the issue back a level and replaced 'human' with 'intelligent consciousness'.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No, I'm saying there's no real point. If intelligence is as highly influenced by education as Vermillion states (which is probably correct) then all you wouldn't really need to measure these things, independently at least.

Ok then, what about "intelligence is the rate of change of knowledge given a suitable environment"? Its just a matter of definition, not an actual problem. If you cant give a proper definition of intelligence, just admit that its not a 'real' concept, just a linguistic construct, and break it down into seperate (and measurable) things.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And saying things like beauty are objectively measurable (at least in theory) is silly, and haven't you done that troll before?

Its objectively measurable in the sense that it is derived from objective sensory data.

[IncubusGod]

So your saying events occur but its only human interpritation that places quantitavie and relational significance on em?

So a tree falls in the wood and no-one is there to hear it...blahblah

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

So your saying events occur but its only human interpritation that places quantitavie and relational significance on em?

So a tree falls in the wood and no-one is there to hear it...blahblah

I'm saying that talking about existence without also talking of something perceiving it is utterly meaningless, and only confuses the issue.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yeah, they'd have to given that they were conscious.

Why?

Not really, there'd just be falling objects. I suppose if there were another known entity that had cognitive faculties similar to (or greater than) humans you could talk about human-independant reality, but youve only moved the issue back a level and replaced 'human' with 'intelligent consciousness'.

Okay, clearly you're misunderstanding me. We agree that in the absence of intelligent life gravity will probably still exist, or it's affects will exist but nobody will define and quantify them and come up with the theory of gravity. However if intelligent life doesn't exist morality cannot exist as a theory and neither can it's affects be observed.



After rereading what i wrote I expressed it pretty badly so mea maxima culpa dudes!







PS I've speaking a load of complete toss by the way, I'm just interested what your thoughts on it are to be honest.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Why?

Because consciousness implies volition, and a creature with volition and no sense of valuation to guide its choices would probably die out.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay, clearly you're misunderstanding me. We agree that in the absence of intelligent life gravity will probably still exist, or it's affects will exist but nobody will define and quantify them and come up with the theory of gravity. However if intelligent life doesn't exist morality cannot exist as a theory and neither can it's affects be observed.

If life doesnt exist, nothing can be observed (or 'exist as a theory', whatever that means) - theres no supreme consciouness that observes everything from some position outside the universe. Its absurd to talk of observation/expression/whatever without also postulating the existence of an entity carrying out the act.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Ok then, what about "intelligence is the rate of change of knowledge given a suitable environment"?

I'm pretty sure that babies increase their knowledge of the world at a faster rate than most adults (certainly most elderly professors) but it'd be counter-intuitive to say babies are more intelligent than academics.

I'd be happy to say intelligence was merely a linguistic construct. From a brain point of view, I see no reason why all these things would necessarily be unifiable (??). Even a much simpler concept like strength is difficult to reify. If Person X can bench press more than Person Y, but Person Y can lift more with their legs, it'd be odd to claim one was the strongest "overall", wouldn't it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Because consciousness implies volition, and a creature with volition and no sense of valuation to guide its choices would probably die out.

Why would it have morality though?

If life doesnt exist, nothing can be observed (or 'exist as a theory', whatever that means) - theres no supreme consciouness that observes everything from some position outside the universe. Its absurd to talk of observation/expression/whatever without also postulating the existence of an entity carrying out the act.

I'm not talking about expression or observation. I'm talking about existence. I'm postulating (woha big word) that before intelligent life arose that gravity (or it's affects) existed but morality didn't.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Why would it have morality though?

Because morality is just the valuation of actions?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not talking about expression or observation. I'm talking about existence. I'm postulating (woha big word) that before intelligent life arose that gravity (or it's affects) existed but morality didn't.

And I'm postulating that its an utterly meaningless statement, in this context.

[ParraCida]

I'd post something interesting to flaunt my intelligence but I really could not care less.

[IncubusGod]

morality is relative and variable

end of story

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

morality is relative and variable

end of story

What do you mean?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ParraCida

I'd post something interesting to flaunt my intelligence but I really could not care less.

Then why post at all? To show how cool and above it all you are?

[IncubusGod]

Its all dependant on the observer. Its an abstract. Its absorbed through the interaction between our peers and parents while growing up.

Its evolved throughout history, people(s) who we would consider barbaric for some of their actions would have been performing those actions within their moral guidelines.

What has that got to do with the conversation you and johnny seem to be having about the nature of reality.

[Vermillion]

There is an argument posited by a series of modern philosophers that morality is not just some random construct, rather it is a sign of development and evolution, just as opposable thumbs are. A level of morality is necessary for advancement, since most societal advancement is not just about the discoveries of one person, but rather the discoveries of one person within a system.

There has to be a structure of action, based on a certain set or morality for advanced concepts to emerge, inventors and scientists could not flourish in an environment where their ideas, inventions and lives held no value. Just as an excess of food within a developing culture allows artisans to concentrate on tasks other than food gathering, thus promoting advancement, morality allows artisans and thinkers to concentrate on tasks rather than self-protection and fear.

For extremely complex systems to develop, extreme co-operation among many individuals within a system is required. For such a situation to be possible, there must be a level of developed morality. Thus, the argument is that morality is not an artificial construct, it is a necessary stage of development.