Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wild Gazebo" data-source="post: 2163253" data-attributes="member: 24413">By illustrating the biological process through which a moral dilema is registered and potentially acted upon you are creating a new definition of intellect encompassing a rational structure of biological needs.  By the comparison of a biological function you seem to be trying to separate alignment and intellect.  But in fact it only intrisically connects the two.  I know you are only wanting to separate emotion and intellect...but it really doesn't work that way.  We cannot objectively ascribe emotion inherently to alignment.  Even your examples demonstrate a relegation between the two, compromising one or the other, to attain a certain environmentally sound outcome.  You see, your arguments are counter-productive.  I wouldn't say anything normally...but I happen to agree with you.  I feel intellect and alignment are completely separate--at the instant of cognation.  The actual action or application of intellect I feel can be hindered by alignment, but not the pure state of intellect.The 'when' and 'how' I am reffering to is my assumption of why you brought your examples into play.  You stretched for some sort of tangible substanciation of your ideas to justify your argument.  You looked at when a certain part of the brain excites versus how other parts of the brain excite and inffered our vague knowledge about those parts of the brain to create a sense of the creation or activity during a moral dilema.  This description fails to illustrate whether an ethos caters to or hinders intellectual aptitude...it simply states it is part of a biological design.  The 'if' is:  what sort of relationship do alignment and intellect share?I would argue that intellect, defined as the cognition of environment from and including self, can be present and equal across any culture, any ethos, and religion.  For, intellect has no boundaries.  The perception of a world beyond, of our environment, of subjective experience, of limitlessness begs a type of dominance over any sort of moral structures.  Because, any sort of moral structure must be learned or created.  Now, the action upon our morals or intellect can easily be curbed by one or the other...but I don't consider that a fair comparison...or even all that interesting.  And, I think that is where (most of) the real misconceptions of these arguments stem...the difference between acting upon an intellectual goal and simply processing the possiblities internally.Hope that clears things up.</blockquote>

Verification