Scientists discover moral compass in the brain

[charlou]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

[Tigger]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

But at least it's more scientific than "oh there's a god, then."

[Azathoth]

I'd hit Dr Liane Young in a heartbeat and not feel guilty about it.

I wonder if a dose of her magnets would have her doing all kinds of filthy depraved shit

[Bella Fortuna]

Ironically, Daily Mail readers are missing their moral compasses.

All same-same New York Post.

The Post... as in "dumb as a..."

[Tigger]

I feel the need to say I don't read The Daily Mail.

[Bella Fortuna]

I feel the need to say I don't read The Daily Mail.

You read The Daily Male.

[Tigger]

I feel the need to say I don't read The Daily Mail.

You read The Daily Male.

20% of the time, maybe. The other 80% ...

[Animavore]

I remember in school some other kid stuck a moral compass in my brain.

[JimC]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

I suspect some people can go overboard with this type of science, implying an almost robotic quality to human nature. Others (perhaps including yourself, Charlou) have an understandable degree of caution, or even cynicism, about such snippets of neuroscience. To me, the increasingly apparent and very clear message is that being human is ultimately a purely material phenomena is a terrific antidote to woo... However, there are a vast array of "brain modules", all interacting with each other in complex ways, all fine-tuned in equally complex ways by individual experience.

The end result is still purely a material phenomenum in a fundamental sense, deeply entwined with our hominid evolutionary past, but its dizzying multitude of layers weaves the glory and pain of being human in a way that is deeper and truer than any pastiche of soul and spirit ever could...

[charlou]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

I suspect some people can go overboard with this type of science, implying an almost robotic quality to human nature. Others (perhaps including yourself, Charlou) have an understandable degree of caution, or even cynicism, about such snippets of neuroscience. To me, the increasingly apparent and very clear message is that being human is ultimately a purely material phenomena is a terrific antidote to woo... However, there are a vast array of "brain modules", all interacting with each other in complex ways, all fine-tuned in equally complex ways by individual experience.

The end result is still purely a material phenomenum in a fundamental sense, deeply entwined with our hominid evolutionary past, but its dizzying multitude of layers weaves the glory and pain of being human in a way that is deeper and truer than any pastiche of soul and spirit ever could...

Nice post, Jim.

I agree that neuroscience is bringing us to better understand what it is to be human. My caution isn't about the science (it's my favourite field), but about the tendency for those interpreting the science to latch on to results and over simplify and pigeonhole their meaning when, as you say, it's far more complex than that. The 'god spot', for example, would be better described more generally as where the brain acts/reacts with superstitious or euphoric awe, perhaps.

Using terms like 'god spot' and 'moral compass' is playing into the hands of our religious history and culture and therefore a biased way of interpreting or presenting scientific results. That's where my caution lies, I think, but there's more to it than that ... I need to think about it some more ...

[Animavore]

At the moment in neuroscience it's like the way biology was in the hundred years or so before Darwin came about. They're just gathering the facts and someone is going to happen upon the theory which will tie them together.

EDIT: Related link. http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_o ... uting.html

[JimC]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

I suspect some people can go overboard with this type of science, implying an almost robotic quality to human nature. Others (perhaps including yourself, Charlou) have an understandable degree of caution, or even cynicism, about such snippets of neuroscience. To me, the increasingly apparent and very clear message is that being human is ultimately a purely material phenomena is a terrific antidote to woo... However, there are a vast array of "brain modules", all interacting with each other in complex ways, all fine-tuned in equally complex ways by individual experience.

The end result is still purely a material phenomenum in a fundamental sense, deeply entwined with our hominid evolutionary past, but its dizzying multitude of layers weaves the glory and pain of being human in a way that is deeper and truer than any pastiche of soul and spirit ever could...

Nice post, Jim.

I agree that neuroscience is bringing us to better understand what it is to be human. My caution isn't about the science (it's my favourite field), but about the tendency for those interpreting the science to latch on to results and over simplify and pigeonhole their meaning when, as you say, it's far more complex than that. The 'god spot', for example, would be better described more generally as where the brain acts/reacts with superstitious or euphoric awe, perhaps.

Using terms like 'god spot' and 'moral compass' is playing into the hands of our religious history and culture and therefore a biased way of interpreting scientific results. That's where my caution lies, I think, but there's more to it than that ... I need to think about it some more ...

It's interesting, though, that the localisation of quite complex cognitive functions is fairly common, and usually consistent between people. This is shown by the very specific cognitive deficiencies that show up after damage to particular regions, as well as the magnetic stimulation discussed in the OP. To an extent, we do seem to have a brain (and thus a mind) that is equipped with a large number of somewhat specialised modules. The trick of consciousness is to gain the useful illusion of an "I" by integrating the modules...

Having said that, there is also evidence for a fair degree of brain plasticity, in that other areas of the brain can take over quite effectively from danaged regions in some circumstances, so any specialisation is not always 100% or permanent.

[charlou]

So they've pinpointed areas of the brain that are active in certain contexts. Nothing new there. The leap from "brain activity in X location" to "therefore god spot" or "therefore moral compass" seems a bit over keen to fit specific values to the activity. Pretty typical of people to do that though. There's probably a corner in the brain for that tendency too.

I suspect some people can go overboard with this type of science, implying an almost robotic quality to human nature. Others (perhaps including yourself, Charlou) have an understandable degree of caution, or even cynicism, about such snippets of neuroscience. To me, the increasingly apparent and very clear message is that being human is ultimately a purely material phenomena is a terrific antidote to woo... However, there are a vast array of "brain modules", all interacting with each other in complex ways, all fine-tuned in equally complex ways by individual experience.

The end result is still purely a material phenomenum in a fundamental sense, deeply entwined with our hominid evolutionary past, but its dizzying multitude of layers weaves the glory and pain of being human in a way that is deeper and truer than any pastiche of soul and spirit ever could...

Nice post, Jim.

I agree that neuroscience is bringing us to better understand what it is to be human. My caution isn't about the science (it's my favourite field), but about the tendency for those interpreting the science to latch on to results and over simplify and pigeonhole their meaning when, as you say, it's far more complex than that. The 'god spot', for example, would be better described more generally as where the brain acts/reacts with superstitious or euphoric awe, perhaps.

Using terms like 'god spot' and 'moral compass' is playing into the hands of our religious history and culture and therefore a biased way of interpreting scientific results. That's where my caution lies, I think, but there's more to it than that ... I need to think about it some more ...

It's interesting, though, that the localisation of quite complex cognitive functions is fairly common, and usually consistent between people. This is shown by the very specific cognitive deficiencies that show up after damage to particular regions, as well as the magnetic stimulation discussed in the OP. To an extent, we do seem to have a brain (and thus a mind) that is equipped with a large number of somewhat specialised modules. The trick of consciousness is to gain the useful illusion of an "I" by integrating the modules...

Oh I agree and, in case that's how you're reading me, I'm not disputing that. It's the labelling and the interpretive biases/prejudices behind the labels that concerns me ... such biases and prejudices have no place in science.

[JimC]

Charlou wrote:

Oh I agree and, in case that's how you're reading me, I'm not disputing that. It's the labelling and the interpretive biases/prejudices behind the labels that concerns me ... such biases and prejudices have no place in science.

Absolutely! Science can inform our actions and attitudes, but ultimately, we need some hard, consistent effort as communities to work out ethical ways of living. RD was actually good in this area; if some aspects of our evolutionary past confer tendencies towards (for example) tribalistic intolerance of other groupings, then this is a part of being human that needs to be moderated, refined or even opposed by education and political endeavours. We don't get "ought" from an evolutionary or neuroscience "is"

[Trolldor]

Ain't a lot of our behaviour in our genes? And ain't our brain, on account of it being 'abstract' (What is, what it ought to be, and what we want are all possibilities), our "tool" for fighting against them/ignoring them? Or is our brain as much a tool of our genes as the rest of our body?