• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Values? Are they really constituents of the universe, or are they things that we paint onto the world in order to cheer ourselves up?

Whateverist

Active Member
Iain McGilchrist asked this question at this point in a video discussion with Dr. Ash Ranpura, a neurologist and neuroscientist, was a co-founder of Café Scientifique at the Photographers’ Gallery in London, a founding editor at BrainConnection magazine in San Francisco, and a writer at National Public Radio’s “Science Friday” in New York.


At s later point in their discussion, McGilchrist has this to say about values:

“Ultimately, values are very important… The set of values changes our vision of reality."


If we are in the world and values are real for us does that make them real as such?

My own thoughts on this are unsettled but I am considering the possibility. Anyone else have an opinion yet?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Iain McGilchrist asked this question at this point in a video discussion with Dr. Ash Ranpura, a neurologist and neuroscientist, was a co-founder of Café Scientifique at the Photographers’ Gallery in London, a founding editor at BrainConnection magazine in San Francisco, and a writer at National Public Radio’s “Science Friday” in New York.


At s later point in their discussion, McGilchrist has this to say about values:

“Ultimately, values are very important… The set of values changes our vision of reality."


If we are in the world and values are real for us does that make them real as such?

My own thoughts on this are unsettled but I am considering the possibility. Anyone else have an opinion yet?
What I find interesting about values,

Think of being born in a blank state. There are a few evolutionary commands necessary for your survival but that is all everything is learned. Values are learned to make decisions quickly. You mind can collect data set after dataset but you need a fairly quick method for deciding what to do. Values are one of those methods we have developed. What I find interesting is that for the most part no matter where or when you were born there are common values with only few extreme exceptions, so most humans in the early stages of life see certain basic necessities the same way.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Iain McGilchrist asked this question at this point in a video discussion with Dr. Ash Ranpura, a neurologist and neuroscientist, was a co-founder of Café Scientifique at the Photographers’ Gallery in London, a founding editor at BrainConnection magazine in San Francisco, and a writer at National Public Radio’s “Science Friday” in New York.


At s later point in their discussion, McGilchrist has this to say about values:

“Ultimately, values are very important… The set of values changes our vision of reality."


If we are in the world and values are real for us does that make them real as such?

My own thoughts on this are unsettled but I am considering the possibility. Anyone else have an opinion yet?
I tend to approach values in the same way a workman approaches his tools.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
If humans can incorporate values through understanding and affect into their everyday life, and demonstrate the capacity to exercise values in their actions then values are very real and actual. Values are inescapable potentials and qualities that are put into action by human beings if they so choose. I really don't see values as capabilities stemming from biochemical processes. The capacity to choose and incorporate values must be part of the fabric of being and existence. Virtues vs. vices are inescapable causes and effects in living beings. Since life has character capacities, and potentials then values must be constituents of existence.

This is no fluke capability. Life has essence and substance of character. Why that is so is part of the mystery of existence. It didn't arrive as a cosmic accident nor from complete non existence. It cannot be explained by forces, and motion of purely physical processes. The contents of character and the freedom to choose values over vices, or vices over values is a real power in the motivations of living beings.

Values are volitional qualities that demonstrate that existence has substance to it. There may not be any grande purpose, but the fact that values exist demonstrates that existence does have purposes. However existence itself has no divine justice, and is far from such a thing; there is as much or more vice as there are values in the natural world.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
The thread title is a false dichotomy. Even if values are human inventions, they're far more useful and beneficial than simply "cheering ourselves up".

The speaker of those words rarely reasons to a conclusion by way of an either/or dichotomy. More often he''ll argue things are both distinct and separate. So I think he agrees with you to a degree. Except that we don't invent them, we discover them. No one ever sat down with no thought of truth, beauty and goodness and thought "what shall we hold in esteem arbitrarily for the sake of some short term end that would suit me personally?" That isn't how values work except perhaps for a psychopath.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
What I find interesting about values,

Think of being born in a blank state.

But I think it is very far from a blank slate into which we are born. From the time we self assemble in the womb to the time we start breathing and crying when hungry, our organism knows how to operate. We readily copy facial expressions very early on and vocalizations as soon as able. We learn social expectations starting with those learned within the family and local community. Along the way we develop an enduring sense of identity and take on roles and purposes. But that all happens pretty unconsciously IMO.

Values are learned to make decisions quickly.

More likely values are learned long before we are aware of having a motive to learn them. Most of all this learning is almost on autopilot, just part of the societal yolk sack. We might come to question things later and many of us do.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
f humans can incorporate values through understanding and affect into their everyday life, and demonstrate the capacity to exercise values in their actions then values are very real and actual.

Well said.

I really don't see values as capabilities stemming from biochemical processes.

Yes they aren't reducible to material determinism but we are living organisms and all our physiological processes are part of the mix.

The capacity to choose and incorporate values must be part of the fabric of being and existence.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. At least values must be part of our being and existence surely?

Values are volitional qualities that demonstrate that existence has substance to it. There may not be any grande purpose, but the fact that values exist demonstrates that existence does have purposes. However existence itself has no divine justice, and is far from such a thing; there is as much or more vice as there are values in the natural world.

Yes to all of that. Seems so to me too.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Very strange question raised by the OP, but very simply, our values are what guide our behaviours -- if we are "authentic."

One of my highest values is that I believe every human has a right to live his life in the way that best suits him -- that nobody else has a right to tell him who he should be. As a result, all of my political choices reflect this "social liberalism." I don't deny anyone their right to speak their mind, to marry whom they will, to worship gods I can't believe in.

With this one caveat -- HARM NO ONE! And it's corollary, "why would I expect anybody to allow me liberties I won't allow them?"
 

Whateverist

Active Member
our values are what guide our behaviours -- if we are "authentic.

I feel that way too. Authenticity is an important value for me which compels and justifies behavior without thought of ulterior motives, whether incentives or disincentives.

One of my highest values is that I believe every human has a right to live his life in the way that best suits him -- that nobody else has a right to tell him who he should be.

Yep, otherwise we deprive them of the opportunity to claim an authentic life.

With this one caveat -- HARM NO ONE!

Well society must instill some foundational values in each new generation. It is a responsibility that cannot be avoided. This would seem a very basic but important base value.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
I tend to think along the lines of "transcendental realism" when it comes to sociocultural constructs, such as morality.

Are chairs really constituents of the universe? I think so. They aren't the fundamental constituents, that might go to elementary particles like leptons and gluons, but they are a part of the universe, nonetheless. In the same way that a chair is composed of a certain arrangement of atoms, values can be seen as composed of a certain arrangement of symbols, neural activity, and action.

Which is to say that every culture's standards are real in some sense. The laws of a state are real. Breaking them might have you tried and convicted. The norms of a society are likewise real. Breaking them might have you tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

I don't think neuroscience is the relevant field to this question. I think social psychology and moral psychology in particular is. I am less interested in what neuroscientists have to say on the matter than I am in what sociologists think.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
I tend to think along the lines of "transcendental realism" when it comes to sociocultural constructs, such as morality.

Are chairs really constituents of the universe? I think so. They aren't the fundamental constituents, that might go to elementary particles like leptons and gluons, but they are a part of the universe, nonetheless. In the same way that a chair is composed of a certain arrangement of atoms, values can be seen as composed of a certain arrangement of symbols, neural activity, and action.

Which is to say that every culture's standards are real in some sense. The laws of a state are real. Breaking them might have you tried and convicted. The norms of a society are likewise real. Breaking them might have you tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

I don't think neuroscience is the relevant field to this question. I think social psychology and moral psychology in particular is. I am less interested in what neuroscientists have to say on the matter than I am in what sociologists think.

I’ve always leaned toward psychology to understand such questions too but McGilchrist’s hemisphere hypothesis, if accepted, has enormous explanatory value which influences how i conceive of psychology generally and specific mental illness, especially schizophrenia and autism. It is very well supported by neuroscience.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
I’ve always leaned toward psychology to understand such questions too but McGilchrist’s hemisphere hypothesis, if accepted, has enormous explanatory value which influences how i conceive of psychology generally and specific mental illness, especially schizophrenia and autism. It is very well supported by neuroscience.
Since I am not a neuroscientist, I defer to the expert consensus within neuroscience on the matter. Currently, the hemisphere hypothesis is not the consensus opinion, so I do not affirm it.

Should that change in the future, I will, likewise, change my position.
 

Whateverist

Active Member
Since I am not a neuroscientist, I defer to the expert consensus within neuroscience on the matter. Currently, the hemisphere hypothesis is not the consensus opinion, so I do not affirm it.

Should that change in the future, I will, likewise, change my position.

I think that is a reasonable stance of course but do you have a source for your claim that the hemisphere hypothesis is not accepted by the neuroscience community? There are very many who are on record as affirming it.

Here, following a brief account of why research into laterality had fallen out of favor are some of the scientists who endorse McGilchrist's Hemisphere hypothesis:

Hemisphere Theory​

While it is true that the old pop psychology of hemisphere differences has been shown to be largely false, it does not follow that the topic itself has been somehow ‘debunked’ – just that our first thoughts have been superseded, as they were likely to be. People who think the topic is no longer important are stuck in the past; and themselves embrace a myth that is well overdue debunking. They live in a self-perpetuating vacuum: because they just ‘know there’s nothing in it’ without bothering to acquaint themselves with the facts, they remain ignorant of the enormous body of mainstream research on the topic. For example I refer to approx. 5,500 papers in The Matter with Things alone: the argument that there’s ‘not enough evidence’ might have been true forty years ago, but it won’t wash now.
Two brief questions. If there is no science behind brain lateralisation, why was Germany’s most prestigious science prize, the Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Preis, awarded to Onur Güntürkün in 2013 precisely for his recent research on brain lateralisation? And why is Michael Levin, Distinguished Professor in the Tufts Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology, Boston, one of the world’s most prominent researchers in molecular biology, engaging with me in a series of recorded discussions on lateralisation, a long-standing research interest of his?

Since I have been asked for opinions on my work, here are a few from important figures in the field of biology, neuroscience and physics:

‘The best survey on the left and right hemispheres of the brain that exists – a magnificent scientific survey. It’s a masterpiece. I think there’ll be lots of discussion around it and amplifications and qualifications and so on, but his main thrust is extremely important. This is a historically important book, and I am sure he will last. He will be revered in future generations – there’s no question.’ —Professor Colwyn Trevarthen, collaborator with Nobel Prize-winner Roger Sperry at Caltech, and one of the world’s most distinguished living researchers on the perceptuomotor and cognitive functions of the cerebral hemispheres, in a filmed interview in 2016

‘I believe that, at a deep level, McGilchrist is right. In the hemispheres, with their differing components and capabilities, lie different facets of the personality …’ [On The Master and his Emissary] ‘I think there are only two options. In thirty years it will either be the bible of neuroscience –or it will be forgotten. I don’t think there is any other option.’ —Professor Onur Güntürkün, winner of the Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Preis for his work on brain lateralisation, interviewed in Die Zeit, and in a filmed interview in 2016

‘Really superb! Best book on laterality I have ever read, with profound implications for the nature of consciousness … a true masterpiece–a synthesis of decades of pondering a vision that coaxes us to question many conventional “wisdoms”. The best book I’ve read in the past decade … ground-breaking.’ —Professor Jaak Panksepp, world authority on the neuroscience of affect, author of the classic works Affective Neuroscience (OUP), and A Textbook of Biological Psychiatry

‘A marvellous and highly original synthesis of ideas on how the division of labour between the two brain hemispheres can provide key insights into human nature – it’s odd that such an important subject has been neglected.’ —Professor VS Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, and Head of the Neurosciences Graduate Program at the University of California

‘A wonderful book – broad in scope and full of incisive detail. It should be required reading for any serious student of human psychology. For researchers involved in hemisphere studies, the historical/cultural context provided by McGilchrist is essential background.’ —Professor Norman Cook, author of The Brain Code: Mechanisms of Information Transfer and the Functions of the Corpus Callosum

‘Stunning … It’s a masterpiece.’ —Professor Todd Feinberg, neuroscience of laterality researcher, and Professor of Neurology & Psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, NY

‘Every point made is referenced … The evidence in support of these conclusions is presented fully and extremely well … the breadth of the author’s knowledge is nothing less than extraordinary …This is, indeed, a fascinating book that will stimulate debate and ideas.’ —Professor Lesley Rogers, world authority on lateralisation in animals, writing in Laterality

‘Undoubtedly the best and profoundest description of the anatomy and function of our two brain hemispheres and of the different ways of our “being in the world” … a great achievement and an enormous gift.’ —Professor Jürg Kesselring, Professor of Neurology, University of Bern, and Neuroscience Center Zürich (ZNZ), University of Zürich

‘I know of no better exposition of the current state of functional brain neuroscience.’ —Professor WF Bynum, former head of the Academic Unit of the Wellcome Centre, writing in the Times Literary Supplement (TLS)

‘A dazzling masterpiece’ —Professor Norman Doidge, neuroplasticity researcher, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself

‘A wonderful book about brain function and its wider implications.’ —Professor Michael McIntyre, FRS, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge

Other physicists and mathematicians who have met me, or contacted me, to express interest in my work include: Professor Bernard Carr (U London), Dr Jonathan Hall (U Adelaide), Professor Tom McLeish (U York), Dr George Burnett-Stuart (U Oxford), Professor Arthur Gibson (U Cambridge), Dr Paul Julienne (U Maryland), Professor Bernard Schutz FRS (U Cardiff), Professor Philip Goyal (U Albany).

@vulcanlogician , @Windwalker , @shunyadragon : here is the resource with endorsements for TMWT I mentioned before but was unable then to locate.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Value is a quality assigned by humans, to things in nature. When man assigns value to human behaviour, he may do so according to the dictates of his own nature, but the same principle applies, it seems to me - values have no meaning, independently of the evaluator.
 
Top