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

[PureX]

Values are evidence of the universe's desire to transcend itself.

Keep in mind that we and the universe are one.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for the personal attack and also to @RestlessSoul for supporting your personal attack.

Have a nice day.

Arf arf.

 

[Whateverist]

Value is a quality assigned by humans, to things in nature.

But the question -for me- is does the assigning happen randomly or is there something about it which is responsive to what is found of value and do we find much correlation between what values people recognize in various parts of the globe?

 

[Whateverist]

I tend to approach values in the same way a workman approaches his tools.

I don’t think I understood this the first time I read it and I’m not sure I do now. But if you’re saying it is a direct recognition of what is needed I can go along with that. I don’t believe analysis plays a very big role until we discover conflict between our values. I think it is more of a feel thing, so tying into empathy, emotional intelligence and intuition.

Am I on the right track?

 

[RestlessSoul]

But the question -for me- is does the assigning happen randomly or is there something about which is responsive to what is found of value and do we find much correlation between what values people recognize in various parts of the globe?

And that’s a very interesting question; couple of questions, rather. I think all cultures value compassion, empathy, tolerance, generosity and kindness. I imagine a lot of that is innate; these are qualities parents need, after all, to raise children.

Then there’s qualities like courage, perseverance, fortitude, honesty, integrity. Are these qualities valued equally across all cultures? Possibly not. I remember reading in T. E. Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, that to the Beduin, honesty was considerably less valued than courage, since a man was judged by his deeds not his words. An idealistic Englishman like Lawrence set great value on a man’s word being his bond, but to the Bedu, words shifted like the desert sands in the wind. But a man’s actions lived on in legend for generations.

 

[Ella S.]

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:

​

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

I think there is a case to be made for some lateralization of brain function. That isn't the part in question.

There is a difference between this lateralization and McGilchrist's hemisphere hypothesis, though.

McGilchrist goes quite a bit beyond the concept of lateralization. If you've read "The Master and His Emissary" then you will know that his hemisphere hypothesis dips into social psychology, political theory, and anthropology. More than this, he extrapolates conclusions from lateralization that each side of the brain can be thought of as having its own "value system," which involves moral psychology.

The problem that I have with the hemisphere hypothesis is one that I've seen a number of neuroscientists comment on. The data that we have simply does not fully support the kinds of sweeping generalizations McGilchrist makes. Social psychologists, political theorists, anthropologists, and moral psychologists have mostly not adopted his perspective on these matters yet.

I don't mean to dismiss McGilchrist as a pseudo-scientist. He isn't. He has the credentials and he has his reasons for making these proposals. In time, if their truth is undeniable, then acceptance of them will spread in academia. He is a psychiatrist, this is his field of expertise, and he's earned a place of respect among his peers.

There's a reason why it's called the "hemisphere hypothesis" and not the "hemisphere theory," though. There are supporters of it, but there are also detractors, and even more neuroscientists seem to have no real stance yet, from what I've seen. Much of McGilchrist's assertions still need supporting evidence, at least that's the impression that I get as someone who is not a neuroscientist.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "hemisphere hypothesis" starts and ends at the lateralization of brain function, and any amount of lateralization makes McGilchrist correct. Maybe all of his additional speculations aren't meant to be a part of the hypothesis he sets forward, and all we should focus on are the parts he has actually been able to make a strong case for.

Even then, as you can tell on his own website page about the hemisphere hypothesis, he starts off by defending it from criticism. He says that it hasn't been debunked and that we shouldn't think that there's nothing in it. Where do you think he's getting these critiques from? He's responding to other scientists. In fact, as far as I can tell, the criticisms he's replying to here actually represent the current majority perspective regarding his work among relevant scientists.

As such, I'm abstaining from affirming his hypothesis until it's become accepted science.

 

[Whateverist]

There is a difference between this lateralization and McGilchrist's hemisphere hypothesis

Absolutely right. His theory goes far beyond the verifiable differences to hypothesize why it is this way evolutionarily without much support. But then any speculation of human development between 100,000 to 20,000 years ago has pretty much got to be speculative about anything at all interesting.

If you've read "The Master and His Emissary" then you will know that his hemisphere hypothesis dips into social psychology, political theory, and anthropology.

The problem that I have with the hemisphere hypothesis is one that I've seen a number of neuroscientists comment on. The data that we have simply does not fully support the kinds of sweeping generalizations McGilchrist makes.

I've read it and am about half way through the new one, The Matter With Things. It is true that is more ambitious than the science can support, but I only have a casual interest in science. Being a humanities guy and philosophy major who read a lot of psychological theory, it has been interesting to consider how the basic differences between the two sides shed light on big questions of philosophy. McGilchrist became a doctor and then a neuroscience researcher and psychiatrist primarily because of his own philosophic interest in the mind/body problem. So I can appreciate the explanatory significance of his hypothesis to such questions. It isn't hard science so anyone who places a high priority on that is entitled to dismiss it out of hand - not that I think you are. But many do.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "hemisphere hypothesis" starts and ends at the lateralization of brain function, and any amount of lateralization makes McGilchrist correct. Maybe all of his additional speculations aren't meant to be a part of the hypothesis he sets forward, and all we should focus on are the parts he has actually been able to make a strong case for.

No you're not wrong. The science isn't enough to support the speculation. But as a philosophy guy that is what I am used. There are standards still but they aren't generally based on laboratory results. McGilchrist is reverential toward science where it applies but I agree with him that there is much to which it just doesn't. And yet there are many people who look to make science the standard in answering any question, and that is truly pathetic. To embrace science to such a degree can only shrink ones humanity.

Where do you think he's getting these critiques from? He's responding to other scientists. In fact, as far as I can tell, the criticisms he's replying to here actually represent the current majority perspective regarding his work among relevant scientists.

It isn't just scientists. In fact many scientists, especially those at a higher theoretical level, tend to be interested and many are supporters. But the general population who barely have a clue about science often are over awed by science, tending to put it on a pedestal like an idol.

I find the hypothesis that our brains and that of every other creature are divided for the very practical reason that we all have a need to attend to two things - getting dinner and avoiding becoming dinner. Both are important but attending in each way has led to different kinds of specialization. There is no official, generally accepted account for why the differences exist. The conventional position has been to simply ignore it. In case you missed it, I shared this in the thread I started to share excerpts from his new book:

"Each hemisphere, of course, has its frontal cortex – but the distance from the world it offers will have a different purpose and effect in each hemisphere’s case. Let’s take the right hemisphere first. If its raison d’être is to enable us to be on the lookout for potential predators, to form bonds with mates, and to understand, and interpret the living world around us, the role of the right frontal lobe is likely to be to provide the distance that enables us to do this more effectively. It will be involved (along with the posterior cortex of the same hemisphere) in everything that makes us, as Aristotle called us, the ‘social animal’. The distance it provides will stop us jumping to conclusions, for one thing: not all creatures are necessarily hostile or in competition, and distance enables us not just to bite. It must enable us to feel empathy, feeling our way into what it is like to be another; to interpret social signals such as humour or irony, oblique and intuitive signals from face and posture and tone of voice; and enable us to make sense of the world around us – to see the connexions. It must be able to integrate experience over time through memory. It must be in touch with reality here and now, as well as alive to one’s personal past and all that it teaches us. The right frontal cortex will facilitate the closest
possible knowledge of the terrain. It will facilitate the human desire for exploration of the world. It will prove the seat of intelligent co- operation. Similarly with the left hemisphere. If its raison d’être is to enable us to be effective predators, the role of the left frontal lobe is likely to be to provide the distance that enables us to do this more effectively. It will be involved (along with the posterior cortex of the same hemisphere) in everything that makes us, as Benjamin Franklin, called us, the ‘tool-making animal’ – manipulating the environment, hunting our quarry, getting what we need from it. It will enable us to hypothesise about the consequences of actions. It will develop emotional distance from the other: enable us to stand back and plan, to develop a strategy, to understand another’s likely thought processes, not so much to empathise with, as to outwit, him. It will be focussed not so much on the past as on the future. In order to do this it needs to go ‘offline’, if you like, from the real world, and be able to consider various possible courses of action in a virtual fashion. For this, reality needs to be drastically simplified, ‘re-presented’, rather than actually present (with all the obfuscating complexity that would bring with it): it needs to be mapped. The left frontal cortex will facilitate knowledge, not of the terrain, but of the territory. It will facilitate the human desire for exploitation, more than exploration, of the world. It will prove the seat of intelligent competition, rather than co-operation.[/quote]

As such, I'm abstaining from affirming his hypothesis until it's become accepted science.

And I still think your position is reasonable. There is no open and shut reason anyone should accept it unless their background disposes them to do so.

 

[ajay0]

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?

This is actually the nihilist argument, which has been the cause of a lot of confusion, mischief and strife in history.

Eastern philosophy states that enlightenment or Buddhahood can be attained by virtuous conduct or adherence to good values. Enlightened sages like Buddha and Anandamayi Ma have stated the same.

Rajini Menon is a modern enlightened female sage who has attributed meticulous adherence to virtuous conduct and the voice of inner conscience, for attaining enlightenment.

So this obviously implies that values are 'really constituents of the universe' , as you put it, and not mere abstract mental contrivances.

I have created a thread in this regard in the Dharmic forums...

Swami Satchidananda on virtuous conduct being synonymous with meditation...

Swami Satchidananda, disciple of Ramana Maharshi and Swami Sivananda, and the founder of Integral Yoga, stated thus.... “When even one virtue becomes our nature, the mind becomes clean and tranquil. Then there is no need to practice meditation; we will automatically be meditating always.” -...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Whateverist]

This is actually the nihilist argument, which has been the cause of a lot of confusion, mischief and strife in history.

Of course I was actually stating a question for the sake of eliciting opinions as opposed to stating or defending my own. But I'm curious why you identify the premise with a defense of nihilism. I think it is a question which can/should make one fall back on lived experience rather than just following the form of an argument.

Personally I think they are not derivable from anything else. So they are part of the same reality that includes us. They are obviously not simply up to us to choose at random.