Answers needed

[Louis Chérubin]

Interesting. Though, using kuru (the disease) as evidence of the evolution of morality sounds dubious.

Think of it as an incidental evolutionary pressure, and when applied and its effects become apparent, there is a natural trend away from indulging in it. Much as killing someone's child will result in you having the shit murdered out of you by the parent, thereby removing you from the gene pool. Natural mechanisms that, when played out, result in a pattern forming.
I'm not a biologist so I can't really explain it better than that, but I think the gist of the point is solid enough.

Even more interesting :-). Do you think it matters that kudo usually came as a result of mortuary cannibalism (they weren't actually murdering anyone)? This reminds me of the discussion my anthropology class had last semester of the morality of mortuary cannibalism. Stimulating stuff! Lol the discussion not the cannibalism!

---

6. Interesting. Though, using kuru (the disease) as evidence of the evolution of morality sounds dubious.
7. I mean objective reality. (Please don't read into that too much.) This question comes from the fact that our thoughts may be driven by purely chemical processes and therefore may perhaps be unverifiable.

6. No, I don't think there's necessarily a connection between the mental and the biological but the coincidence is enough for me. Plus, what Iroscato said. Also, I don't claim to be an expert in logic or to make all my decisions based on logic. That's just an emotional boost to my existing theory.
7. I'm sorry, that's over my head, and it's late. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Here's what I posted before.

"I recently heard a researcher state that naturalism leads him to understand that consciousness is simply a product of chemical reactions. This is the obvious conclusion of naturalism. If you believe this, how do you know that your logic is true? How can you be so dogmatic about the conclusions you draw? Isn't there a good chance they are false? We have a strong conception of free will, but, according to naturalism, that is simply an illusion. Couldn't our minds be playing other similar tricks?"

This is what spurred my thoughts:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/cogsci-2011/interview-with-judea-pearl