>"Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dan said:
>
>>Well, that's well worth arguing about. If the transcendental is >>not the
origin of morals, what is?
>
>Trial and error, basically, on the levels of species evolution and of
>cultural evolution.
Well I have a problem understanding that. We agree that there is nothing
teleological about evolution, right? So, what in it determines what is good
and bad? Are you arguing that the definition of good is improving the
probability of our species, or a subset thereof to continue to exist?
Anything that fulfills this is good, anything that detracts from it is bad,
and everything else is neutral?
>
>I have the feeling this will mean rehashing some ancient threads to >which
I apparently wasn't paying sufficient attention at the time, >but please go
ahead. :-)
I'd be happy to. But, to make it easy for both of us, let me start with a
quick question. How familiar are you with indeterminacy in QM, with what
I've written on Bell's theorem, and spacelike correlations? We'll start
with those.
Oh, boy, ethics and quantum indeterminacy...just like the good old days. :-)
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
