Comments on be the change you wish to see in the world: The brain as a home for the communion of saints?

Paul, thank you for your comment that just elevate...

2012-01-27T09:21:34.042-06:00

Paul, thank you for your comment that just elevated the reading level of this post up to master's level. This is why you are paid the big bucks!

I think I understand what you are saying, albeit I had to look up a couple of words, but the act/omit situation is not really main thrust of the original post. I was hopeful to raise up that religion can introduce language into the realm of science conversations that can help us discuss the "more" that is in the world, and not just that which is seen and tested.

So neuroscience points out that our brain is informed by the collective wisdom of the past through evolution that is well and good. Christianity calls that collective wisdom of the past the communion of saints. To the religious people of the Church, sometimes the communion of saints is "somewhere else", but what if (as the title suggests) the brain is the home of the communion of saints and it resides within and outside the individual human being.

This becomes a cross point in which religion and science inform and reinforce each other.

The act/omission distinction is a problematic, div...

2012-01-26T23:07:35.831-06:00

The act/omission distinction is a problematic, divisive component of modern philosophy. Where you choose sides on that issue ultimately affects whether you side with deontology or consequentialism as your philosophical camp. Brain science might have something to say about this, but usually risks the naturalistic fallacy (what is is also what ought be). If you are looking for more on this, Judith Butler has written extensively on it.

Ryan, Thank you for your comment. This is a rat...

2012-01-12T14:41:57.913-06:00

Ryan,

Thank you for your comment. This is a rather well know thought experiment and like all thought experiments there are some things that do not seem to make sense in "real life". For instance the thought experiment of Schroders Cat does not make sense in "real life" in many ways.

So for this bit, we can imagine that when you push the one person off the ledge you push them on to a lever that diverts the train, or perhaps it would be that the train hits the one person and slams on the brakes long so that it would stop in time to not hit the other 5.

The point is not so much the rationality of the thought experiment, but the moral situation it points toward.

Here is another example, you might have seen it on M.A.S.H. in which the village was surrounded by the enemy. If the enemy heard them they all would be killed so everyone is very quite. The only issue is there is one baby who is sick and could cry or cough at any moment and expose the entire group. Would you kill the one to save the many? In M.A.S.H (spoiler alert!!!) the mom kills her infant to save the group.

Jason, The issue with pushing one person v. pul...

2012-01-12T13:47:31.505-06:00

Jason,
The issue with pushing one person v. pulling a level in which one would die to save the five is a bit of a red herring to me. How could pushing one person save five? It makes rational sense that a train diverted to a different track would change the trajectory of the train, and the scenario seems plausible. The reason why I can't push one person to save 5 is because I just can't understand, rationally, how that would save 5 people. Perhaps that is part of the issue?