Magnets can make you EEEVIIILLL

[AAAhmed46]

Morality Study Narrows Gap Between Mind And Brain

Scientists have found a surprising link between magnets and morality. A person's moral judgments can be changed almost instantly by delivering a magnetic pulse to an area of the brain near the right ear, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

People in the study read stories designed to produce moral judgments. One such story begins with a woman named Grace putting powder in her friend's coffee. After that, the story can go in several different directions.

In one version, Grace believes she's putting sugar in her friend's coffee. But it turns out to be poison and her friend dies. In another version, Grace believes she's putting poison in the coffee but it turns out to be sugar and her friend is fine.

People who hear these stories generally forgive Grace for unwittingly poisoning her friend, says Liane Young, a researcher in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And, she says, they usually condemn Grace for the failed attempt to do harm.

"We judge people not just for what they do, but what they're thinking at the time of their action, what they're intending," Young says. But, she says, a brief magnetic pulse was able to change that.

Back To Childhood Morality

Young and her colleagues used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, to temporarily decrease activity in an area of the brain called the right temporoparietal junction. It's near the surface of the brain, above and behind the right ear, and it seems to helps us decipher another person's beliefs.

Twenty volunteers got TMS before or during the time they were listening to stories like the one about Grace and the coffee. The stimulation caused people to pay less attention to Grace's intention and more attention to the outcome, Young says.

"If no harm was done, then subjects would judge [Grace's behavior] as OK," she says, even if the story made it clear Grace was trying to poison her friend. That's the sort of moral judgment you often see in kids who are 3 or 4 years old, Young says.

Studies show that at this age, children will usually say a child who breaks five teacups accidentally is naughtier than a child who breaks one teacup on purpose, she says. That's probably because their brains are still developing the ability to understand the intentions of other people.

Moral Judgment: 'Just A Brain Process'?

The fact that scientists can adjust morality with a magnet may be disconcerting to people who view morality as a lofty and immutable human trait, says Joshua Greene, psychologist at Harvard University. But that view isn't accurate, he says.

"Moral judgment is just a brain process," he says. "That's precisely why it's possible for these researchers to influence it using electromagnetic pulses on the surface of the brain."

The new study is really part of a much larger effort by scientists to explain how the brain creates moral judgments, Greene says. The scientists are trying to take concepts such as morality, which philosophers once attributed to the human soul, and "break it down in mechanical terms."

If something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, Green says, it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =125304448
.....................................................................................

Discuss.

I think the article is good, but reads into some stuff too much.

We have known for thousands of years how the brain can be alterted from the outside, from alchohol and drugs to smashing someone in the head.

[Bill Glasheen]

Very interesting article, Adam. Thanks for posting.

I think the article is good, but reads into some stuff too much.

We both agree that an article with some interesting facts has been mangled a bit by the author and/or the Harvard scientist he interviewed. However the mangled details are recoverable.

Let's step waaaay back here for a moment. Why should a martial artist and/or human care about such an article?

1) Moral judgment is involved in violence.

2) The "story of Grace" that is the measured response of the study is interesting in that there is both intent and outcome. What did the person INTEND to do? What was the outcome? Can the end justify the means - even in a most perverted sense?

3) Consider crime and punishment - in the general sense, mind you. (This isn't a Dostoevsky novel.) Generally when analyzing a situation and attributing guilt for various kinds of crime, both motive and intent are considered along with a punishable action and/or outcome. You can have the (bad) outcome without necessarily punishing someone if their was neither motive nor intent. (e.g. sometimes schit just happens) Our moral center (the right temporoparietal junction) assesses this intent. Without it, we'll never be able to figure out if it makes sense to send Johnny to prison.

Now I'm still a little fuzzy on some subtle aspects of moral reasoning here. For example... some people with a lower level of moral reasoning won't do something because they don't want to get caught. Such people (who don't have a "good book" to live by) may find themselves getting into trouble simply because they figure that they probably won't get caught. A higher level of moral reasoning involves a person actually "getting" The Golden Rule. Such a person doesn't need a "good book" or a penal code to tell them how to do the right thing. So where does this whole intent thing fit in with the lower and higher levels of moral reasoning? Note to self - sleep on this.

4) Any of you who have raised teenagers and/or been involved with deep discussions about actions and choices here may have reached that point where you want to bang your head against a wall because someone you're communicating with just doesn't get why a certain action is inappropriate. I remember a discussion here years back (name will not be mentioned) where I was trying to explain to someone why it wasn't cool to steal digital copies of music online. Now I can understand where someone KNOWS what is right and wrong and decides to do the wrong thing anyhow. I have a LITTLE respect for such a person. Just a little. But someone who just doesn't get why violating The Golden Rule in a specific situation isn't a cool thing to do is... well... Interestingly enough, I've found that such people will show consistent patterns of "not getting it" when morality and choices are involved. I suspect that the right temporoparietal junction is involved. Just a hunch.

Anyhoo... You want to see a preponderance of right temporoparietal junction issues - totally absent any exogenous (transcranial magnetic stimulation) factors? My educated guess is to start in prisons and in juvenile detention centers.

As for the whole philosophical issue of "a soul", well... I think the discussion is spot on. It's sort of like the whole chi thing. We see something and we know it's real, but we don't know WTF it is. Absent any explanation due to a knowledge deficit (anatomy, physiology, physics, etc.), we tend to throw a name at it. It's the Greek Gods. Or it's chi. Or it's a soul. Is this a bad thing? Not entirely. It (the fuzzy label) can be a convenient place holder until we figure out exactly what's going on.

In this case, it seems we're quite possibly coming up with explanations for what SOME aspects of "a soul" are.

The fact that scientists can adjust morality with a magnet may be disconcerting to people who view morality as a lofty and immutable human trait, says Joshua Greene, psychologist at Harvard University. But that view isn't accurate, he says.

"Moral judgment is just a brain process," he says. "That's precisely why it's possible for these researchers to influence it using electromagnetic pulses on the surface of the brain."

I'm totally with him. I agree.

But then...

The new study is really part of a much larger effort by scientists to explain how the brain creates moral judgments, Greene says. The scientists are trying to take concepts such as morality, which philosophers once attributed to the human soul, and "break it down in mechanical terms."

If something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, Green says, it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul.

Picture Bill's face as if he just heard fingernails scratching on a chalk board.

Mechanical??? Uuugghhh!!!! You started out fine, and then your language just went to hell.

It is NOT mechanical any more than your car battery is mechanical. It is structural, electrical, and chemical. It is neurons which create synapses or connections between them - the structure part. They then execute on that functional structure by sending signals (via electricity and neurotransmitters in-between the nerves) through said functional network - the electrical and chemical part. NOTHING mechanical is involved. Not even with the transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is a way to interrupt the electrical signals from outside the brain. (An electrical current creates a magnetic field around the conductor. A dynamic magnetic field can induce current flow through a conductor.)

Make sense?

And finally... this (to me) is the most interesting part.

5) Will this help me raise my teenager?

6) If we know that morality is a matter of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, where does this take the whole concept of crime and punishment? Ponder that for a bit. Trust me - society one day WILL go there.

Good stuff.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

I remember a discussion here years back (name will not be mentioned) where I was trying to explain to someone why it wasn't cool to steal digital copies of music online.

I'll own up to being the other party in this discussion. What my point boils down to is that copyright isn't a natural right the way life and physical property are. It's a legal instrument designed to encourage innovation. And it's a useful one, but that's all it is. The courts and legislatures decide what is copyrightable, patentable and what constitutes fair use. There is no basic human right to exclusive control over ideas you publish.

The word "steal" is inaccurately applied here, because it carries the baggage of physical property. When you steal you evoke an image of a person deprived of something for the benefit of another. This is not the case with copyright infringement. When you make an unauthorized copy of a music, movie or any other sort of file, you have deprived the owner of nothing but the right to control its distribution. But that is a legal right, not a moral right. You have no deprived them of any goods, which is what theft is. The proper term is copyright infringement, and attempts to frame it as "stealing" are inaccurate at best, and manipulative at worst.

While copying music or movies may be illegal, it is not immoral.

[Valkenar]

Also on the main subject, as I understood it this study was a lot less about the ability to make moral judgments and much more about the ability to understand and analyze the motivations of others. The downstream result being that it becomes impossible to judge the morality of an action taken by another person because their motivations are opaque.

The analogy drawn by the NPR story I first heard about this on compared it to studies of young children. They said that if you ask small children who is "naughtier" someone who breaks 4 cups accidentally or 1 cup on purpose, the children will choose the 4-cup-breaker because they don't get the concept of intent. Similarly, the magnetic pulse is believed to be interfering with that concept of intent, and thus causing people to misconstrue an action.

[Bill Glasheen]

The word "steal" is inaccurately applied here, because it carries the baggage of physical property. When you steal you evoke an image of a person deprived of something for the benefit of another. This is not the case with copyright infringement. When you make an unauthorized copy of a music, movie or any other sort of file, you have deprived the owner of nothing but the right to control its distribution. But that is a legal right, not a moral right. You have no deprived them of any goods, which is what theft is. The proper term is copyright infringement, and attempts to frame it as "stealing" are inaccurate at best, and manipulative at worst.

While copying music or movies may be illegal, it is not immoral.

<Sigh.......>

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

The analogy drawn by the NPR story I first heard about this on compared it to studies of young children. They said that if you ask small children who is "naughtier" someone who breaks 4 cups accidentally or 1 cup on purpose, the children will choose the 4-cup-breaker because they don't get the concept of intent. Similarly, the magnetic pulse is believed to be interfering with that concept of intent, and thus causing people to misconstrue an action.

That's in the story above, Justin.

It's worth reading the whole thing. Very carefully.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

It's worth reading the whole thing. Very carefully.

Oops, silly me.

Also, sigh if you want, but it's not like I'm making this stuff up.

Here's a couple similar opinions. I don't necessarily agree with everything in these, fyi.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterp ... right.html

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/0 ... snt-exist/

[AAAhmed46]

Very interesting article, Adam. Thanks for posting.

I think the article is good, but reads into some stuff too much.

We both agree that an article with some interesting facts has been mangled a bit by the author and/or the Harvard scientist he interviewed. However the mangled details are recoverable.

Let's step waaaay back here for a moment. Why should a martial artist and/or human care about such an article?

1) Moral judgment is involved in violence.

2) The "story of Grace" that is the measured response of the study is interesting in that there is both intent and outcome. What did the person INTEND to do? What was the outcome? Can the end justify the means - even in a most perverted sense?

3) Consider crime and punishment - in the general sense, mind you. (This isn't a Dostoevsky novel.) Generally when analyzing a situation and attributing guilt for various kinds of crime, both motive and intent are considered along with a punishable action and/or outcome. You can have the (bad) outcome without necessarily punishing someone if their was neither motive nor intent. (e.g. sometimes schit just happens) Our moral center (the right temporoparietal junction) assesses this intent. Without it, we'll never be able to figure out if it makes sense to send Johnny to prison.

Now I'm still a little fuzzy on some subtle aspects of moral reasoning here. For example... some people with a lower level of moral reasoning won't do something because they don't want to get caught. Such people (who don't have a "good book" to live by) may find themselves getting into trouble simply because they figure that they probably won't get caught. A higher level of moral reasoning involves a person actually "getting" The Golden Rule. Such a person doesn't need a "good book" or a penal code to tell them how to do the right thing. So where does this whole intent thing fit in with the lower and higher levels of moral reasoning? Note to self - sleep on this.

4) Any of you who have raised teenagers and/or been involved with deep discussions about actions and choices here may have reached that point where you want to bang your head against a wall because someone you're communicating with just doesn't get why a certain action is inappropriate. I remember a discussion here years back (name will not be mentioned) where I was trying to explain to someone why it wasn't cool to steal digital copies of music online. Now I can understand where someone KNOWS what is right and wrong and decides to do the wrong thing anyhow. I have a LITTLE respect for such a person. Just a little. But someone who just doesn't get why violating The Golden Rule in a specific situation isn't a cool thing to do is... well... Interestingly enough, I've found that such people will show consistent patterns of "not getting it" when morality and choices are involved. I suspect that the right temporoparietal junction is involved. Just a hunch.

Anyhoo... You want to see a preponderance of right temporoparietal junction issues - totally absent any exogenous (transcranial magnetic stimulation) factors? My educated guess is to start in prisons and in juvenile detention centers.

As for the whole philosophical issue of "a soul", well... I think the discussion is spot on. It's sort of like the whole chi thing. We see something and we know it's real, but we don't know WTF it is. Absent any explanation due to a knowledge deficit (anatomy, physiology, physics, etc.), we tend to throw a name at it. It's the Greek Gods. Or it's chi. Or it's a soul. Is this a bad thing? Not entirely. It (the fuzzy label) can be a convenient place holder until we figure out exactly what's going on.

In this case, it seems we're quite possibly coming up with explanations for what SOME aspects of "a soul" are.

The fact that scientists can adjust morality with a magnet may be disconcerting to people who view morality as a lofty and immutable human trait, says Joshua Greene, psychologist at Harvard University. But that view isn't accurate, he says.

"Moral judgment is just a brain process," he says. "That's precisely why it's possible for these researchers to influence it using electromagnetic pulses on the surface of the brain."

I'm totally with him. I agree.

But then...

The new study is really part of a much larger effort by scientists to explain how the brain creates moral judgments, Greene says. The scientists are trying to take concepts such as morality, which philosophers once attributed to the human soul, and "break it down in mechanical terms."

If something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, Green says, it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul.

Picture Bill's face as if he just heard fingernails scratching on a chalk board.

Mechanical??? Uuugghhh!!!! You started out fine, and then your language just went to hell.

It is NOT mechanical any more than your car battery is mechanical. It is structural, electrical, and chemical. It is neurons which create synapses or connections between them - the structure part. They then execute on that functional structure by sending signals (via electricity and neurotransmitters in-between the nerves) through said functional network - the electrical and chemical part. NOTHING mechanical is involved. Not even with the transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is a way to interrupt the electrical signals from outside the brain. (An electrical current creates a magnetic field around the conductor. A dynamic magnetic field can induce current flow through a conductor.)

Make sense?

And finally... this (to me) is the most interesting part.

5) Will this help me raise my teenager?

6) If we know that morality is a matter of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, where does this take the whole concept of crime and punishment? Ponder that for a bit. Trust me - society one day WILL go there.

Good stuff.

- Bill

They make some assumptions too though.

I know alot of you guys are atheists, but i have always viewed the human self, the chemical processes of the brain as physical manifestations of the soul, how it expresses it self physically.

Alot of people were shocked to find out love was just a rush of chemical. I never was, i always believed thats what the emotion was. After all, our brain would not work if it were not for chemical reactions. We would not be thinking if it were not for electronic charges, our wiring would not work.

I always viewed Humanity and animals as fleshy robots.

But that still doesnt change the fact we can make choices, even with beer or magnets, altered they may be. The fact we can even be aware that a magnet or a chemical is affecting or brain is a sign of free will.

[Valkenar]

Oh yeah, and it's not even illegal everywhere. It's legal in Canada, France and Spain, for example.

http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index. ... 03100727pm

http://en.onsoftware.com/how-legal-is-p2p-file-sharing/

So depending where you live, sharing music and movies can be both legal and moral.

[Bill Glasheen]

So depending where you live, sharing music and movies can be both legal and moral.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I know alot of you guys are atheists, but i have always viewed the human self, the chemical processes of the brain as physical manifestations of the soul, how it expresses it self physically.

Works for me, Adam.

Alot of people were shocked to find out love was just a rush of chemical.

I always thought it was a rush of blood to...

Oh never mind.

I always viewed Humanity and animals as fleshy robots.

That works for me as well.

But that still doesnt change the fact we can make choices, even with beer or magnets, altered they may be. The fact we can even be aware that a magnet or a chemical is affecting or brain is a sign of free will.

And now you depart from it all. What happened? Did your chi make you do it???

What makes you think that "free will" is something esoteric rather than being more of the same - physical, electrical, and chemical phenomena in the brain?

I have a book that I recommend to people like you who think that math and science can't explain everything.



Long live predictable unpredictability!

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

I know alot of you guys are atheists, but i have always viewed the human self, the chemical processes of the brain as physical manifestations of the soul, how it expresses it self physically.

Works for me, Adam.

Alot of people were shocked to find out love was just a rush of chemical.

I always thought it was a rush of blood to...

Oh never mind.

I always viewed Humanity and animals as fleshy robots.

That works for me as well.

But that still doesnt change the fact we can make choices, even with beer or magnets, altered they may be. The fact we can even be aware that a magnet or a chemical is affecting or brain is a sign of free will.

And now you depart from it all. What happened? Did your chi make you do it???

What makes you think that "free will" is something esoteric rather than being more of the same - physical, electrical, and chemical phenomena in the brain?

I have a book that I recommend to people like you who think that math and science can't explain everything.



Long live predictable unpredictability!

- Bill

Will look into the book!

Just because free will is mechanical doesnt mean it doesnt have metaphysical roots(god that sounds contradictory, but i cant explain it.)

I do think science can explain nearly most things.

To me, science is how god reveals himself, how god essentially runs things. I have always viewed science as spiritual, if things had turned out different, i would love to have become a researcher.

[AAAhmed46]

Let me put it this way...

"Oh look, there is a dude with a screwed up magnet waving it over my head. I read about technology that alters brain waves.hmmmm"

Doesn't that awarness of manipulation kind of make things confusing?

I dunno, guess we need to learn more about this technology.

[Bill Glasheen]

There's a difference between the kinds of magnet foo foo that people are using allegedly to make pain go away vs. targeted magnetic fields in specific regions of the brain designed to induce a current in the neurons of said regions. And this is more disruption than sophisticated entrainment. It's sort of like throwing a brick into a still pond so you can't see the ripples caused by a pebble.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

Like getting hit in the head with a brick