字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 deal, Dr Harris, please forgive me, and this goes for whatever audience this video might attract for reading this. But I need to make this quick and coherent, and this is the fastest way of doing so. I wanted to address some of the issues that I believe made our discussion both more trying and less valuable. That might have bean a problem that many of the people who now listen to it rightly identify. I think that our discussion would perhaps be more productive if we started from the realization that we're both trying to address the same problem. What is the relationship between science and ethics? You see, ethics has nested inside scientific realism. Now, obviously, that's a contentious claim, which is not the same. Is it being wrong? But the fact that it's contentious re David Hume and his problem with deriving a nought Furman is means that there is a real problem there. I see a scientific great realism is nested inside Darwinian competition, at least potentially not necessarily. I could be wrong, but I am trying to address the real problem and I think the fact that you're addressing the science slash ethics problem indicates that you see that there's a real problem there, too. I also think we only got to the problems with my formulation, not the problems with your solution. For example, the problem with measuring well being you consider the enhancement of well being the proper ream of ethics. However, the psychological measures of well being currently used are almost on Lee Trait. Extra version minus trait. Neuroticism. That's happiness minus sadness. Well, that's how well being is currently defined. Well, that proposition is faulty in every way. It's a big problem. It's a measurement problem. It's a scientific realism problem, you might say, Well, we need better measures of well being and I would say Well, exactly. And those will have to be nested inside the Darwinian conundrum. How should we act in the world? Here's an answer individually so that the family thrives at the family level so that society thrives at the societal level so that the ecosystem thrives, and not just today, Tomorrow, next week, next year and across time. That's the problem the developmental psychologist John P. J was trying to address when he studied the moral development of Children P J was interested in solving the problem of the relationship between science and ethics. And he looked how he looked at how ethics and Children emerged and transformed into adulthood. That's what drove his entire life. He was trying to formulate a scientific solution to the problem of ethics, and I've drawn a lot of my thinking from that. Now I'm going to jump to a level of analysis, and when I do so, it will make many think I've gone off the rails of this argument. I ask for your indulgence while I try to put things together that have not yet being put together. This means that I have to present many ideas simultaneously, as if looking at a picture, or is if describing a picture, which is how these ideas have frequently being represented. The individual who acts in disequilibrium, ID manner is the mythological hero. It's the mythological hero who confronts the attention, the unknown with attention and intent to communicate. It's the archetypal hero who obtains the gold from the eternal dragon, the dragon of Chaos. That's an evolved representation of the predatory but promising domain beyond the safety of the tree or the campfire. It's the archetypal hero who distributes the goal that he that he obtains from the dragon to the community. It's him who rescues the youthful virgin from the predatory reptile that ST George. It's the oldest story we know. It's in the Enuma Elish, the Mesopotamian creation myth upon which the opening lines of Genesis Air founded. Can't you see an evolutionary relationship? That's the archetypal hero? That's first a way of behaving. Second, it's a representation of that way of behaving. Third, it's a way of organizing society itself around that action and representation. Fourth, it's that society that then selects through masculine competition for the best contender to that representation. And finally, it's what is selected for by women who peel off the top of the masculine competition. Women outsourced the impossible cognitive task of mate selection to the male dominance hierarchy. A hero emerges at the top of the competition. He gets all the girls. It's that what it's that which is selected for and human females performed part of the selection process, their mother nature, the selection apparatus, the choosy majors that female chimps or not the archetypal hero might be regarded as a super mean in Richard Dawkins terminology. It's being around so long that we have adapted biologically to its existence. Justus. We have adapted in every way to the presence of the 300 million year old dominance hierarchy, which is more permanent more really, even from a strictly realist perspective than such evidence and phenomena as amphibians, reptiles and mammals. It's even older than trees. The closer you are to that archetypal hero, the more likely you are, at least as a male toe win the dominance Harkey contest that makes you attractive to women. If Richard Dawkins, who formulated the idea of the mean, was wiser, he would have Bean. Carl Young. An archetype is the ultimate mean. In my opinion. We need to have a real conversation, not an argument. It's not that I think you're wrong. It's that I think that there's a real problem here, which we both recognize and are both trying to solve. If none of this makes even the least bit of sense, it doesn't at least pique your curiosity. If you can't see that were obsessed by the same problem, then we won't be able to talk, and that would be a shame. You're very sharp and precise and I think in patterns. Somebody said listening to us was like the right hemisphere of a single brain talking to the left. That's a good metaphor. There wouldn't be so many people trying to get us to talk if we didn't have something to discuss. The relationship between science and ethics is vitally important. If we had a real conversation and no fault is implied on your part, we might be able to further the solution to the problem. Thanks for listening and watching.