@@> On Apr-12-1998 William Elliot wrote to David Martorana
 @@> on "Biological Morality"
 
 DM> @@> "THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF MORALITY" ?
 
 WE> Considering the genetic or evolutionary basis for behavior, behavior
 WE> is as complex as DNA.    Our attempts to codify human behavior will
 WE> consequently be as competent as our ability to understand the human
 WE> gene.
 
 DM>> We are actually addressing an "ONLY-PHYSICAL" basis of being!?.
 
 WE>  Consciousness is counter example.  Life also perhaps.
 
      As "consciousness" is presently unexplained and *not* known to
      exist beyond its fleshy container, your "counter example" comment
      is beyond my understanding to be your response. "Life also perhaps"
      ... It is difficult to find fault with a "perhaps".
 
 DM>> Complexity is relative and with enough memory and synthetic logic
 DM>> (mostly pattern recognition, algorithms ....and time), it would
 DM>> eventually reduce to what can be library reference, or creatable
 DM>> structure mechanics (whether genomes or morality or any other
 DM>> complexity of packaging).
 
 WE>    Categorical impossibility.
                   .........................."perhaps" ... "perhaps" !
 
 DM>> With some room for bumps n warts, anything we can think of is
 DM>> only a matter of resources and time expended to "make happen".
 DM>> In the meantime we muddle along ......
 
 WE> Impractical to the utmost, inapplicable for even moving us faster
 WE> than light, much less turning this whole universe into nothing.
 WE> There is a bunch of problems that take longer to compute an answer
 WE> for than there is time in the universe.  You're thinking fails to
 WE> acknowledge these well studied bothers.
 
  Your thinking fails to acknowledge history.......................!
  Using your take on the possible, we might still be in loin cloths-
  but I can understand your careful view    (we might even have been
  better off) ...and "PERHAPS" you will be right ... One of us might
  not think of a right answer when needed (or a computer not yet
  designed to add it up). [bumps n warts] !!!
 
 WE>> What I dislike about all of this bio ethical or theo-ethical method
 WE>> is the abstraction that it presumes for it's keystone.  Unlike the
 WE>> sciences, human endeavor is human centered.  Assuming an abstract
 WE>> theoretical or theological, is to miss the central human concern
 WE>> to replace it with an inhuman construct. A significance ethical
 WE>> discussion demonstrating the need for a human centered view point
 WE>> is the hazards and utility of irrational convictions.
 
 DM>> We be a small mess of fleshy parts with bits of logic, mostly
 DM>> throwaway. "Human centered/concerns", "inhuman constructs"
 DM>> "abstractions" etc,etc. have no present meaning beyond the hardly
 DM>> understood *flesh organism* that seems define us.
 
 WE> Just as I stated, the humanness of humans is discarded with this
 WE> inhuman view of humanity,  this allusion  of an absolute abasing
 WE> abstraction.
 
     Yes! I take my coffee without sugar, but am not opposed to
     those that do.
 
 DM>> We work mightily to build God in our image but can't quite agree
 DM>> on OUR image
 
 WE> Hm, a popular hobby but not one of my choosing.
 
     Yes ....some do escape the "We" gang!
                                              ;;
                                              @@>- - - Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------