/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5934210
>But I don't get your point... are you saying we just have to wait and see where blacks will finally arrive?

Ah no, not exactly, but close.
I mean, the farthest where anybody can arrive morally speaking would be to include all conscious creatures, but that is hard in practice, even if we acknowledge it intellectually. I'm saying that they have their own little "humanity" kit that gives them moral worth, and hence, moral responsibility. And that even if they turn out to be irrevocably unintelligent, that they still have the basic factors for "intelligence" that allow them to understand a domain of knowledge however slowly or quickly.

If you had a low I.Q. and more testosterone than the average (which has been classically tied to aggression, although it's still in repute), it may be scientifically true, and important to find out, but if I were to deny you voting rights, reproductive rights, or say that you lack moral worth, it won't be because I'm being reasonable, or moral. I'd actively trying to NOT see things from your point-of-view, and I'd have to ignore that you have any moral value, so as to deem you incapable of being morally responsible.

>>5934099

The people making the most noise are those who base their egalitarianism so strongly on relativism (the idea that no position "true" just different perspectives), that if you question it, they feel like you're attacking egalitarianism.

Finding out the genes that contribute to the variation that we see between human beings wouldn't question the moral worth of conscious creatures-- because what gives them the worth is that they are conscious and that they suffer. If blacks didn't invent anything, that doesn't mean anything morally, that would just mean I have something in common with them: I haven't invented shit.

If, however, they are capable of learning through practice and small incremental steps, a domain of knowledge, then they are intelligent enough to move up the technological ladder.

With aggression, they can have a higher than average predisposition to aggression, and it need not express itself through violence. Aggression can lead to ambition. They don't even need to be particularly intelligent for it not to lead to violence, they just have feel that feeling physically threatened, and living in a world where you need to physically threaten... really sucks. If it's possible for them to recognize this, then they can move up the moral-cultural ladder. In africa, they are basically feudal leading into a traditional cutlure (religious values, of course), except this time around it's not a bunch of males with armor and swords harassing peasants it's a bunch males in jeeps with AKs and RPGs.

http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s4/chapter05.html
Go down to 5.3 in that page, they have a beautiful little interactive graphic showing the large structure of the hippocampus and fornix

02

01

01

hippocampal fldr

>>5933956

I'm not trolling. nor am I regular troll to this bored...whom you seem to be familiar with. But since you asked, I'll stop bumping this thread. It seems to be generating more heat than light anyway... and you guys seem rather sensitive because of abuse perpetrated by /x/ and other occultists.

>>5933970
OKAY, okay, first of all... calllllm dowwwwn. I am not OP, nor am I purposely trolling. Also, I didn't claim to know absolutely nothing, I merely said that I am not a neuroscientist. There are plenty of non-neuroscientists interested in neuroscience. You could say 4chan is probably full of them. /sci/ was made in a community surrounded by people who aren't directly related to academia. These are the people who'll be posting most of the time.

again, I'm not a troll. I'm not trying to piss you off--- i'm trying to love you.

Now... all that being said... do you like the pictures? ehm? I have plenty, if you feel that it is the only interesting thing about this thread, perhaps I can just post those... without bumping the thread, of course.

>>5933947
forgot the obligatory pic.