<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri" size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div> </div>
<div>From “Conscience” – by Pat Churchland</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Conscience is a brain construct rooted in our neural circuitry, not a theological entity thoughtfully parked in us by a divine being. It is not infallible, even when honestly consulted. It develops over time and is sensitive to approval and disapproval;
it joins forces with reflection and imagination and can be twisted by bad habits, bad company, and a zeitgeist of narcissism. Not everyone develops a conscience (witness the psychopaths), and sometimes conscience becomes the plaything of morbid anxiety (as
in scrupulants). The best we can do, given all this, is to aim for understanding how an impartial spectator might judge us.</div>
<div>No good comes of insisting that unless conscience is infallible or religion provides absolute rules, morality has nothing to anchor it and anything goes. For one thing, such a claim is false. For another thing, we do have something to anchor it—namely,
our inherited neurobiology. In addition, we have the traditions that are handed down from one generation to another and, to some degree, tested by time and over varying conditions. We do have institutions that embody much wisdom. Those are the anchors. Imperfect?
Yes, of course. Still, an imperfect foundation is better than a phony foundation. What we don’t want to do is fabricate a myth about infallible conscience or divine laws, peddle it as fact, and then get caught out when people come to realize, as they most assuredly
will, that it was all made up.</div>
<div>Thus a biological take on moral behavior and the conscience that guides it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[Me-my simple question to Dr. Churchland’s which she did not respond to</div>
<div> </div>
<div> Dear Dr. Churchland</div>
<div>I read your new book with great interest. While I would certainly love to discuss it with you I do have one question that I was hoping you might address.</div>
<div>On page 147 you note that conscience is a brain construct rooted in our neural circuitry. My simple question is once one becomes aware of this fact, why should he feel bound to act according to his conscience? If such an individual had a ring of gyges,
why would he choose not to use it to his full benefit?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lshitata – what would be the response?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu (may we see the consolation of Jerusalem and its rebuilding speedily in our days ),</div>
<div>Joel Rich</div>
<div> </div>
</span></font>
<br><pre><font color="blue">
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
</font></pre><br>
</body>
</html>