No, course in biology will not clarify situation. Biology study molecular processes , molecular structures, but they still do not know why gastrulation occur(some researchers think of external control).Embryology, Gastrulation - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
That’s odd. A biological question can’t be answered biologically. 
Biology is fundamentally linked to physics, suggesting that answers to many questions may extend beyond the biological realm.
One works on music composing, and another building rockets, because they are interested in what they are doing, and get great pleasure and enjoyment on what they are working on.
It would be their interests on the specified works, and working on them would give satisfaction and rewards to their psychological wellbeing.
Okey dokey.
The reduction of values to scientific principles/processes ultimately plops us on the doorstep of genetics. That’s where it all starts. Before we were us, we were half in our fathers and half in our mothers. Genes are self-replicating biomolecules and observation shows that they copy themselves e.g. my genes are a copy of my parents’ genes and so is everybody’s. In this view we (including our values) are vessels for DNA. What’s pro-life and pro-sex gets passed down across generations. Can we do better? It is possible, I suppose.
To start, I do not know if someone else has expressed a similar view, but in an attempt to have my view challenged and to challenge others, I would consider values to be judgments of consequence. That might be an almost kantian way to phrase something, but all I mean is that I think that values seem to manifest themselves as beliefs, likely for the sake of practicality, and then these beliefs allow us to act. Not because they are the only things allowing us to act, but when someone is asked why they did something, they can say because of x, y, or z reason, which reflects a belief they have. This belief however, stems from values. I consider these values to be things that we see as meaningful and important for certain goals, whether that be survival if you believe that to be the ultimate goal, or if it be for some other subjectively important goal, I see them as nonetheless, things that we deem to be important that are then represented in beliefs, which allow us to act. This may all be because I lean heavily towards relativism, so I find it difficult to state any goal is an objective one. A somewhat consequentialist view, but not in an extreme way that means only the end results matter.
“I consider these values to be things that we see as meaningful and important for certain goals” → Everyone will agree with this statement. We are trying to dig deeper into the topic. I observe two groups of values: induced values and inborn values. The significance and meaning of the first group arise from an individual’s social interactions, while the second group consists of personal values that are inherent and unchangeable. If these inborn values significantly conflict with prevailing social values, the individual may become an outcast.
This is an unexplored area. In society, there are many interacting individuals, each with a unique spectrum of values. Through these interactions, we develop weighted social rules that help define what is best for our long-term survival as entities in this universe. Interestingly, even twins, who share identical DNA and have grown up in the same environment, possess different values. This indicates that the origins of these values are enigmatic.
In attempt to dig deeper, I would challenge your statement that there is such a thing as inborn values. I don’t think it’s clear that we value anything inherently. I would say that all values are learned, and nothing is entirely unchanging. We have no language, no understanding of concepts, no understanding of food when we are born. I don’t think it is possible to value anything inherently if you don’t know anything inherently. My main issue would be that we would have to prove that there are such things as innate values, but a major issue with that is, due to us not knowing anything when we are born, even if we could say that we value survival (which I don’t think we can say), I ask, how could a person value survival if they do not know what is required for them to survive? How do you value something you have no knowledge of? For example, we need food to survive, yet we do not know what is considered food when we are born, and we do not know that we need food to survive then. There may be innate mechanisms through genetic coding that one could consider instinct to an extent, but a problem following this is that even something such as breastfeeding is influenced by a mother and this act alone cannot prove any innate value, it only proves an innate capacity to use our bodies motor functions. I think having values requires awareness of them, and thus you cannot value something you know nothing about.
I acknowledge that there is more to your argument and points you’ve made, but to dig deeper, you have to go beyond the first inch of dirt, and in my opinion, not establishing, but merely assuming and/or stating that there is such a thing as innate values means that a fundamental part of your point is not established, and with no established foundation, you cannot build.
I don’t know. Genetics is a complex subject - genes get turned on and off by internal and external factors. Imagine A1 and A2 are twins and both inherit genes X and Y. On-off states for these genes can take 2^2 = 4 forms.
Also, immigrants to America can have the same values - love of baseball/basketball, hamburger fetish, etc.
Neuroscience research confirms that the volume and distribution of gray matter in specific brain regions directly defines a person’s core values, morals, and political orientations. Neuroscientists have found that individuals who prioritize altruism and universal care have a significantly higher volume of gray matter in the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ). A study published in *Brain Structure and Function* demonstrated that people who make moral decisions based on abstract rules and justice have different gray matter densities in the **prefrontal cortex**. Individuals who strongly value tradition, social stability, and clear group boundaries consistently show a larger volume of gray matter in the **right amygdala**. Individuals who value progress, social equality, and complexity show a larger volume of gray matter in the **anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)**. However, I still disagree with them because twins have the same distribution of gray matter but show different values.
Research in neuroscience provides compelling evidence that the volume and distribution of gray matter in specific brain regions significantly influence an individual’s core values, moral beliefs, and political orientations. Neuroscientists have conducted various studies that illuminate these relationships.
For instance, investigations reveal that individuals who emphasize altruism—a selfless concern for the well-being of others—and universal care show a notably higher volume of gray matter in the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ). This brain region is crucial for processes such as empathy and perspective-taking, which are essential for understanding and valuing the needs of others.
Moreover, a study published in the journal Brain Structure and Function highlights that individuals who approach moral decision-making through the lens of abstract principles and concepts of justice demonstrate distinct differences in gray matter density within the prefrontal cortex. This area of the brain is associated with complex cognitive processes, including reasoning, planning, and moral judgments, reflecting an analytical mindset.
In contrast, those who strongly value tradition, social stability, and clearly defined group boundaries exhibit a larger volume of gray matter in the right amygdala. This region is often associated with emotional responses and the processing of social norms, suggesting that individuals with these values may prioritize social cohesion and established norms within their communities.
Further, individuals who advocate for progress, social equality, and an appreciation for complexity show increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). This area is linked to adaptive decision-making and impulse control, indicating that these individuals might place a higher value on understanding intricate social dynamics and fostering equitable conditions for all.
Despite these intriguing findings, I maintain a differing perspective. Research indicates that identical twins, who possess nearly identical genetic makeup and often exhibit similar distributions of gray matter, can still demonstrate divergent values and beliefs. This phenomenon suggests that while brain structure may influence tendencies, the development of personal values is also shaped by environmental factors, experiences, and individual choices.
That’s fine by me. Neuroscience is the new frontier and from your post a lot of territory has been covered. I’m unfortunately not that well-informed on the subject.
I highlighted some genetic facts in my previous post, regarding genes being turned off/on and how that might come about. While it may seem that non-genetic factors are at play, ultimately it’s evolution that rules the roost. Look around thee, smell the roses.
It’s interesting to know that neuroscience is pointing towards something like there being an entirely physical component that determines people’s values and that can be measured, but following what you said about the twins, I would agree with you about the disagreement with the findings if twins that have identical gray matter have different values, which would prove entirely that there is no causation between the gray matter and merely association. I think that is a fundamental problem that can’t be solved because I have yet to see anything that proves truly that causation isn’t mere association or habit as per Hume. Even if hypothetically they had 100000 studies and in every one of them the gray matter in each person was entirely consistent with the patterns associated with specific values, there would never be 100% certainty that the gray matter truly matters in that way or if it just seems like it does. As it also isn’t studied enough yet to be something where we could say it is a universal law of nature, so there wouldn’t be a nomological contradiction if the gray matter didn’t affect the person in the way that it has been shown to.
I would also add that after looking into some of the neuroscience studies, they do not prove in any way that there are innate values of some kind. All they can show is that people with a specific density of gray matter in specific areas do have certain values, but not that the gray matter is there from birth in that exact way. In all of the studies I have seen they all discuss neuroplasticity which would be the development and change of this gray matter over time. Gray matter seems to be where the processing of thought or maybe consciousness resides, but there is still no innateness in anyway. Unless there is some study proving that you are born with gray matter in a specific way and it is unchanging throughout life. This would have to disprove any concept of neuroplasticity. So still, this problem of any kind of innate or inborn values exists. As in there are no inborn or innate values just because gray matter allocations show that people have specific personality traits or values because the gray matter is shaped overtime and further backs up my point that we are born with capacities for learning and the mechanisms for developing values, but not born valuing anything innately. Unless you are defining innately in a different way, there is no such thing as innate values.
What are your interests in philosophy? Are you focused on non-metaphysical topics?
I agree; the problem exists and still needs solving. I am actively gathering information on this topic to identify its origins.
There are 2^5 - 1 = 31 ways of doing philosophy. I’ve made the most progress, relatively speaking, in epistemology and logic.
What interests me?
Erotetics largely.
Nice. I suppose that the values spectrum serves as a basis for that. Erotetics is highly valuable for AI development.
AI development? Yes, possible. AI is the future. AI or buh-bye!! 
Erotetics bears on AI as the guy who has all the answers. Some topics (for example instructions on how to build a bmob) are off-limits. Any AI will immediately clam up if you ask a question on bmobs. Other than certain sensitive topics we’re free to query AI on anything from bowel movements to galactic motion.