Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
167 online now:
Christian7, jar, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (5 members, 162 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,305 Year: 4,951/14,102 Month: 549/707 Week: 104/176 Day: 13/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology is Destiny?
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 129 (641538)
11-20-2011 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rrhain
11-20-2011 5:08 AM


Rrhain writes:

Is there anything that happens on its own or is a supernatural agent required for everything?

It's a yes-or-no question. You can explain why you say yes or no all you wish, but you have to say yes or no first.

Yes, things happen on there own all the time. For instance me responding to this question of yours by my own free will AND by your rules. No one is making me do it.

Why is this such a mystery? I don't get it.

There certainly is free will but not total free will. Free will is still limited to some extent.

Im not sure where you're going with this but i'll await your responce before I (cautiously) proceed.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 11-20-2011 5:08 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 11-20-2011 2:52 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 129 (641539)
11-20-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tangle
11-19-2011 9:31 AM


Tangle writes:

Don't you think Fred's moral compass was changed by the tumour?

I don't no. I don't think Fred had a whole new set of morals due to his brain tumor just like I don't think someone who goes on and off antidepressants for depression all the time wakes up every new day with a total new set of morals to guide them each and everytime some physical ailment threatens them.

It messed with Freds brain chemistry, not his moral compass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2011 9:31 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 11-20-2011 5:53 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2011 6:36 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2011 2:14 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 129 (641542)
11-20-2011 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chuck77
11-20-2011 5:32 AM


Where do people get their moral compass from?

It is bound out in the way we are conditioned. Affect the brain and this conditioning can be altered.

Simple.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chuck77, posted 11-20-2011 5:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8203
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 19 of 129 (641545)
11-20-2011 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chuck77
11-20-2011 5:32 AM


quote:
It messed with Freds brain chemistry, not his moral compass.

I think you're in an impossible position here.

Until he was 40 Fred behaved normally. He then had the tumour and his behaviour changed. To take just one element of how it changed, he started looking at child porn - something he had not previously done and something we must suppose he found abhorrent both before the tumour grew and after it was removed.

So we know for sure that his brain made him do it. This very strongly suggests that his moral compass (whatever that is) changed along with his brain - how else could it have happened. If his morality did not change ie he knew that the thing he was doing was wrong but he did it anyway, why? And how?

In psychopathy, we know that they don't have whatever it is that makes normal people empathise, this results in them not understanding why it could be wrong to murder someone and eat their liver. Compass pointing exactly due South?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chuck77, posted 11-20-2011 5:32 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Chuck77, posted 11-24-2011 2:19 AM Tangle has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 20 of 129 (641595)
11-20-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chuck77
11-20-2011 5:27 AM


Chuck77 responds to me:

You were the one who brought up Satan with regard to the tumor as if the tumor were caused by divine forces rather than biology. So I wanted to know if you thought it were possible for anything to happen via mere biology or if we need to invoke the supernatural for every occurrence.

Since you seem to agree that there are things that happen without any need for zap-poofing to take place, the question then becomes why you doubt that this is one of them and how you can tell that a tumor that affects a person's ability to distinguish right from wrong is somehow of supernatural origin.

You've agreed that a line is to be drawn. Now we're only arguing about where.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chuck77, posted 11-20-2011 5:27 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 129 (641624)
11-20-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
11-19-2011 2:46 AM


It's interesting to defense lawyers too, if you can say 'my brain made me do it' you can't be culpable.

Says who?

Of course, the fact that Fred's brain was changed by a tumour is what makes this case interesting and proved how behaviour can be changed by extreme circumstances. But once you accept the fact that brain, beyond our own will, is responsible for behaviour, you can legitimately ask to what extent we are in control of our own actions generally.

Where is your justification for separating the brain from various cognitive processes such as will?

Well rather a lot if you're a believer in the concepts of free will and evil, right and wrong, sin and absolute morality.

Not really.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2011 2:46 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2011 2:58 AM Jon has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8203
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 22 of 129 (641644)
11-21-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
11-20-2011 7:36 PM


quote:
Says who.

Says the law. Being 'of sound mind' or more exactly for criminal law, acting with intent and 'men's rea' is at the centre of our law.

quote:
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

quote:

Where is your justification for separating the brain from various cognitive processes such as will?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying that because the brain is the source of cognitive processes (if not, where else?) then how it is wired is likely to influence those processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 11-20-2011 7:36 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 11-21-2011 11:03 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 129 (641666)
11-21-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle
11-21-2011 2:58 AM


quote:

Where is your justification for separating the brain from various cognitive processes such as will?

I'm doing the opposite. I'm saying that because the brain is the source of cognitive processes (if not, where else?) then how it is wired is likely to influence those processes.

You said that the "brain, beyond our own will, is responsible for our behaviour". I took that to reflect an opinion that there is a separation between the two; perhaps I was interpreting it wrong.

quote:
Says who.

Says the law. Being 'of sound mind' or more exactly for criminal law, acting with intent and 'men's rea' is at the centre of our law.

Getting off for insanity isn't a clean wiping of the slate. Such folk are often required to undergo mandatory therapy, drugs, and even hospitalization.

Even if you are 'not guilty', you're still getting punished, and that's a clear sign of being held culpable.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2011 2:58 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 11-21-2011 12:50 PM Jon has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 24 of 129 (641670)
11-21-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
11-21-2011 11:03 AM


Even if you are 'not guilty', you're still getting punished, and that's a clear sign of being held culpable.

What is punishment and what is treatment? That is the rub. Obviously, you can not have a person lacking the ability to discern right from wrong running free in society, especially when they have already harmed others (or themselves) because of this ailment. Also, you can not punish them because they are not culpable for their actions.

Treatment is treatment. It is an attempt to cure the person of their psychosis. If I remember correctly, Brinkley (attacked Reagan) may be let loose in the near future. Doctors consider him cured of the psychosis that caused him to attack Reagan. People are put in this same type of treatment even if they have not committed any crimes. If the judge deems that a person is a threat to themselves or others then they can be put into mandatory treatment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 11-21-2011 11:03 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 11-21-2011 2:18 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 129 (641677)
11-21-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
11-21-2011 12:50 PM


What is punishment and what is treatment?

Well... I would consider a forced 'treatment' to be a sort of punishment.

Obviously from an outsider's perspective, the individual is hopefully being made better off and so we might say it is all well and good and reserve labeling as punishments things that are generally perceived as negative (prison time, fines, etc.).

I mean, if you are just being yourself one minute, rape someone the next minute, and are then stuck on mandatory drugs and therapy afterwords; I think we could consider your treatment as something of a punishment for your crime.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 11-21-2011 12:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8203
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 26 of 129 (641691)
11-21-2011 4:16 PM


I'm really trying to get beyond Fred and the extreme position he represents. He shows, in an obvious way, how the brain affects personality and behaviour. And we already accept that drugs - and their absence - change personality and behaviour.

What I'm trying to get to is that there must be a gradient between someone much more saintly than me (not hard) and Fred at his worst. And that gradient must be how the brain is wired, both at birth and as we grow. So we're not born with equal 'free will'.

If that's the case then the entire concept of absolute morality falls flat on it's arse and with it goes sin and evil and basically everything at the core of most religions - including Christianity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 11-22-2011 6:19 AM Tangle has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 27 of 129 (641741)
11-22-2011 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
11-21-2011 4:16 PM


If that's the case then the entire concept of absolute morality falls flat on it's arse and with it goes sin and evil and basically everything at the core of most religions - including Christianity.

Pretty much.

But when people plan their actions (in whatever mental state they are in) those actions seem logical to them.

I once worked with a guy who believed that people were comming into his home (somehow) and moving his shoes around. Seems crazy but his rationale for this belief was that dust had been disturbed on them ergo someone had crept into his house and moved them around.

From this piece of evidence he contruction a pretty consistant set of beliefs that were internally consistant (if his conclusion about the dust was correct).

This lead to all kinds of paranoid anti social behaviour that ended with him being sectioned.

All the time he had 'free will' but his actions were based off faulty reasoning from his disorder.

It was his dodgy logic that was the problem, but once he accepted his conclusion his subsequent behaviour is what almost anyone would have done (if the guys fear were real).

Someone who is schizophrenis interprets things differently and but then reacts (within their frame of reference) pretty logically.

If one subjects anyone to gaslighting they pretty soon start behaving irrationally. Is that their fault?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2011 4:16 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2011 7:04 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8203
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 28 of 129 (641745)
11-22-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
11-22-2011 6:19 AM


Neurology kills Free Will
quote:
Pretty much

Then neurology is going to make a bigger dent in the Abrahamic religions than Darwin did. 'All' Darwin did was show that we don't have to invoke a God to explain how species got here.

Demonstrating that Free Will isn't actually free or equal and is mutable removes religion's claim on morality, kills original sin and does not require a saviour to sacrifice himself to save us from it.

Pretty much game over for theism I'd say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 11-22-2011 6:19 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2011 9:42 AM Tangle has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 129 (641759)
11-22-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
11-22-2011 7:04 AM


Re: Neurology kills Free Will
Demonstrating that Free Will isn't actually free or equal and is mutable removes religion's claim on morality, kills original sin and does not require a saviour to sacrifice himself to save us from it.

Pretty much game over for theism I'd say.

Its not for me. In my view, the mind is a gateway from the spiritual to the physical, and it stems from the brain. Damage the gateway, and the spirit doesn't come through the same way. Brain damage affecting behavior doesn't negate the spirit, for me.

I was gonna reply to an earlier post a couple days ago but didn't get around to it... I'm not gonna go fish it out now, and my respose was gonna be somewhat flippant... regarding the issue with not know where culpability lies because of the way that behavior is affected by the brain, I was gonna say something along the lines of how having a dualistic nature does get you around the conundrum, doesn't it?

Whether or not dualism can work, is beside the point that its can act as a band-aid for the problem, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2011 7:04 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2011 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2011 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 11-22-2011 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2011 2:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8203
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 30 of 129 (641767)
11-22-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
11-22-2011 9:42 AM


Re: Neurology kills Free Will
quote:
Its not for me. In my view, the mind is a gateway from the spiritual to the physical, and it stems from the brain. Damage the gateway, and the spirit doesn't come through the same way. Brain damage affecting behavior doesn't negate the spirit, for me.
[snip]
Whether or not dualism can work, is beside the point that its can act as a band-aid for the problem, no?

Sheesh. Well you can, of course, just make stuff up to fill the yawning gap, but really, no, it doesn't solve the problem.

The problem being that the main argument is not about damage - that just proves the fact that brain configuration affect moral behaviour - it's the fact that our brains are not identical that's the problem. We must all have different starting positions in dealing with moral problems, for some of us it will be easier than others to behave morally. That is plainly unfair if we are later to be judged on it. (You now have to make up a God that compensates).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2011 9:42 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2011 10:41 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Parasomnium, posted 11-23-2011 3:50 PM Tangle has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021