Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
129 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 126 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,139 Year: 4,785/14,102 Month: 383/707 Week: 114/197 Day: 3/55 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology is Destiny?
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 76 of 129 (642144)
11-25-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:17 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

If someone intentionally conceals the fact that they're a pedophile, they must on some intellectual level understand that society would frown upon that. That would indicate that they're not hapless victims of circumstance.

Could you make explicit the logical connection between your two sentences?

It would be something like, "Possessing an intellectual understanding of society's disapproval of an action means you cannot be suffering from an irresistible compulsion toward that action provoked by a brain tumor because ________."


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 77 of 129 (642160)
11-26-2011 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Parasomnium
11-25-2011 5:55 PM


Re: What does consciousness do?
quote:
No, I believe the Turin test is reserved for things 'shrouded' in mystery.

Pfnrrr, so much for the future of conscious machines - that was an intervention by the iPad auto error correction mind.

HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 11-25-2011 5:55 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 78 of 129 (642170)
11-26-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 8:06 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:

As for the OP's cured pedophilia, his hiding of it would indicate his understanding of its societal "wrongness."

It's admitted that he did know that at least some of the things he did was wrong - he turned himself in partly because he feared that he would rape his landlady. But he also exhibitted extreme behaviour that he clearly didn't care enough about but must have known somewhere was wrong eg he propositioned nurses whilst pissing himself or caring that there were others around him. (It's unlikely to be a winning tactic with women, so something else is broken too.)

This is going to be a bit more complex than knowing right from wrong - he may well have known that society thinks some things are wrong but didn't feel it wrong himself. With the rape issue, he wanted to rape her but knew it was wrong. I don't know about you but I know that rape is wrong and have a gut revulsion of it so I couldn't do it even if I wanted to. (So much for free will.)


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 8:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 129 (642245)
11-26-2011 11:45 PM


Biology does not dismiss free will
You apperantly have no idea what free will is. Because someone may be addicted to something or has an emotion or urge (and that they even choose to act on it or not shows they have free will) or they may not be able to fight off has nothing to do with free will. No one is stopping them or making them do it. The whole "fact" (loosely used) that Fred actually turned himself in shows He has free will to do so.

You're arguing that our brain and the way it functions eliminates free will is really funny. What determines the way our brain works? What's to say nothing abnormal will happen or will happen? This isssue is nothing to do with free will as far as it's defined or what the Bible says.

Maybe this subject should be in the religious section because what you are arguing certainly isn't biology. What you are arguing is that you have no idea what free will is and are trying to find a physical attribute that refutes a non physical thing.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 11-27-2011 12:03 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2011 5:50 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2011 11:01 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2700 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 80 of 129 (642247)
11-27-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Chuck77
11-26-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Try using the 'Reply' button...

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 11-26-2011 11:45 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 81 of 129 (642265)
11-27-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Chuck77
11-26-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
chuck77 writes:

You're arguing that our brain and the way it functions eliminates free will is really funny.

More handwaving, perhaps you could answer my question?

"So do you still feel that Fred could have stopped himself and how could he have done so? If he couldn't have stopped himself, how is he culpable?"


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 11-26-2011 11:45 PM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 6:28 AM Tangle has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 129 (642267)
11-27-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tangle
11-27-2011 5:50 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Tangle writes:

"So do you still feel that Fred could have stopped himself and how could he have done so? If he couldn't have stopped himself, how is he culpable?"

If he wasn't culpable then BY GOLLY! who was?

Also, it seems that he DID stop himself as you eluded to earleir:

Tangle writes:

It's admitted that he did know that at least some of the things he did was wrong - he turned himself in partly because he feared that he would rape his landlady

Apperantly he had a sense of right and wrong. If he did not have a sense of right or wrong then what are we discussing?

You're all over the board man, and your argument is full of glaring holes.

What is it exaclty you are trying to discuss here? What's your point you're trying to make?

That we don't have free will because Fred's a known pedophile?

That he had a brain tumor that caused him to make a very bad decision?

That he then, got rid of the brain tumor and didn't make that bad decision again?

That the brain tumor returned and so on and so forth...

It's clear Fred knows what's right and wrong due to the fact he admits he never had these wrong behaviors in the past.

Acting on them only proves we have free will. Addiction and wrong decision making doesn't reflect on one's free will or sense of morals only that we are all human and vulnerable to lifes circumstances.

Sorry but you're failing to show why Fred's actions refute free will.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2011 5:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2011 7:44 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 83 of 129 (642274)
11-27-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
11-27-2011 6:28 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
chuck77 writes:

If he wasn't culpable then BY GOLLY! who was?

As the title of the thread suggests, biology perhaps?

If he did not have a sense of right or wrong then what are we discussing?

Perhaps this, as also suggested in the opening post?

"Studies suggest that when damage is done to the frontal lobe before 18 months, people never learn right from wrong," Swerdlow said. "When damage is done after that time, people can learn right from wrong but they can't control their impulses. There is no longer regard for long-term consequences, only short-term gratification."
"Nothing puts the brakes on their behavior. They are always in trouble," he said. "If their brain wants something, they take it."

Swerdlow said this was the case with his patient. The man knew his actions were wrong "but the pleasure principle overrode his restraint. [snip]

"He concluded: "We're dealing with the neurology of morality here."

You need to address the fact that the tumour disrupted Fred's ability to choose between what he previously knew as right and wrong. Some wrong impulses he simply acted on, some he managed to fight off long enough to be operated on - who knows, perhaps if he hadn't been cured he would have raped too.

Fred may have known that rape is just plain wrong at a gut level (what I'd call a real moral inhibition), or he may have known that society would punish him severely if he did it (no moral inhibition at all - simply self preservation). From the case study it looks like at least some of the latter to me - he actively wanted to rape, he felt driven to do it.

If the brain tumour provided the irresistible impulse to do something, where has free will and moral choice gone?


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 6:28 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 12:29 AM Tangle has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 129 (642297)
11-27-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Chuck77
11-26-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Chuck writes:

Maybe this subject should be in the religious section because what you are arguing certainly isn't biology. What you are arguing is that you have no idea what free will is and are trying to find a physical attribute that refutes a non physical thing.

What is this 'non physical thing' you speak of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Chuck77, posted 11-26-2011 11:45 PM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 12:11 AM Straggler has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 129 (642355)
11-28-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
11-27-2011 11:01 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Straggler writes:

What is this 'non physical thing' you speak of?

Free will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 11-27-2011 11:01 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 12:19 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2011 5:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 129 (642358)
11-28-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Chuck77
11-28-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Free will.

Why can't free will be instantiated physically?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 12:11 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 129 (642360)
11-28-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
11-27-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Tangle writes:

chuck writes:

If he wasn't culpable then BY GOLLY! who was?

As the title of the thread suggests, biology perhaps?

Uhhhh, sorry, I think we're on the wrong page. You seem to be in the funny papers, and im in the business section.

You need to address the fact that the tumour disrupted Fred's ability to choose between what he previously knew as right and wrong.

What, why? I think YOU need to show that Fred lost his ability to know right from wrong.

Just because he made a poor illegal decision due to the tumor has nothing to do with him KNOWING right from wrong. Don't you get this? We all do things even tho we know right from wrong, it doesn't mean we have lost out free will because we choose to exercise our options. Im mean really...can't you see you're wrong here?

Some wrong impulses he simply acted on, some he managed to fight off long enough to be operated on - who knows, perhaps if he hadn't been cured he would have raped too.

Yep, again, exercising his free will.

Are you really arguing that because his likes and dislikes changed due to a brain tumor that he lost his ability to choose?

Im not sure what you're doing but im sure you're commiting some sort of fallacy. I just don't know which one. How about we call it the " no one is responsible for their own actions because of that dam biology fallacy"?

BTW, im recently getting over a cold and am not responsible for these posts. No one is, actually they don't even exist.

Fred may have known that rape is just plain wrong at a gut level (what I'd call a real moral inhibition), or he may have known that society would punish him severely if he did it (no moral inhibition at all - simply self preservation). From the case study it looks like at least some of the latter to me - he actively wanted to rape, he felt driven to do it.

Word salad BS. Doesn't even make sense. If you were a creationist posting this dribble here in the Science forums you would be hearing this:

"Hi IamJoseph Tangle
Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks."

If the brain tumour provided the irresistible impulse to do something, where has free will and moral choice gone?

If you don't know that then I can't help you. Im just glad you're not a Judge or a Governor. We'd all be in trouble.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2011 7:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 3:11 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2011 3:36 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2011 4:40 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 129 (642365)
11-28-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2011 12:19 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
Dr Adequate writes:

Why can't free will be instantiated physically?

So you're saying our ability to choose and understand right from wrong up from down etc etc would be a physical thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 2:56 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 129 (642376)
11-28-2011 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chuck77
11-28-2011 1:35 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
So you're saying our ability to choose and understand right from wrong up from down etc etc would be a physical thing?

Well, instantiated physically ... like a car's ability to move. "Ability" is, I concede, itself an abstract noun (if that's what you're getting at) but that doesn't mean that the basis of that ability lives in some metaphysical neverland.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 1:35 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 90 of 129 (642377)
11-28-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chuck77
11-28-2011 12:29 AM


Re: Biology does not dismiss free will
What, why? I think YOU need to show that Fred lost his ability to know right from wrong.

Just because he made a poor illegal decision due to the tumor has nothing to do with him KNOWING right from wrong. Don't you get this? We all do things even tho we know right from wrong, it doesn't mean we have lost out free will because we choose to exercise our options. Im mean really...can't you see you're wrong here?

So, various things may have happened to Fred.

* He might have lost his ability to discern right from wrong.
* He might have retained the ability but lost the will-power and self-control.
* He might have retained both his moral evaluations and his previous level of will-power, but acquired a strong urge to do evil with which he never previously had to contend.

Is there anything else?

If you don't know that then I can't help you. Im just glad you're not a Judge or a Governor. We'd all be in trouble.

Free will is not required for us to incarcerate criminals.

By analogy, no-one blames people for being blind, but we still treat them differently --- for example, we don't issue them with driving licenses, because they'd have a tendency to kill people. For similar reasons we might deprive of yet more liberty someone who as a result of some brain defect had a tendency to go around stabbing people. There might be a change in our mental attitude: we might not hate him so much, but we wouldn't have found a reason to let him go around stabbing people any more than knowing the causes of someone's blindness would be a reason to let him drive a car.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 11-28-2011 12:29 AM Chuck77 has not yet 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