My Beliefs- GDR

I did not say that the research is mindless. I just use it to contrast the idea that there is an intelligent designer as opposed to a process that evolved mindlessly regardless of what science determines about the process. I din't question the validity of that statement and it isn't mindless. It is part of the process by design or mindless or if you prefer materialistic processes.

I did start off the sentence by saying that "for all we know" which I think makes it pretty clear that it was a supposition.

quote:

---

Definition of PSYCHOPATHY

​

: mental disorder especially when marked by egocentric and antisocial activity.

---

It is a mental disorder that I imagine can be from birth, and as to whether or not it can be passed down genetically I have no idea but I don't recall any psychopaths that had parents who were similarly afflicted. That all makes sense to me.

I wasn't referring to the heart that is an organ but you knew that. I accept evidence and am prepared to change if new evidence is presented. Yes I have beliefs that I fit facts to which is a difference as you hold to the idea that there is nothing else to fit the facts to. I'm not sure how relevant that is. I don't agree with that. You sound like Faith who insists that only her views are orthodox. I believe that the true nature of Tom is that he is good and just. If that is a misrepresentation of his true nature then so be it. I realize that raises the question of suffering but on the other hand I can also see where we have the ability to help relieve suffering. It isn't a perfect answer but I go with that on faith. OK, but I don't think my faith is unreasonable and I have in hundreds of posts in this thread alone laid out why I believe as I do. However, it isn't something I have objective proof of and I agree that I could be wrong.

Apparently, it can be discovered even in early childhood using fMRI scans. Which does give credence to the notion that it is a genetic trait.The main distinction, and I should have clarified this earlier, is that the actual genetic component is a lack of empathy, which then eventually manifests into psychopathy. Drawing back to my computer analogy, the software appears to be mis-behaving, but it is the underlying hardware that is at fault.

Yes but it's wishy-washy, churchy language which has no real meaning, plus you seem to believe that consciousness exists somewhere outside the brain but haven't explained where or how. Faith is barking mad but she hasn't changed her beliefs to match reality, which is a position I can at least follow. My problem is understanding how you can still believe in the same stuff that she does, having accepted at least some parts of reality. It's ALL faith, GDR, all of it.

Thanks that is interesting. It does show though how as humans we have no idea of how to evenly apply justice. Here you have some poor sap who does horrendous things and is of course despised by all, all because he has been genetically messed up.Of course it is faith but as a Christian I do believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice for all.

It isn't just churchy language. It is a common metaphor as in telling your wife you love her with all your heart. If consciousness is non-material, as I believe it is, then the question of where it is is meaningless. Faith is not barking mad. She has come to the conclusion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and so she bases her conclusions on that. Certainly in some ways that gives her a consistency that my beliefs don't.I see the Bible as being written by men who were inspired to write down their beliefs and experiences, but in writing their stories they use their own words coloured by their individual and cultural biases. However, it is an on-going narrative that shows a growing understanding of the nature of God.My Christian belief is fundamentally based on the belief in the actual historic nature of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and that the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles have done their best to truthfully tell the story of the life and death of Jesus and what He had to say.Simply I would say that my beliefs are Christ centred whereas Faith's beliefs are Bible centred so in we have some things in common, but there is still a wide gap between what it is that we believe.There is certainly a lot of ambiguity in my approach but frankly that would make sense to me. Certainty would pretty much do away with free will. I have no doubt that much of what I believe is wrong but as I've said before the problem is in knowing when that is the case. (Maybe that is why God brought Tangle into my life eh? ) We all have faith in something that drives us even if it is just in ourselves. My faith is in God as we see Him in the life of Jesus Christ.

Have you read about Fred?EvC Forum: Biology is Destiny?

Interesting read. I had not come across that literature before.Charles Whitman, the infamous mass shooter at the University of Texas in Austin was also discovered to have a brain tumor at the time of his autopsy. The Connally Commission actually reported its fundings thusly:

quote:

---

Their report also said this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions."[17] Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to affect fight/flight responses. Some neurologists have since speculated that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference.

---

Once again, fairly definitive proof that our brain is the ultimate source of our emotions and inherent personality traits and that damage or dysfunction in the brain can lead to alterations in one's inherent consciousness.

Of course we don't consciously do it for those reasons. But we still do it for those reasons. More proof yet again that chemicals drive our atruisitic behavior.One of the reasons we workout is because it releases "happy" chemicals in our brains. Now, we don't consciously go to the gym looking to release chemicals in our brians, but one of the underlying reasons is because of those chemicals. What qualifies you to reject a scientific theory? Do you also reject the theory of gravity? First, that is not a theory. You are hypothesizing.Second, what you are suggesting is that behavior drives us rather than genetics. Which is known to be wrong, especially in the field of psychology where behaviorism has been replaced with cognitive science.That's not to say that there isn't a place for behavioral analysis, but what we understand now about genetics is that our genetic traits influence our behavior. You're still reading it wrong. All it is saying, in the last statement is that IF (the IF is a big deal here) if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.HOWEVER... it doesn't mean you are right to say that. But that is only an argument in semantics. Just because it is selfish in the PoV of your genes doesn't mean your actions are any less altruistic. But there is a gentic basis for it, is what the article clearly says. The reason being, is if someone is not wired to properly (or wired differently) they may not be empathetic at all. No matter how much you want to 'infect' them with the behavior of being altruistic they won't be. Unless you tweek their brian, with the use of medicine that acts on the underlying cognitive areas that enhance altrusitic behavior. Well, yes of course it isn't science. As I explained before, science doesn't deal with the supernatural or any other imagined concepts. It can only deal with hard facts.- Oni

Interesting thread. Obviously there is no doubt about the fact that the brain affects behaviour and that behaviour can go completely contrary to our normal sense of behaviour by disease, drugs or as Dio has pointed out bad genes.I think however that you would agree that two people, both with perfectly healthy brains can behave very differently. I'm sure that you would also agree that socialization has a huge effect on how we behave. Most of us are able to know the difference between right and wrong and to make the selfish or the unselfish choice.I just want to repeat what Paul says in 1 Corinthians.

quote:

---

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

---

From a Christian perspective I think that Paul has it exactly right. It isn't what we do that God is interested in. God is concerned our motivation for what we do. Fred tumour altered personality wasn't who Fred really was at all. We can look at serial killers and just consider them evil but just maybe if you strip away mental illness, the damage done by abuse etc they really hate what it is they are doing.Human justice will always be flawed. I do believe that in the end there will be perfect justice for all, not based on our theology but based on our motivations for our choices.As I've said before Lewis' "The Great Divorce" is a great allegorical account of what I'm talking about.

But we know that it is more than chemicals because we know that our altruistic behaviour is heavily influenced by our socialization.Also I don’t quite recall those happy chemicals from going to the gym. I think I was short-changed on those. They aren’t the same thing. Of course. It is all hypothesizing. Fair enough. As I said earlier I don’t think that it our altruistic action that makes us altruistic. What makes us truly altruistic is the motivation behind those actions. For example we have one man who goes out publically and donates a million dollars to the local food bank amidst great fanfare and recognition by his community. Someone else quietly, without anyone noticing donates, a thousand dollars. The first altruistic action was performed for at least a partially self-serving reason whereas the second was more truly altruistic. Agreed Agreed, but I would add that often science uses the hard facts to form subjective hypothesis which they may or may not be able to ultimately prove.

Ok, so the brain affects behaviour, both good and bad.[just as a btw, Tom created the desease that affected Fred.]They certainly can and they do. Yup - given that I've said that several times, I'm not about to change my mind now. Yup, most, most of the time. But not all, all of the time - if we're lucky. I really have no interest at all in what Paul is supposed to have said. That's funny. Have you noticed that you can make anything fit your model without really trying?However, you have also noticed that brain state affects behaviour. Not Tom, not Satan but the brain.You should also have noticed that some behaviours are not under the control of our - for want of a better word - self. If fact, we know that the vast majority our what we are and what we do is run by our autonomous nervous system without our knowledge and quite small changes to our brain state can make big differences to how we think and act.Because genetics, parental values, societal values, chemistry, disease and so on have such a large and random effect on our personality, it's absurd to believe that we can be held ultimately responsible for our actions to the Tom that is supposed to have given us this mysterious free will thing.

It is heavily influenced by your genetics (the way your brain is wired) the rest is environmental. They were there. Boosting serotonin, oxytocin, etc. They are exactly the same thing. But in any case, what qualifies you to reject ANY scientific theory? No, theories are theories and a hypothesis is a hypothesis. I don't feel I need to link the definition of the two for you to recognize the difference. You've been here long enough to know the difference. Again, you only seem to focus on behavior. You forget the underlying chemicals at play. If both men are doing it unconsciously for the increase in oxytocin, then it's the same thing. The rest is superficial. One person may have a hypothisis, or a subjective opinion, but that's what it's all about. From there it is subject to peer review, etc. You know the rest. It's the scientific method - the only method we can say with confidence that works.- Oni

How about an explanation derived by applying the scientific method? Are you suggesting that the evolutionary account of morality is borne from some sort of anti-theistic premise rather than being a product of the scientific method?Isn't that what creationists say about evolution as a whole.....? That is a quite an over simplification. But nevermind. Evolution as a whole doesn't sound reasonable to creationists. But so what?Earlier in this thread you agreed that scientific explanations are the most accurate and reliable ones available to us. But now faced with a scientific account which conflicts with your beliefs you seem to be reneging on that...?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.