Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,597 Year: 5,243/14,102 Month: 164/677 Week: 23/26 Day: 5/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology is Destiny?
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 4 of 129 (641333)
11-18-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
11-18-2011 9:39 AM


That renowned brain box and all round sane non fantasist L. Ron. Hubbard thought (very firmly) that the physical brain was quite apart from the personality.

No one would contradict him any more than one would contradict a vicar who tells people they act in bizzare ways because of Yahwah or the Devil.

Or, thinking that the brain is the root of all behaviour and leave it at that.


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 1 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2011 9:39 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 129 (641419)
11-19-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
11-19-2011 2:46 AM


We have a predisposition towards behaviour but our executive functions review our actions so we could be seen to a a 'manager' keeping our behaviour in check.

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 5 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2011 2:46 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 12 of 129 (641494)
11-19-2011 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chuck77
11-19-2011 4:44 AM


If one's psychology changes as result of neural damage one will behave in a different way. This is well documented.

Morality is just degrees of what the individual considers acceptable and desirable. If what one considers acceptable and desirable is altered by damage, what does that imply?

Please don't tell me you are leading up towards 'absolute' morality.


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 7 by Chuck77, posted 11-19-2011 4:44 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2011 4:35 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
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

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
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

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 45 of 129 (641869)
11-23-2011 5:01 AM


I was ruminating about free will and the best I could come up with was akin the the ANS.

We don't need to exercise conscious control when we breath (for example). We can go about our lives merrilly not thinking about controlling our diaphrams. It just works the way it is programmed to.

I think, maybe our violition is somewhat like that: normally we go through life without really thinking about it and our personality template guides us through life and we don't really think about it.

But just like breathing, if we need to, we can overide this 'auto pilot' at any time and exercise a higher degree of violition.

I don't think we ever have the Aristotlian idealised free will because I'm pretty confident I could not drown a cat unless I was coerced: so my options on the cat drowning front are limted (so not trully free), (does this mean only psychopaths have true free will, in terms of behavioural options not inhibited by emotion?).

But we can have a higher degree of violition by exercising conscious control.

We are still no closer to explaining the subjective experience of consciousness.

I've always though that maybe the only way a brain could deal with reality is to model it (this would be our experience) and react to the model (this is our violition).

This would be our consciousness. A bit like running virtual weather patterns and making decisions based on the model.

Perhaps the close approximation model we react to is close enough to reality to keep us functioning but not too overburden with 'too much reality' .

I can't support this in any way, however.

Edited by Larni, : more wisdom added

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 11-23-2011 8:29 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 47 of 129 (641892)
11-23-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
11-23-2011 8:29 AM


Yeah, no, I totally see where you are comming from and I guess consciousness is not required for things to work.

Could consciousness not simple be an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain? Not actually required but an inevitable result of sufficient complexity.

Or maybe our entire concept of being conscious is based on reviewing our memory and believing we made a free choice but in actual fact we would make the same choices 100%.

We could be fooling ourselves about free will. We could be automatons but because we can review what we did in our memories, we kid ourselves to thinking we had any choice in the matter.


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 46 by caffeine, posted 11-23-2011 8:29 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 128 of 129 (643304)
12-06-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tangle
12-04-2011 6:58 AM


Re: Them and Us
Tangle writes:

I think the rational parts of our brain, the more recentlty evolved parts, can overide the more primitive emotions of what we call morality so that it is possible for normal people to, say, kill when they are able to rationalise it.

I would say it is the other way around. We overide our biological urges to not (for instance) kill all who would challenge us.

Tangle writes:

But also because morality may actually be a physical sense - not just an idea or an ideal that is learnt - that has neurones associated with it, it will vary amongst individuals and sometimes simply be missing. So a psychopath can do things that normal people can not.

Well, is that not the point? Damage the physical brain, morality can go out the window. If one view morality as a set of social behavioural limiters, once they are gone, you can do what ever is logical.

Tangle writes:

For example when psychopaths are given moral puzzles to solve, they produce very effective utilitarian solutions that normal people can't - they actually would be able to suffocate the crying baby in order to stop the Nazis finding the group of fleeing Jews.

Same thing happens when people play RPGs. Sometimes they become amoral psychopaths because the NPCs aren't real, to them.

Tangle writes:

I don't know where all this is taking me, I still waiting for either a neurologist or a christian philosopher to put me right. Meanwhile, I'll keep rambling.

Article writes:

Among the psychopathic prisoners, the researchers found weaker connections between the vmPFC [ventromedial prefrontal cortex] and other parts of the brain, including the amygdala.

Bracketts mine.

http://www.livescience.com/...opath-brain-abnormalities.html

This is a really interesting article about psychopathy and brain injury. The last few sentences are particularly relevent, here.

Article

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


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 127 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 6:58 AM Tangle 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