A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

It is true. Some people have temperaments that drive them to seek risk and novelty, they crave these things, and many people act on impulse because they were born impulsive. This is neuroscience and genetics.

It's so clearly explained in Chapter Three why people could never take chances that could hurt others

Lessans didn't take many things into account, like that people are different. His ideas are also dependent on his beliefs about conscience that he failed to support.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true. Some people have temperaments that drive them to seek risk and novelty, they crave these things, and many people act on impulse because they were born impulsive. This is neuroscience and genetics.

But what you are failing to understand is that neuroscience is coming into its own, and it's in agreement with determinism. We all have predispositions, but that does not mean murderous behavior has to be acted out. Environment has a lot to do with it. It's a mixture of nature and nurture, and you're leaving out one half of the equation.

It's so clearly explained in Chapter Three why people could never take chances that could hurt others

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't take many things into account, like that people are different. His ideas are also dependent on his beliefs about conscience that he failed to support.

Well, only time will tell LadyShea whether conscience works exactly the way he described. He didn't offer anything that cannot be observed in the real world. People are different, and their thresholds for pain are different, but we're talking about a completely different environment than exists today. That's why it's difficult to envision a world in which people will not be brought to the brink of such destruction. Even pitbulls have a basic temperament, but they can be raised in such a way that they are the sweetest, most docile breed.

[peacegirl]

I found this interesting. These are the kind of people I need to contact...

Mens Rea, Retributivism, and the Law

Cognitive Neuroscience and Criminal Responsibility

“Existing legal principles make virtually no assumptions about the neural basis of criminal behavior, and as a result they can comfortably assimilate new neuroscience without much in the way of conceptual upheaval.”

“We maintain, however, that our operative legal principles exist because they more or less accurately capture our intuitive sense of justice.”

G & C claim that neuroscience will eventually reveal that “there is something fishy about our ordinary conceptions of human action and responsibility.”

“Current legal doctrine, although officially compatibilist, is ultimately grounded in intuitions that are incompatibilist, and more specifically, libertarian… [moreover] The law’s intuitive support is ultimately grounded in a metaphysically overambitious, libertarian notion of free will that is threatened by determinism and, more pointedly, by forthcoming cognitive neuroscience.”

The Erosion of Libertarian Free Will and Retributivistic Desert

“We argue further that the philosophical problem of free will arises out of a conflict between two cognitive subsystems that speak different languages: the ‘folk psychology’ system and the ‘folk physics’ system.”

Utilitarian vs. Retributivism

Three Problems for Utilitarianism: (a) overly harsh penalties, (b) punishing the innocent, (c) the threat of punishment vs. punishment

Retributivism does a better job of capturing our intuitions that Utilitarianism

Three Views of FW: (a) hard determinism, (b) libertarianism, and (c) compatibilism

Retributivism only works in principle with (b) and (c)—and since (b) seems “scientifically suspect,” it only works in practice in conjunction with (c).

The Current Notion of Legal Personhood and Responsibility

Minimal Practical Rationality

“For the law, as written, neuroscience changes nothing…but, we maintain, the law nevertheless stands to shakier ground that the foregoing would suggest. The legitimacy of the law itself depends on its adequately reflecting the moral intuitions and commitments of society. If neuroscience can change those intuitions, then neuroscience can change the law.”

“The seeds of discontent are already sown in common-sense legal thought.”

What really matters for responsibility?

Authorship and Culpability

Dualism and Attributions of Responsibility

The Illusion of the Captain of the Ship

“What the law cares about and what people care about do not necessarily coincide.”

The Boys from Brazil Problem and Mr. Puppet

Mr. Puppet vs. the Garden Variety Criminal

“Intuitive free will is libertarian, not compatibilist.”

From Black Box to Transparent Bottle-neck

“There are many causes that impinge on behavior, but all of them, must exert their influence through the brain.”

“The law will continue to punish misdeeds, as it must for practical reasons, but the idea of distinguishing the truly, deeply guilty from those who are merely victims of neuronal circumstances will, we submit, [eventually] seem pointless.”

A Cognitive Account of Free Will Attribution

Folk Psychology vs. Folk Physics

Dividing the World in Two (Heider and Simmel revisited)

“To see something as a responsible moral agent, one must first see it as having a mind. But, intuitively, a mind is, among other things, an uncaused causer. Consequently, when something is seen as a mere physical entity operating in accordance with determinist physical laws, it ceases to be seen, intuitively, as a mind.”

The Problem of Free Will and Determinism has no intuitively satisfying solution.

From Free Will to Compatibilist Responsibility

“There are perfectly good, forward-looking justifications for punishing criminals that do not depend on metaphysical fictions.”

The Death of Retributivism?

The Centrality of Retributivism Argument

Will the death of libertarian free will render life meaningless?

“Why would you bother with anything if it has all long since been determined? The answer is that you will bother because you are human, and that is what humans do. Even if you decide…that you are going to sit around and do nothing because you have concluded that you have no free will, you are eventually going to get up and make yourself a sandwich. And if you do not, you have got bigger problems than philosophy can fix.”

Greene and Cohen on Determinism, Dualism, and Desert - Neuroethics

[LadyShea]

But what you are failing to understand is that neuroscience is coming into its own, and it's in agreement with determinism.

Yes, I agree with determinism myself (but not hard determinism). People are different, yet still determined.

We all have predispositions, but that does not mean murderous behavior has to be acted out. Environment has a lot to do with it. It's a mixture of nature and nurture, and you're leaving out one half of the equation.

Who said anything about murder?

Even pitbulls have a basic temperament, but they can be raised in such a way that they are the sweetest, most docile breed.

Their basic temperament is to be sweet dogs.

[LadyShea]

Joshua D. Greene
John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences
Department of Psychology
Harvard University
William James Hall 1480
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138


email: jgreene-at-wjh-dot-harvard-dot-edu (replace "-at-" and "-dot-" as usual)
phone: (617) 495-3898
office: William James Hall 1480

http://wjh.harvard.edu/~mcl/index.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still don't get it. According to you, the above means nothing more than that we choose to do what we choose to do. It doesn't mean anything more than this, because you've said that 'most preferable' doesn't mean anything other than whatever one happens to choose.

Again, according to you this means nothing more than that it is mathematically impossible to choose anything other than whatever one happens to choose. As long as his satisfaction principle is unfalsifiable and holds in every conceivable circumstance, it is an empty tautology with no empirical content and no meaning distinct from the trivial truth that we will always choose whatever we choose.

Bump.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On why you cannot soundly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle:

On why being true in all conceivable circumstances prevents his principle from disproving free will or from establishing any kind of compulsion:

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I agree with determinism myself (but not hard determinism). People are different, yet still determined.

Of course people are different, but conscience functions in the same way.

We all have predispositions, but that does not mean murderous behavior has to be acted out. Environment has a lot to do with it. It's a mixture of nature and nurture, and you're leaving out one half of the equation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about murder?

This discussion is about the removal of evil. Murder is one of those evils that we want to get rid of. If murderous behavior is partly due to the environment mixed with one's genetic predisposition, that gives us hope because we can change the environment, where we cannot do anything to change someone's genetic wiring.

Even pitbulls have a basic temperament, but they can be raised in such a way that they are the sweetest, most docile breed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Their basic temperament is to be sweet dogs.

That may be true, but if mistreated, they have a genetic predisposition to aggression. If they are treated well, their sweet temperament will show through. I'm not sure what happened in this case, but it's a problem if they are unpredictable. My son has a pitbull, and his fiance had one also; she had to put her pitbull to sleep. It was so sad for her because she had this dog all through college and medical school. Their baby could climb all over both of these dogs, pull on their ears, and they wouldn't do a thing. That's why this case is so troubling.

Pit Bull Kills 3 Week Old Baby On Floor In Car Seat

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Their basic temperament is to be sweet dogs.

The group of dogs known as 'Pit Bulls' are by nature sweet and docile, especially towards children, that is why they were originally refered to as "Nanny Dogs", that is their basic temperament. Pit Bulls need to be trained to fight and be vicious. Peacegirl, it would really help you if you got your facts straight before you start posting.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At this point in time, we do not know to what extent one has control until this law is instituted globally.

Precisely. And that is why you can't legitimately use claims about what people will and will not be able to do under some future condition. Because you just don't and can't know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still don't get it. According to you, the above means nothing more than that we choose to do what we choose to do. It doesn't mean anything more than this, because you've said that 'most preferable' doesn't mean anything other than whatever one happens to choose.

Again, according to you this means nothing more than that it is mathematically impossible to choose anything other than whatever one happens to choose. As long as his satisfaction principle is unfalsifiable and holds in every conceivable circumstance, it is an empty tautology with no empirical content and no meaning distinct from the trivial truth that we will always choose whatever we choose.

Bump.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On why you cannot soundly infer empirical conclusions from an unfalsifiable principle:

On why being true in all conceivable circumstances prevents his principle from disproving free will or from establishing any kind of compulsion:

Just because it is true in every conceivable circumstance does not mean the type of compulsion Lessans observed doesn't exist Spacemonkey. Empirical proof is only one kind of proof. Maybe this can't be falsified, but that alone does not mean that he was wrong in this observation. It is very obvious that we are compelled to choose the most preferable alternative, not the least preferable. The whole point of contemplation is to compare meaningful differences in order to choose that which is the favorable choice, which renders any other choice at that moment, impossible because it would give less satisfaction. Before the choice is made, yes, those choices are possibilities, which is why we weigh our options and consider the possible consequences of those choices.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Precisely. And that is why you can't legitimately use claims about what people will and will not be able to do under some future condition. Because you just don't and can't know.

Yes, in general I can. I am only talking about people who may have severe mental disorders, whether it comes from a tumor or a psychosis where his conscience is no longer functioning, and he has no conception of right and wrong behavior. If he is truly psychotic, he would be treated with compassion even though he may have to be institutionalized. But you are referring to a very small segment of society. These claims can predict behavior as long as one's conscience is intact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Joshua D. Greene
John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences
Department of Psychology
Harvard University
William James Hall 1480
33 Kirkland Street
Cambridge, MA 02138


email: jgreene-at-wjh-dot-harvard-dot-edu (replace "-at-" and "-dot-" as usual)
phone: (617) 495-3898
office: William James Hall 1480

Greene Moral Cognition Lab

Thank you LadyShea. I am copying this address down, and I will send them a book, not just refer them to the ebook.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pit Bull Kills 3 Week Old Baby On Floor In Car Seat

Just as people are different, dogs are individuals , and some are sick, and some are trained to be the way they are. I would suggest an investigation into how the dog was raised, and what was it's physical condition. One size does not fit all, and this is why conscience will not work the same way for all people. Even if all people are raised the exact same way, some will be different, and not react the same way to situations. And that is the truth of human nature.

Not many details on the attack, just some headlines to incite a reaction. Possibly the paper favors a ban on 'Pit Bulls'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because it is true in every conceivable circumstance does not mean the type of compulsion Lessans observed doesn't exist Spacemonkey.

Yes it does, and you still aren't even trying to address my explanations of why this is the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Empirical proof is only one kind of proof.

I'm not saying anything about empirical proof being needed. Why aren't you addressing what I wrote?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe this can't be falsified, but that alone does not mean that he was wrong in this observation.

If it is unfalsifiable then this means his principle reduces to the empty tautology that we choose what we choose, from which nothing at all about compulsion or a lack of free will can be validly inferred - as I carefully explained in the passages I just bumped and which you are not addressing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very obvious that we are compelled to choose the most preferable alternative, not the least preferable. The whole point of contemplation is to compare meaningful differences in order to choose that which is the favorable choice, which renders any other choice at that moment, impossible because it would give less satisfaction.

Your terms 'more' or 'less preferable' have no actual meaning by which compulsion can be inferred. You have admitted that they only mean what we do or do not choose. It only seems like you can infer compulsion and a lack of free will because you equivocate between the unfalsifiable notion of satisfaction you are actually using and the psychological and empirical notion you cannot establish.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before the choice is made, yes, those choices are possibilities, which is why we weigh our options and consider the possible consequences of those choices.

My points have nothing to do with when the choice is made. Why are you still not addressing my points?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you LadyShea. I am copying this address down, and I will send them a book, not just refer them to the ebook.

Could you keep us posted on the reactions you get from these people who receive the book and read it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course people are different, but conscience functions in the same way.

Unsupported assertion

I wasn't discussing evil, I was discussing risk taking, novelty seeking, and impulsivity...three common persoanlity traits that tend to bypass conscious justification "I wanted to see what would happen" is a perfect justification for someone with high novelty seeking. Nothing else is needed, certainly thoughts of not being blamed aren't in their minds at all.

As do all predator mammals including humans. Most animals display aggression in some circumstances.

Pit bulls are no more likely to be aggressive or dangerous than any other breed of dog. You believe a lot of silly myths about breeds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unsupported assertion

Wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't discussing evil, I was discussing risk taking, novelty seeking, and impulsivity...three common persoanlity traits that tend to bypass conscious justification "I wanted to see what would happen" is a perfect justification for someone with high novelty seeking. Nothing else is needed, certainly thoughts of not being blamed aren't in their minds at all.

You are saying in so many words that teenagers will desire to speed and race and be impulsive in the new world. I beg to differ that impulsivity will trump the desire to be careful so that no one gets hurt in the process of one's having a good time. The idea of wanting to see what would happen is absolute nonsense because the very thought that the possible outcome could kill or injure someone is what deters someone from ever taking a chance like this. It would be horrible to even contemplate, let alone want to see what the outcome would be just for the fun of it. You are presupposing that this impulsivity can't be controlled and can prevent someone from thinking before acting. That's completely fallacious because this law is powerful, and conscience would be working behind the scenes in every situation where someone could get hurt. You don't have a clue LadyShea. All you're doing is throwing ideas around and thinking they could possibly negate these powerful principles. They do no such thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As do all predator mammals including humans. Most animals display aggression in some circumstances.

That's what I've been trying to tell you. The environment plays a big role in how behavior is manifested.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pit bulls are no more likely to be aggressive or dangerous than any other breed of dog. You believe a lot of silly myths about breeds.

Exactly. In our understanding pitbulls, we know this aggression manifests when they are mistreated. We show compassion for them. We try to educate the public and give them the nurturing environment they need to grow into loving companions. With humans, we blame them for their bad behavior, lock them up and throw away the key, or society focuses more on retribution and just desert (revenge) than on programs that not only help the victim, but help the perpetrator as well.

[LadyShea]

Until you have some evidence or sound reasoning, you are just making faith statements, peacegirl. You cannot support a single statement you just made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong.

It is absolutely an unsupported assertion that conscience functions the same and manifests the same in all people. You have never offered anything to back that up. Have you even tried looking into the neuroscience and experimental psychology literature to see if Lessans claims are in line with what science is finding every day? If you want his "discovery" taken seriously by professionals ie: scientists and academics and philosophers, you need to come up with something more than "wrong".

Do you think a Harvard professor like Joshua Greene, whose life work is devoted to questions of morality and conscience, is just going to agree that "Conscience works the way Lessans said it does"? Forget about me for a minute, how would you respond to him should he ask you to support that claim? How do you plan to converse with experts? Are you going to tell them "Wrong!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true. Some people have temperaments that drive them to seek risk and novelty, they crave these things, and many people act on impulse because they were born impulsive. This is neuroscience and genetics.

Lessans didn't take many things into account, like that people are different. His ideas are also dependent on his beliefs about conscience that he failed to support.

You are so completely wrong, there is no way I can convince you. This is why I am going to get support for this cause. If I don't get other philosphers who are well known to support Lessans, he would be crushed immediately. I know this is a major problem, which is why I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction to get momentum behind me. If he is wrong, let every philosopher who believes in determinism be accused of being wrong. I am tired of being the odd man out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Until you have some evidence or sound reasoning, you are just making faith statements, peacegirl. You cannot support a single statement you just made.

It is absolutely an unsupported assertion that conscience functions the same and manifests the same in all people. You have never offered anything to back that up. Have you even tried looking into the neuroscience and experimental psychology literature to see if Lessans claims are in line with what science is finding every day? If you want his "discovery" taken seriously by professionals ie: scientists and academics and philosophers, you need to come up with something more than "wrong".

Do you think a Harvard professor like Joshua Greene, whose life work is devoted to questions of morality and conscience, is just going to agree that "Conscience works the way Lessans said it does"? Forget about me for a minute, how would you respond to him should he ask you to support that claim? How do you plan to converse with experts? Are you going to tell them "Wrong!"

Who the fuck cares about the fact that Greene is a Harvard graduate. Do you actually think God cares about this bullshit? I don't care what degrees someone has. If he has discovered something important, I could care less what school he went to or didn't go to. You are part of your times LadyShea. It is so obvious that the people you associate with are "important", which gives you a feeling of importance as well. You get the run off. Isn't this what it's all about LadyShea, finding your own self-worth in a harsh world? Don't throw what I'm saying out as anyone hearing this would be inclined to do. It's a real shame because you could have understood this knowledge had you not been so caught up in equating your personal value with the school you went to, or what you think you know.

[LadyShea]

Being a Harvard graduate isn't the point. He runs the whole department that is devoted to this issue at Harvard. He is overseeing studies and writes scholarly papers that are read by other philosophers and professionals.

He is one of the "well known" people you need to convince- as you've admitted- how do you plan to do it?

If I don't get other philosphers who are well known to support Lessans, he would be crushed immediately

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the fuck cares about the fact that Greene is a Harvard graduate. Do you actually think God cares about this bullshit? I don't care what degrees someone has. If he has discovered something important, I could care less what school he went to or didn't go to. You are part of your times LadyShea. It is so obvious that the people you associate with are "important", which gives you a feeling of importance as well. You get the run off. Isn't this what it's all about LadyShea, finding your own self-worth in a harsh world? Don't throw what I'm saying out as anyone hearing this would be inclined to do. It's a real shame because you could have understood this knowledge had you not been so caught up in equating your personal value with the school you went to, or what you think you know.

LOL, look at you! I am not the one who is trying to convince the ENTIRE WORLD to listen to my dad. I don't associate with important people, I am a nobody. I didn't go to college at all, so my personal value isn't wrapped up in anything but my family. Yet you are wasting your time trying to convince me. What if I said "I am convinced! I believe Lessans had the answer to world peace!"? That and 3.50 with get you a Starbucks. I can't do a goddamned thing to help you reach your goal, even if I was a die hard Lessans devotee.

If you hope to elevate Lessans above the "Nut with a Manifesto" masses you need to learn to communicate with "important" people and experts as they are the ones that people listen to. You can't convince even ordinary schmucks like me and the others you've talked with at layperson forums, how to you hope to get world leaders to listen to you?

ETA: lol @ "God cares (or doesn't)"... Yeah, do you still assert that you are using God as a metaphor for the laws of nature?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he is wrong, let every philosopher who believes in determinism be accused of being wrong.

Their ideas regarding exactly what determinism is and what it entails may be very different than Lessans. Just because they are determinists, doesn't mean they will agree with Lessans at all.

Additionally, Lessans didn't stop at determinism- he made very strong claims about conscience but offered nothing to support those claims, as well as made strong claims about biology and physics with his efferent vision thing for which he had zero evidential support. Getting someone to agree that determinism is true is not even remotely the battle you face....there are plenty of determinists out there. Can you get them from that point to the point of agreeing that there exists some "germinal substance" that allows us to live again and again even though that is not reincarnation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Until you have some evidence or sound reasoning, you are just making faith statements, peacegirl. You cannot support a single statement you just made.

It is absolutely an unsupported assertion that conscience functions the same and manifests the same in all people. You have never offered anything to back that up. Have you even tried looking into the neuroscience and experimental psychology literature to see if Lessans claims are in line with what science is finding every day? If you want his "discovery" taken seriously by professionals ie: scientists and academics and philosophers, you need to come up with something more than "wrong".

Do you think a Harvard professor like Joshua Greene, whose life work is devoted to questions of morality and conscience, is just going to agree that "Conscience works the way Lessans said it does"? Forget about me for a minute, how would you respond to him should he ask you to support that claim? How do you plan to converse with experts? Are you going to tell them "Wrong!"

Added to previous post:

I will tell them to study his observations. He very carefully explains why we need to be able to justify what we do in order to hurt someone. If they want to test this, they can. They may not be able to test this on someone whose conscience has already been severed or disabled, but that does not negate the truth of his observation.

[LadyShea]

Good luck with that approach.

Did you by any chance choose to participate in the studies they are doing? I did. That will give a good idea of how experimental philosophy and psychology work, at least, so you can somewhat see how Lessans ideas might be tested.