Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 11:46am PT
|
I will choose determinism when it is accepted as a legal defense.
The legal system does take into account the mental competence of a person. A child, a senile oldster, a person with Down's Syndrome, a person under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or someone the psychiatrists say is insane will not be punished for a wrong choice in the same way that a 'normal' person would be. However, the law, too, tries to make things simple. There may be many degrees of mental competence but I believe that the court is looking to decide between competent or not competent. A binary choice but I don't think it is between free will versus determinism.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
|
I should have looked at this earlier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#History_of_the_insanity_defense
not a new idea (unless new is defined as anything with history), but even then pre-history may have had similar ideas...
as far as who a scientist is... well I know many who would not consider cultural anthropology to be a science. I happen to think it can be and probably is more and more...
as far as hewing to the constructs of cultural tradition because it is deemed more important than considering modern ideas, one only has to look at the various situations throughout the globe and wonder why these are such important issues... if teaching girls is prohibited by god in the old testament (remember that Eve was told not to eat that apple and did, brining us all a legacy of misery) is that something we should resign to? even though our science (and now I'll include sociology, anthropology, etc) seems to indicate that many benefits of modernization is derived from the education of girls and women?
If you want to believe in demonic possession as a model for human bad behavior it might not be so far from most people's understanding of the science of the mind...
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
|
Whether it is recognized or not---- a fair bit of determinism has steadily worked its way into our legal system and our society-wide views in general. This transformation has been underway for at least a century. Within the legal system this is partly reflected in the degree of punishment for especially serious crimes: in 1814 most murder cases tried in most courts resulted quickly in a death sentence carried out forthwith. In 2014 a whole legal library of "mitigating" and conditional factors are routinely brought into play to explain the behavior of murder suspects ----factors squarely outside the exclusive purview of "free will"
Broadly considered the current legal system seems to function transparently and macroscopically on a traditional "free will" premise ----- but simultaneously considers deterministic factors microscopically and largely out of view of the general public. A "sane and competent" convicted murderer is looked upon by the general populace as motivated by free will. The legal system increasingly in modern times , reflecting an empirical progressivism ,has come to view this same murderer as a bundle of causative social factors--- and therefore only partially responsible, if at all. In fact much of society in the developed world is coming over to this view. Especially in Europe.
When the negative effects of traditional attitudes are considered ,such as religiously-motivated "free will" ----conclusions are often reached which thereby set up a real world polemic between these two countervailing views. The "free will" view is very simple and very straightforward--- on the other hand the deterministic outlook is inherently fraught with byzantine levels of qualification and apparent contradiction.
The blatantly anachronistic "free will" remedy for anti-social behavior is obvious and easy to criticize: the chopping off of a thieves hand in Islamic Fundamentalism ,or the stoning of adulterous women, and so on. These punishments are extreme in the modern context, but not often lacking in effectiveness for the society in question.
What is not arguable is that such extreme punishments are squarely rooted in the religiously enforced foundation of free will. (Minus Satan being directly implicated)
The real world negative effects of determinism normally are not so sharply focused: a convicted murderer is lamented ,essentially as a victim of causative factors ---- who in court is given a 30 yr sentence ,but is subsequently reduced to half that time , and eventually emerges from prison in 10 yrs. --- often in time to kill his second innocent victim.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
|
" . . . scientists at places like CERN . . . ."
Were we to have scientists at CERN running things in domains other than the ones they live and work in. Sigh. However, that might actually make them rather unlike the scientists who work at places like CERN.
FM: Most Americans have no idea who Dawkins and Harris are and I suspect they offend only your sense of propriety. As for science alienating the general population, that doesn't wash with the facts. American homes and businesses are awash with the fruits of science and technology.
The fruits of science came about because men and women went to work to create, innovate, produce a product or service, and take it to buyers. That brush stroke of yours there was the width of a small country.
It's been my understanding that most well-respected leaders were not scientists or men of science. Many of the best technical minds could not get an organization to move, change, or stop. The world will not build a path to your door just because you produced a new gadget. Most of the biggest, widely bought and use products were not the best that could be made available.
Mind over matter. Always. Always. Always.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 04:33pm PT
|
and good posts, Ed.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 08:19pm PT
|
I thought "Don't Do" well worth watching. The last speaker brought up a new point. When religion and the culture are tied closely together, those who admit to atheism worry they may lose their place.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 08:33pm PT
|
I looked up discursive
Only one of many Largoisms on the thread.
edit:
See 'Spoonerism'
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 09:00pm PT
|
It's true, Dawkins in particular annoys me with his style,and while the average person probably doesn't know his name, they are aware that there are now militant atheists every bit as convinced of their rectitude as the religious fundamentalists. Most people I know don't care much for either one.
As for anthropology being a science, biological anthro is scientific, but cultural anthro has always had one foot in social science and the other in the humanities. In both we strive to first of all understand our fellow human beings, and if we wish to change them, ponder how to do it using the background and baggage of the past. Complete revolutions happen, but not often.
I think this is well illustrated by the fact that people gladly accept the comforts of science and technology, including modern medicine, but not the world view (evolution comes to mind) that goes with it. So how much less likely is it that the average person is going to believe in brainwaves over our traditional legal system? This is not to say that this system and the notion of free will hasn't already been modified somewhat in regard to our own society.
However when increasingly confronted with utter barbarity such as we are seeing in the middle east right now, I think the idea of determinism is a hard sell. Even if scientifically true, we can't afford to believe that the folks beheading school children had no choice. It comes down to survival finally.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
|
When religion and the culture are tied closely together, those who admit to atheism worry they may lose their place.
One of the five major functions of religion according to anthropology is the provision of identity. Believing you were the chosen people, the true humans, that God loved your group more than others etc., was a powerful survival mechanism in the days of small populations. On our current over crowded planet, this has become a major liability. Just look at the middle east with Israelis and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shias, all claiming God given rights to the same pieces of real estate.
One of the pressing issues of our time is how to cope with this and how to change this mentality if we even can. Maybe we can't. History is full of groups who annihilated other groups.
Let me also remind you that all of history's most recent despots and mass murderers were all of the humanities bent.
And most of them were atheists as well. Which means ???
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 08:20am PT
|
I appreciate your concern with words, Jim, and your ability to use them to make us reconsider without telling us directly what to think. The scheme for how different religions and the irreligious and non-religious can live together was worked out long ago. Gore your ox if your tradition calls for it but please leave my cat alone.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 09:18am PT
|
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 09:57am PT
|
I wouldn't trust any of those guys around my cat, but points well laughed with.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 08:00am PT
|
eeyonkee, that's a swell idea. If you do...
(1) I'd enjoy it (I'm pretty sure) and I'd try to contribute.
(2) I wouldn't always expect it on the first page, nor do I think I'd want to either. I think it could be a more successful thread if it weren't probably. Personally I'd rather see meaningful content than number of posts or bumps every day, let alone every hour, which seems to be the measure of success for many a thread and poster here.
"I think free will is an important subject and I think people are powerfully confused about it and I think this confusion actually matters." - Sam Harris
Could end up just another can of worms though, lol!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 08:05am PT
|
"I think free will is an important subject and I think people are powerfully confused about it and I think this confusion actually matters." - blueblocr
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:29am PT
|
Thanks, HFCS, but I decided against starting a new thread. I think that I'll just continue to study this subject on my own. Thanks again for the heads up on the Dennett/Harris debate. Dennett's critique will be my starting point for a deeper understanding.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 11:20am PT
|
Roger that, don't want to own it, lol! I understand completely.
Hey in your Dennett-Harris analysis, don't forget to check out Jerry Coyne's blog about it.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/sam-harris-vs-dan-dennett-on-free-will/
This subject more than any other (I mean apart from having fun) defined my life path since age 18-20, when I gathered together the implications of physics and chemistry underlying all of biology and weighed those against the conventional / traditional views in which I was raised by my family and culture. (Shocking!)
Coyne's critique was pretty much mine. Harris and Dennett are supposedly friends, very good friends, so it was surprising to read Dennett so snarky in places toward Harris when it didn't seem he needed to be.
They're both on the same page regarding living things as automata, in other words "deterministic" in a causal sense (not predictive sense). Their disagreement, imo, concerns (a) varieties of "free will" as a word with Dennett wanting to preserve it for those kinds ("varieties") that are free (e.g., from demons, tumors and other medically-defined disorders, bad influences from friends, control freaks, etc.) and also (b) just how much to emphasize (else, dwell on) people as fully-caused, fully mechanistic automata, esp taking into account levels of understanding across public or society, in the interest of a healthy and wholesome civilization.
Like Harris said, it's a tough row. Way more challenging than evolutionary theory.
.....
In my experience, insofar as one gets around to concluding all living things including people are automata, it's not healthy - that is, "spiritually hygienic" - to dwell on it any more than death. In my experience that's the key. No dwelling on it. (Unless it's your work, lol!) Discover it by way of edu. Come to terms with it. File it away. Know where to find it. Use it as necessary to solve life problems. File it away. My two cents.
re: automata not being responsible for their conduct
There's always going to be that dilemma, that balancing act, between (a) compassion (there but for the grace of the gods go I) and (b) accountability (for community or social sake) that people, even amongst themselves, are going to argue over endlessly. Not wise to "dwell" too much on this side of it either, beyond the practical.
Climbing and other adventure sports - that's the cure. One of them.
.....
re: automata, automated biology
My two cents: Don't emphasize them, let alone dwell on them. (In the current milieu, esp.) Instead? Emphasize can-do power. All living things have it. Honey badgers to humans.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 04:26pm PT
|
Hmmmm. This seems to be one of your most coherent and sensible threads yet fructose. Does this mean you're mellowing or that ( LOL ) I've come under your spell and lost my free will?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 05:11pm PT
|
FM: Your reasoning is silly. Specious at best. Tell that to Bill Gates, remember him? He's chosen to essentially sidestep government entirely, to get shiht done. The most valuable company on the planet? Run by a useless nerd by the name of Steve Jobs. These are but the two most visible examples.
You are probably making claims outside of your area of expertise, I suspect.
Most technicians believe that if you get the task right, then everything works out well. They forget there are people involved, and people are not technical. They are emotional, social, and largely irrational. Gates was a megalomaniac and micromanager, as was Jobs. Both companies have been taken to court repeatedly for monopolistic anticompetitive behaviors.
How would you suggest we define great organizational leaders? By their technical skills?
(BTW, you've chosen two out of tens of thousands leaders. That would constitute a rather small set of exceptions--if indeed they are.)
Value, as you've chosen to draw it out, is simply stock price X number of shares. Is that your final answer or definition of what is good, worthy, and productive when it comes to leadership and enterprise?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!