Antisocial Personality Disorder
 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2155495

The more and more we begin to look into the human brain, the more and more it seems that the notion of "free will" is becoming obsolete. I'm sure some would scoff at the notion that the soldier who is accused of raping and killing in Iraq should be found innocent because of APD, but what if his neurological profile really was an important factor? It's all kind of scary when we think about how we are all just at the mercy of our particular brain chemistry. Personally, I've never believed in free will or a "soul," but for those that do, brain imaging evidence must seem like a threat. :neutral:

Our nervous system is composed of the same raw materials as the rest of the universe, thus it must obey the laws of physics like every other physical object. So, unless one believes that there is some "magical" quality to a human being, then one must accept that we are essentially automatons.

You don't believe in free will??

Even people with neurological or brain defects can learn to control SOME THINGS.


That said I think when people kill there is too much labeling as if we will say, "oh, that explains it" Why not just say,
"He went bizirk! after all, WAR IS HELL"


The ability to reason is not a 'magical quality' . A self -actualized person is just 'aware'.

Do you actually believe we are robots?? Or do things without thinking?? I mean aside from picking up that occassional frito bag.

Okay, say we are robots, and a rapist/murderer is completely unaccountable for his actions. The fact remains that he hurts people, and the majority of society can agree that that's a bad thing. If there's nothing we can do to fix his brain chemistry--and so far there isn't--I don't care if it's his fault or not. We'll just change the sign over the prison door to "malfunctioning brain chemistry ward" and be done with it.

I'm not arguing the implications, I'm just stating the facts.

fact- self actualization is not a magical quality it is a biological function not some vauge implication.


Do you believe we are robots? It is a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, Then say something that supports it otherwise it's it's just bs. -sorry it's true. It's bs.

Biological functions are carried out by physical materials which must obey the laws of physics. Draw your own conclusions, I'm not thinking for you.

I wouldn't want you to think for me.
You obviously have too much on your plate. Your statements are full of errors.
Your own conclusions are drawn so no sense in trying. Have a nice day. :)



This is automation.

Tea anyone?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dMechanism.jpg

I learned tonight, because we had 20-20 on the television at work that I am no longer responsible for my comfortably messy house or my need to obsessively purchase books and other cool things. I now have a soft addiction.

Isn't that cool? This is going to go really well with my Binge Eating Disorder (which replaced my just plain overeating) and Intermittent Explosive Disorder (which is my insurance-eligible road rage).

ugg, 'soft addiction' more labeling.



There is just something so sweet in calling things as they are. I am a lazy , greedy , cream puff. There that feels better.

I am acquisitive.

That word is so lady like. Like you've got to have your pinky finger up when you say it. :p

I saw that enabling crap too.:greenface

It's a leftover from a short story I read when fairly young. I think it may have been one of Isaac Asimov's Black Widowers stories.

My only real regret about that story is that I am not a $500 per session consultant to help you deal with your feelings of guilt related to your soft addiction.

No shit... I pity drill sergeants today, I really do.

Yeah, no kidding. According to policy, there is no such thing as someone unfit for the army- there're only drill sergeants who fail at their job. Bullshit, if you ask me. Imagine having to pass, by whatever means necessary, some shitbag shmuck, or worse, some kid you know is not going to cut it in his MOS.

As for those with an apparent pre-disposition to violent criminal behavior- I remember reading about a discovery made last year: there was an abnormality found in the brain of repeat violent offenders (serious offenders, not bar-fighters or whatnot). Now here's the thing: you can have the abnormality and have a decent upbringing with no unusual effect. You can have a screwed up upbringing and no abnormality with no unusual effect. If you have both, you are going to be screwed up. Wayne Gayce style. Well, maybe not that bad, but rape, murder, and serious assault are gonna be your hobbies. So essentially, there's a biological disposition, that requires a trigger. How true is it? *Shrugs* Too lazy to google for details and creds right now.

I've got a neurologist in the family, and there's nothing more depressing than listening to a long list of evidence supporting the theory that our "personalities", choices, free will, etc. are all an illusion, just purely the result of chemical reactions and such.
Gotta say, though, I think it's mostly crap. To back that up, I'm going to bring out a reference written by a guy who, as far as I can tell, could be an absolute loon. Wrote a really good book about consciousness and death, though- if you get the time, check it out, it's free and online. No, it's neither religious or Hubbardish. It's called Zen Physics. http://www.daviddarling.info/works/Z...s_front_1.html
If nothing else, it will give you actual answers to questions you've always wondered about, like "What actually happens when you show porn to someone who effectively has two brains, and how does that relate to me?"

Seriously, though, I'm a big fan of the theory that consciousness is its own thing, neither created by nor ending with the mind itself. Your mind may limit or give shape to your consciousness, thus limiting your actions somewhat, but "free will" still exists in varying degrees.

In special education, I run into learned helplessness a lot. These are the kids who have learned that they don't control their surroundings, because care-takers do too much for them. They wait for the world to act on them rather than acting on the world. It is pretty sad and if we let this excuse making nonsense go far enough, we'll have a whole society wired this way.

We already DO have a society wired this way. I see the wasteland everywhere. My twenty-something nephew lived with me for a few months last year and his complete lack of motivation astounded me. It was so pure it was a thing of beauty.

As for the 'soft addiction'--where do I sign up for one of those? It would be a pleasant change from the hard-core stuff I currently deal in. Does anybody watch A&E's INTERVENTION on Sunday nights? Great show.

A big problem with considering humans to be nothing more than automations is that if we are, then why is it wrong to harm or kill someone? It would essentially be the same as a fox killing a chicken to eat it, we don't object to that. Although people react in predictable ways to external stimuli you cannot discount the basic reality that any person has the power to control that reaction.

I agree. Sometimes it FEELS like you can't control it, but you can.

There's another theory of human nature that I learned about last night while watching Sci-Fi's THE SEARCH FOR ATLANTIS (I watch too much TV, I realize that now) This theory says that people who are corrupt and greedy and anti-social are just displaying MORE of their ALIEN nature. Alien as in 'alien's came down and mated with humans a long time ago.' I'm a sucker for this kind of shit.

I usually am to busy on weekends to catch TV, but I should probably watch this, if only to see the stupid shit families try to do before they involve me.

(I once read a family's "intervention plan" that had been written by a design engineer and computer programmer. He had plotted the intervention in excrutiating detail, including which chair the intended victim would sit in, how everyone would behave at the family party that was being held beforehand, and how everyone would say goodbye to the victim before said person was, of course, to be hauled off to rehab because they now understood the power and goodness of sobriety. Let's just say it didn't quite come off that way.)

A design engineer and a computer programmer...sounds like some control issues. :D

Free Will
 

Yes, I really don't believe in free will. So what? I'm still going to make choices and act accordingly. Who cares if those choices and actions are "free" or not? It's still me and my body. My present brain chemistry is based on genetics, experience, environment, and probably some chaos thrown in. And if I have a propensity toward self-examination, I can analyse myself and perhaps change my own behavior. I often think about why I think about what I think about. Yes, it can get confusing.

I have no shame in being a materialist. And there is no "right" or "wrong" either. That is why behaving ethically is hard; because we don't really have to.

They keep coming up with new explanations for why people do what they do and probably will as long as there's grant money and talk shows.

BUT, we are still liable for our actions. You have a brain tumor? chemical imbalance? bad childhood ? so what? If you cook and eat your children you pay. :smack:

Well, the only use for prying into the whole thing in the first place is not to get people off the hook- if we can understand it, we can mess with it. This is not for the courtroom, it's for the lab.

Which is a scary thought. Would you rather continue to have violent crime, or have that capability removed from people at (or before, more likely) birth? It's not sarcasm, it's something I ponder sometimes. I'd almost rather have the crime than have mass genetic tinkering someday (which is a stance I'd be hard pressed to justify to a victim of rape or child abuse, or a relative of a murder victim). I'll bet it happens though, sooner or later.

I agree completely AG, I touched on it here in the stem cell post. I think it'll happen eventually but I think it'll make people a good deal more uncomfortable than any other recent advance in science. Brave New World and Gattaca are interesting looks at the concept.

That isn't necessarily true. They could also chemically alter offenders and eliminate the need for jails and the death penalty. Your worse case scenario isn't the only possible outcome.:cool:

Care to elaborate on what those errors are? Please be specific.

Care to elaborate on what those conclusions are? Please be specific.

I too have been working in special education for a good twenty five years. People are resilient and strong. We are automomous but not automations.

We create.As a people we fight against the laws of nature to achieve some incredible things. Simple organisms might have only their biological functions, like the ants and sea urchins. They might not have a thinking choice but people are not bound by the seeming limitaions of mind or body, no matter how imperfect they maybe. They do have a choice regardless of what the body wants to do we can make it do something else to a degree. Sometimes living life by degrees is all some people have. I'd not like that reduced to simple cause and effect without the will involved. That's all I was saying.

Well said. Sure we're acted upon but in the end we choose. I've seen kids over-come learned helplessness, so I think the rest of us can as well.

We see eye to eye then. Thank you sir.

Yes, and what astounds me is how those who are enabling the HELL out of the addicts act like the biggest victims in it all... it is constant.

Geez, the thread from la-la land! I gotta start paying more attention to the Cellar again. OK, listen up folks!

There are definite personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder, etc.

Most psychologists believe that these disorders have more to do with early childhood treatment or mistreatment by the kid's primary care takers. There does seem to be some familial connection with schizophrenia and NPD, etc. Thus, its possible that brain chemistry does dispose some of us to these PD's.

HOWEVER: People with PD's know right from wrong. People who are out and out psychotic may not, but this is not true of someone who is a sociopath or psychopath. They KNOW they are doing wrong and they don't give a rat's ass.

There is no cure for NPD, APD, etc. Why? Because the people who have such disorders don't care and/or are incapable of the introspection required to make the needed changes in behavior.

For someone with a PD, the rest of us are sort of like TV sets or toasters. Do you care if you hurt your toaster's feelings? If your TV tells you to change your wicked ways, will you? NOT HARDLY!

Yeah, its sad that some parents are so twisted that they grow these twisted kids who become twisted adults and continue the cycle. Does that mean I'm going to say, "Poor baby! Mama didn't love you. Go ahead and rape and murder?"

That's a negativisky to that. They KNOW right from wrong. I feel sorry for drill sergeants or anyone Else who has to encounter these individuals. I even feel sorry for people with PD's in a weird way. Does this mean I think they should get a get out of jail free card? Hell no!

Yeah, we all get to play the hand that was dealt us. Some folks have a predisposition to addiction. Many of them can overcome it if they try. Some can't. Too bad. Some of us are neat freaks and some slobs and some of us can't resist buying anything that's on sale. These things are our burden to bear. Some bear their burden better than others.

I'm all for understanding reasons and whys and wherefores. God knows, some folks got dealt miserable hands. But some folks who get dealt all low cards do amazingly well. There's such a thing as spirit and heart and soul and courage.

There's no easy answers. And there's no such thing as predestination or the "devil made me do it" either.

I just like to be specific. I like to start from a set of known facts and proceed accordingly, regardless of how I feel about where the facts are leading me. There has to be objectivity which isn't influenced by a fear of unwanted conclusions.

So, from the beginning: is our nervous system composed of physical materials? Yes. And do physical materials have to obey the laws of physics? Also, yes. That is a known set of facts.

A second set of anecdotal evidence consists of our perception that there is an "x factor" which elevates us above the mere sum of a complex organic computing system. We want to believe that our thoughts and emotions are something more than neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions. But, what evidence is there to support this?

What is "awareness" - what is it made out of? Does it exist in a magical dimension seperate from physical reality? We don't have the answers to this question, but I like to start from what we do know.

We can't put the cart of our expectations before the horse of the available evidence. We don't want to think of a society where people are absolved of personal responsibility, so we avoid what we know about reality - in favor of what we are more comfortable with. We choose ignorance because we cannot immediately see the outcome of exploring an unknown path. That's not clear thinking, that's not good science - a flawed foundation will never produce a solid result.

Whatever makes us tick has to be either #1 a physical process that obeys the laws of physics or #2 a magical spirit from the land of fairies and unicorns. There is no fuzzy middle ground.

And by the way, Quantum Physics doesn't help tear down this Newtonian-sounding argument. Quantum Physics adds, at best, an element of pure randomness. Going on the assumption that a comfortable-feeling conclusion is desired: would one rather be a robot that obeys a set of complicated laws, or a unpredictable anamoly with no control over a series of random occurances?

You'll notice I haven't ventured one step beyond what I said in my very first post here. Like I said, I like to start at the beginning, from a set of known facts, and proceed accordingly. Also, I like to avoid acting like a shit-flinging monkey who has no response beyond personal insults and unsubstantiated non-rebuttals.

How can those exist if our thoughts and emotions are.. Says who? :confused:

The scientific method is designed to fend off flawed assumptions. It intends to compensate for our desire to color our perceptions with personal bias. It does a pretty good job considering the impossibility of that task. Luckily, science isn't carved in stone. We peel away the layers as we go.





What other options are there? It's physical, or it's something else.

How can we do all that if our thoughts and emotions are nothing but "neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions"? You set up an answer with rediculous extremes and claim there can be nothing between them. Prove it. :eyebrow:

You can't prove it. But it can be disproven if a counterexample is found.

Yes, that's why we have the sciences of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology. Personality is NOT a "magical spirit from the land of fairy tales and unicorns." Some aspects of personality or some tendencies do seem to be inherited - autism, schizophrenia, and some forms of intelligence are examples of this.

Most neuroses and, to a large extent, personality disorders, are more the result of early childhood experiences than they are brain chemistry. I suggest you read the book by the respected psychiatrist, M. Scott Peck called People of the Lie, if you are in doubt about what constitutes personality and what constitutes evil.

The world cannot be explained by physics alone. To attempt to do this just goes to show how ignorant of science you really are.









Exactly. Its physical and a 100 if not a 1,000 "something elses." Good science does not fall back on black and white thinking. Science is subtle and complex. Try cracking a book on biology or psychology sometime. You'll be amazed.

Flint, I am confused. I am just a country bumpkin but I am sure you mean the laws of human physiology and not the law of physics.




When something confuses me I am on it like a squirrel with a nut. ( no pun intended)
So I did a little research this am to give you the specifics you asked for.

I am looking for something that proves physics has anything to do with what you are talking about.

I think not but I try. I look up the law of physics. You know atoms,time and gravity.

http://srikant.org/core/phy11sep.html



I find a paper from a University that trys to deal with what I think you might be going for. It is the question of human physiology and consciousness.(or awareness) I don't agree with it but it is discussed from a physiology standpoint and not a physics stand point. I could'nt find anyone talking about human physics sorry

( I lost that link but if you google human physics together you might find it.)


http://scbe.stanford.edu/conference/hallett.pdf



Here is another article with the word physics in it. Even thought the classroom is called,'The Physics Classroom' the person talks about the physiology of hearing and the perceptopn of it which falls under human psychology. The only physics involved is the mechanics of how sound travels.



You said :


As far as my research shows there IS a fuzzy middle ground. In your own words you say there isn't but there is. Your above post is your own conclusion but they are in error.


How about these sciences for fuzzy ground?


Neuroscience - Neuropsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience
Neuroscience is a field of study that deals with the structure, function, development, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and pathology of the nervous system, consisting of the myriad nerve pathways running throughout the body. The study of behavior and learning is also a division of neuroscience.


Psychology - Cognitive Psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology



Philosophy - Philosophy of Mind

• Choice
• Concept formation
• Decision making
• Judgment and decision making
• Logic, formal and natural reasoning
• Problem solving

They work within that area you say dosn't exist . I must question whether you really believe what you say.


sorry you asked :thepain3:

It's a really simple concept. Physics is: what? The laws of little particles and waves and such. And what is the world as we know it made up of? This stuff, this stuff that must obey these laws. There isn’t anything that isn’t made up of this stuff, that must obey these laws. A basketball, bouncing, must obey these laws. A computer, crunching numbers, must obey these laws. And a clump of organic matter, inside your head, must obey these laws. To assume a special quality as regards ourselves in particular is highly arrogant on our part.


These sciences describe processes occurring in the human “mind” – and a lot of debate goes around about where the “mind” lives. However, what we do know is that the body and the brain are composed of the same material as the rest of the universe. Therefore, unless we are to believe that some outside force, some unknown force, is acting upon us, animating us in some unknown fashion (and that is an interesting possibility, and I don’t rule that out – but that possibility can be proven or demonstrated at this point), then we have to accept that we obey the same laws of physics as everything else.


These conditions, unless caused by mysterious invisible forces, are the playing out of complex chemical rections – that obey the laws of physics, just like everything else.


The perception of the experience, and it’s result upon the individual, take place within the neuro-chemical framework of the human body - that must obey the laws of physics, just like everything else.


Of course not. But you can’t just ignore physics either. The laws of physics act upon all known materials in the universe, including us. We aren’t special. I could say that you are ignorant, for failing to understand my very simple point, but I won’t, because hurling personal insults doesn’t do it for me. I prefer substance.

This characterization of my argument is actually humorous to me. I have a simple point. I am speaking in simple terms because my point is very simple. I am highly aware of the complexity of science. I am aware, for instance, that you can’t just ignore fundamental facts. To me, that is truly ignorant.

Hey, more personal insults, cool. You fail to grasp a simple point, and accuse me of not being able to see beyond that point. I can see just fine - however, I am simply discussing the one point you are failing to grasp. As long as you keep failing to grasp it, I will keep trying to explain it. Why? I guess I just have faith in humanity, in the ability of people to understand very basic concepts. Call me a dreamer...




Meaning, employ the scientific method with 100% unfailing accuracy? We can't. We can only do our best. As I said, science is "designed to" and "intends to" do something that is an "impossibility" - but, it isn't "carved in stone." So, we do our best. If we want to throw out the scientific method, we may as well teach Creationism to our children.


Physiology describes physical aspects of the human body. Physical object must obey the laws of physics. Physiology doesn't make physics not exist.




Neuroscience describes physical aspects of the human body, and the functions of these physical aspects. Physical object must obey the laws of physics. Neuroscience does not refute physics - they work together. You can't just ignore one of them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



It is an exceedingly simple point, folks.

We are physical objects and everything that happens within us, no matter how complex it is, is based on physical processes that must obey the laws of physics. The only argument against this is that there is some unknown outside force that makes us, of all things, special. I doubt that. I aggressively doubt that we are special beings which defy the laws of physics. That is my point. That, and nothing else. I am simply not discussing any of the peripheral subjects here which don't address this point. Why? Because first things must be considered first. I am not ignoring the subjects put forth here, but nothing can make the basic laws of the universe just go away, nothing. Especially not us. We are nothing special.

OK, Flint. I agree that human beings follow the laws of science. But you forget that science is merely a HUMAN construct which we use to attempt to understand the world around us. Science is not God. Science is as fallible as the human beings who use it. Consider LeMarquism, for example. Consider the the discrepancies between quantum mechanics and classical physics. Consider the fact that science and scientists constantly undergo paradigm shifts with new discoveries and new ways of thinking about and explaining the world.

Here's a reducto ad absurdum for you:

Pavlov's dog hears a bell ring each time it gets fed. After a while, the ringing bell is all that is required to cause the dog to salivate at the thought of food. The dog's brain has rewired itself so that the sound of a bell rather than the smell of food causes it to produce a chemical secretion (saliva) in anticipation of being fed.

Pavlov's dog escapes from the lab, grows up and enters the upper social circles of the canine world. Alas, when the butler rings the bell for dinner, PD can't help but drool all over himself. The pedigreed poodles snicker behind PD's back. PD's girl friend is ashamed to attend social functions with him. PD himself is filled with embarrassment and shame over his uncontrollable response.

Now PD can write this off to his cruel early childhood in the lab. A zillion members of PETA will support him in his stance. Its just physics, after all.

However, if you want to study physics, try reciting for me the third law of thermodynamics without resorting to Google. If you can't do that, join me and Pavlov's Dog in his behavior modification class where he slowly and painfully learns to be an accepted member of society again.

And if you think physics is all there is to the current dominant paradigm, then stay away from anything to do with biology or medicine and die alone cursing the darkness. We'll toll a bell for you.

OK, Flint. I agree that human beings follow the laws of science. But you forget that science is merely a HUMAN construct which we use to attempt to understand the world around us. Science is not God. Science is as fallible as the human beings who use it. Consider LeMarquism, for example. Consider the the discrepancies behind quantum mechanics and classical physics. Consider the fact that science and scientists constantly undergo paradigm shifts with new discoveries and new ways of thinking about and explaining the world.

Here's a reducto ad absurdum for you:

Pavlov's dog hears a bell ring each time it gets fed. After a while, the ringing bell is all that is required to cause the dog to salivate at the thought of food. The dog's brain has rewired itself so that the sound of a bell rather than the smell of food causes it to produce a chemical secretion (saliva) in anticipation of being fed.

Pavlov's dog escapes from the lab, grows up and enters the upper social circles of the canine world. Alas, when the butler rings the bell for dinner, PD can't help but drool all over himself. The pedigreed poodles snicker behind PD's back. PD's girl friend is ashamed to attend social functions with him. PD himself is filled with embarrassment and shame over his uncontrollable response.

Now PD can write this off to his cruel early childhood in the lab. A zillion members of PETA will support him in his stance. Its all physics, after all.

However, if you want to study physics, try reciting for me the third law of thermodynamics without resorting to Google. If you can't do that, join me and Pavlov's Dog in his behavior modification class where he slowly and painfully learns to be an accepted member of society again.

And if you think physics is all there is to the current dominant paradigm, then stay away from anything to do with biology or medicine and die alone cursing the darkness. We'll toll a bell for you.

No, I don't forget that. What makes you think I forget that? Please be specific, citing things I have posted - not your assumptions about things I have posted.

This has nothing to do with anything I have posted, and everything to do with your assumptions about the things I have posted.


Again, this is directed entirely towards an imaginary position you have created in your own mind, which I have never stated. Please remember to read more carefully, and, when in doubt, just stick to taking things at face value, exactly as stated, without launching into a series of assumptions, and then coming back to me as if I have stated points which I, in fact, have never stated.

.
.
.

I don't have anything else to add to my original, basic, easy to understand point. Everything in the universe, including ourselves, must obey the laws of physics. There are no special exceptions. That is the entirity of my point - nothing more, nothing less.

Any conclusions or extrapolations based upon your understanding of this basic point are not my responsibility.

.
.
.

And, please feel free to keep up with the silly personal attacks, if that floats your boat. It doesn't bother me, but if it gives you a thrill, go for it.

Biology and medicine are frameworks that abstract the physics enough to be useful for certain fields of study, but they are physics in the end.

Sure, the matter that we're made of reacts to the laws of physics. So what? That doesn't make us "essentially automatons".
It's a hell of a leap from the body obeying the laws of physics to thought/emotion is "just neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions."

It's rediculous to say, Saying anything we don't understand, or have yet to discover, doesn't exist is stupid.
That would make all research a waste of time and money and that has been proven to be false.... repeatedly.

I not ROBOT. :lol:

Huh? The research is to discover what the physical processes are!

"It is a consensus fast approaching unanimity in scientific circles that "we" (our selves) are no more than the consequences of our brains at work. In the modern view, we are mere epiphenomena or, more charitably perhaps, culminations, of the greatest concentration of orchestrated molecular activity in the known cosmos. And although it is true we don't yet know exactly how the trick is done — these are still frontier days in the brain sciences — it is widely held to be only a matter of time before those who are teasing apart the circuitry of the human cortex lay bare the hidden props of the illusion. The situation is as brutally materialistic as that. There is not the slightest bit of credible evidence to suggest there is more to your self, to the feeling of being you, than a stunningly complex pattern of chemical and electrical activity among your neurons. No soul, no astral spirit, no ghost in the machine, no disembodied intelligence that can conveniently bail out when the brain finally crashes to its doom. If science is right, then you and I are just transitory mental states of our brains."
http://www.daviddarling.info/works/Z...ysics_ch2.html
Now, the above is merely an opinion, but it's a spiel that would take my simple mind an hour to articulate, so I cheated and linked. I agree with the evidence, but there's more to it than that. And I think it's what Flint is trying to put across.

As for personal responsiblity for actions- we're still at the caveman phase when it comes to identifying and preventing the causes of mental illness. Those who violently harm others must be contained, but as far as punishment goes, how far can you take it before you stop and realize that an individual doesn't know any more than what they've been exposed to? That the development of the brain in infancy and childhood may determine whether some people will be criminals or not?
Marichiko, it may be rare for social and mental disorders to be genetic, but if the disorder is a result of the individual's environment (specifically, parental factors), is there that much of a difference? On the one hand, they were fucked from birth; on the other, they were slowly, painstakingly fucked up over time. The real question is, can it be fixed? Here's an idea: http://www.daviddarling.info/works/Z...ysics_ch5.html
Keeping in mind, if someone's ability to interact healthily with society is dependent on early experiences, once we know they're fucked up, the reasonable choices are containment and cure- punishment may be fun, but it serves no purpose other than dissuading others, and when it comes to the mentally ill and many criminals, that doesn't go very far.

That's my rational side speaking. I'd just as soon shoot 'em. Decisions, decisions.

Flintrock
 

I tend to agree with flint. And why worry that we live in physical world without any meaning other than that which we "think" it has? Just because I'm a biological robot does not mean I don't experience feelings, appreciate beauty, and even try to make the world a better place to live. I'm not afraid of the void.

The above construction presupposes that such a "God" actually exists. Sure, reality is a "construction," but try saying that before jumping in front of a bus. I have more faith that the bus will run you over than I do that any god would save you; let alone exist in the first place (and don't take this to mean that I want you to be run over by a bus).

Oh? You're telling me there is a physical process to explain everything we don't understand? If they can't find one then it doesn't happen? I'd say research is to find out if there is a physical process to explain what we don't understand.

They've figured out the whole sperm, egg, cell divide thing.... how the body mechanically functions, converts fuel to energy, etc. Lots of hows, but a lot less whys.

There is a good chance many whys many never get past the theory stage, but I'm not buying rational thought is nothing more than random electro chemical reactions. That may be the how but not the why. :headshake

Well, there's either a physical process, or a magical one. That's the definition of supernatural - not bound by the laws of physics.

Yes, science doesn't answer why, but why doesn't answer how. In the scientific sense, whys don't even reach the theory stage, much less get past it. You can't experimentally test a why. They can only be theories in the colloquial sense, in other words guesses. You can't research a why in the scientific sense, you can only read the untestable guesses of other people.

But if the question is "what is consciousness", the why, even if known, doesn't answer the how (though it would probably, if known, point research in the right direction). And that how is, in the end, either physics or magic.

I honestly don't think those terms have ever been used in conjuction with that name. You mean the Road Less Travelled pop psychology guy, right?

"Made a lot of money" <> "respected"

Why-Fi
 

Maybe there is no why, at least in the metaphysical sense. "Why are we here?" "Why do we die?" "Why do accidents kill little kids?" I see this world (and we as a species) as having no real "reason" for being here other than to manifest our bilogical imperative to reproduce. As I've posted before, just because we can "imagine" a better world as in the Lennon song doesn't mean it will occur. We sure have a bad track record.

The sun is dying and will one day engulf the earth.

Please explain to me the speciation of Darwin's finches using only the laws of thermodynamics. Please explain to me the dynamics of grassland ecology in the areas of central and northern Arizona using only quantum mechanics. Please explain to me the work of Louis Pasteur using only the Grand Unified Theory. If you can do these things to my satisfaction and that of every other biologist and ecologist, I may concede your point.

Oh, yeah. Please explain the placebo effect using the law of vectors.

Thank you.

From Wikipedia: He (M. Scott Peck) graduated from Friends Seminary in 1954, after which he received a B.A. from Harvard in 1958 and an M.D. degree from Case Western Reserve University in 1963. He served in administrative posts in the government during his career as a psychiatrist. He was the Medical Director of the New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Milford, Connecticut. His first and best-known book, The Road Less Traveled, has sold more than seven million copies.

Now, Wolf, I'm sure your academic credentials in the field of psychiatry put Dr. Peck to shame. It is especially outrageous of the man that he wrote a popular book on psychology that gave understanding of the field to millions of lay-people. TSK, TSK, Tsk! I suggest you read People of the Lie, if you can stomach reading the ideas of this charlatan.

Speciation is a result of sexual reproduction, which is a method for the duplication of DNA, which is very complicated chemistry which is the physics of atoms and molecules.

Grassland ecology is the interaction of the fluid dynamics of atmosphere and groundwater, bedrock, and the various forms of life in the area. Fluid dynamics is physics, geology is largely fluid dynamics and chemistry. And each individual form of life follows the biology to chemistry to physics path.

But what are you trying to get me to admit? That explaining ecology at the quantum level is overkill? That it's not useful? That nobody does it? If you look at my quote, you'll see that I already said it:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Biology and medicine are frameworks that abstract the physics enough to be useful for certain fields of study, but they are physics in the end.

OK, I follow you, except some times the how solves why. Solving how water runs down hill also solves the why, for example.

For "what is consciousness", the brain appears to work on an electro-chemical thing that they haven't completely mapped out yet, but even when they do, I doubt it will explain why two different brains will give different thoughts with the same through-put.
I think we're talking about the same thing but you call it how and I call it why.
I might understand the brain better if I had one. :smack:

Maybe. I intended "how" to imply mechanism and "why" to imply an underlying reason for the "how". I'm not sure how to read post 52 otherwise.
I've got a pretty good proposition for a possible answer to that question: No two brains are identical. Chaos theory would predict that in a system as complicated as a brain, the smallest of differences in structure could cause massively different outputs, and differences in brain structure arent that small, as brains wire themselves partially based on stimulus during development.