WTF?
 

.

I would like 'sudden and uncontrollable' defined in scientific terms. I mean, I'm picturing this guy running through the streets, screaming, grabbing all the little kids he can find. As for sudden, how fast did this tumor develop?

This brings up the question: If he did something illegal when he had the tumor, could he be prosecuted after it was removed?

"neurology of morality" -- absurd!

yes, I am sure all the convicts are going to be using this excuse now.

[Ahnold]"Itz nawt a tumor! Oh, wait! Mahbe it iz..."[/Ahnold]

It's well documented that tumours in certain parts of the brain can cause behavioural differences. Like Tourettes, these often seem to manifest themselves in shocking ways like sexually explicit language, provocative behaviour, uninhibited and inappropriate sexual desires.

I counter that if anyone arrested or convicted and claiming it is down to a tumour had pretty much have to produce one in order for it to be taken seriously.

Where is the seat of morality, Cloud, if not in our neurology, our brains?

My morality is in my seat. ;)

Good point.

I think morality is a social construct--nothing to do with our physiology.

Ok, Cloud. Where is the root of our social constructs? I'm not needling you about the name you assign to it, but I am trying to get a clearer picture about where you think our morality, our social constructs, our thoughts that motivate our actions come from.

I think morality is something we learn from our parents and society's notions, not from anything physiological.

And I'm afraid that my comment really didn't describe well my thoughts about the news story. Let me just say that I believe pedophilia to be an evil thing, because it hurts innocents and people who are not mature enough to make decisions about their own sexuality. However, I also believe it may be (MAY) be an orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality, not a choice, but inherent; and so, the notion of a physiological cause of morality is, as I stated, absurd. It does leave a lot of room for thought.

Cloud, I read your post a few times and I'm still confused about your position. Specifically:
To me, this says, biology. Not a choice, to borrow your phrase.

In the second half of that sentence you move 180 deg!:Sexuality MAY be inherent but not morality? I'm sorry Cloud. That doesn't scan for me.

I, too, believe that pedophilia causes great harm, and I am in no way defending those actions or the people who do them. But I know we are all biological creatures, and the crown jewel of that biology is our consciousness. But consciousness, self awareness, is not independent of our bodies. Knowledge can be stored outside ourselves. Laws exist outside our bodies. A machine has no biology and no morals. No machine ever committed a crime. Pond scum has biology, but no morals. Indeed, some people seem to have no morals. That make biology a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for morality.

Our physical experience in the world absolutely affects our actions. Respectfully, morality without neurology, without physiology isn't absurd; it's a book. But the fire that lights our consciousness, our awareness, our morality and our sexuality burns on a biological wick. Our bodies, including our brains, are the lamps that hold the flame of our consciousness. We are lit from within.

Link to full story
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...edophilia.html

It seems that orbifrontal cortex damage has been linked with self inflicted injures, overeating and drug abuse. All these seem to have a predisposition then resulting in uncontrollable urges of these feeling. In other words he probably have these pedophilia feeling before but just was able to control them.

Exactly. Bravo!

So in fact, the tumour affected his morality, in that he no longer saw the need to subdue his desires for the sake of society.

...or was just plain unable to control them. Ask an alcoholic or an overeater about morality versus self-control.