Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Trilby]

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

[AlternateGray]

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.

[9th Engineer]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[skysidhe]

We see eye to eye then. Thank you sir.

[Flint]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's not clear thinking, that's not good science

How can those exist if our thoughts and emotions are..

neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions

There is no fuzzy middle ground

Says who?

[Flint]

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.

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Says who?

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

How can we do all that if our thoughts and emotions are nothing but "neuro-chemical phantoms generated by ordinary chemical reactions"?

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

You set up an answer with rediculous extremes and claim there can be nothing between them. Prove it.

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Flint

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

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.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

... the respected psychiatrist, M. Scott Peck

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"

[Pangloss62]

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.

Originally Posted by wolf

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"

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[Flint]

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

...the sciences of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology...

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

...autism, schizophrenia, and some forms of intelligence...

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

...more the result of early childhood experiences than they are brain chemistry...

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

The world cannot be explained by physics alone.

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

To attempt to do this just goes to show how ignorant of science you really are.

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

Good science does not fall back on black and white thinking. Science is subtle and complex.

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.

Originally Posted by marichiko

Try cracking a book on biology or psychology sometime. You'll be amazed.

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...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How can we do all that...

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.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

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.

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

Originally Posted by skysidhe

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.

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.