Misc. Science Topics

[austintorn@aol.com]

Can’t Be Held Responsible

Perhaps the most obvious impact of this paradigm shift will be on our judicial system, in which the notions of free will and responsibility form an integral component. Currently, in order to be found guilty, a criminal must be considered responsible for his actions; otherwise, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Cashmore disagrees with these rules, noting that psychiatric research is finding its way more and more into the courts and causing time-wasting debates. (For example, is alcoholism a disease? Are sex crimes an addiction?)

“Where is the logic in debating an individual’s level of responsibility, when the reality is that none of us are biologically responsible for our actions?" he said.

Cashmore proposes a change, based on “the elimination of the illogical concept that individuals are in control of their behavior in a manner that is something other than a reflection of their genetic makeup and their environmental history.”

He says that psychiatrists and other experts on human behavior should not be involved in initial judicial proceedings. The jury should simply determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of committing a crime, and not be concerned with mental issues. Then, if the defendant is found guilty, a court-appointed panel of experts would advise on the most appropriate punishment and treatment. Cashmore argues that, even though individuals are not biologically responsible for their actions, in order to minimize criminal activity, people should still be held accountable, and be punished when necessary. Such punishment is rationalized on the grounds that it will serve as an incentive (an environmental influence) not to participate in criminal behavior.

“Here I introduce the practice of ‘I am sorry about this but I am going to have to beat you,’” Cashmore said. “This punishment is rationalized in the sense that it serves as a lesson to individuals not to break the law. So people would be held accountable for their actions, even though they are not ‘biologically responsible’ for such actions. This punishment may involve fines or placing people in prison. Such punishment should not reflect any sense of retribution, and given this I do not personally see how one could continue to impose the death penalty - the alleged effectiveness of such a penalty presumably being far outweighed by its unfairness. The exact way in which one balances the presumptive requirement for punishment, and the lack of biological responsibility, would indeed be difficult, and would require much discussion within the legal system and society as a whole.”

He said that tailoring punishment on an individual basis is presently done, at least to some extent.

“Why is it important to make a change? Because increasingly the legal system is being forced to confront the reality that people’s behavior is governed by nothing other than their biological history: their genes, their environment and a degree of stochasticism (if you wish, a degree of chance). The legal system is increasingly seen to be a farce, with lawyers spending endless time and money debating this nonsensical question of how responsible or not their clients are. Why nonsensical? Because no one is biologically responsible for their actions. As Francis Crick said, ‘Dream as we may, reality knocks relentlessly at the door.’ And as a result of the rapid and ongoing progress in neuroscience, the reality that individual behavior is governed by one’s genetic and environmental history is becoming increasingly apparent.”

[Lloyd Gillespie]

More of Cashmore's Psychological Immaturity...

Just ask what Cashmore's motive is, and one will quickly see through his insanity...

Like most psychologists, biologists__he lacks any understanding of sound modal logics, or the logics of how we actually do see the real world, past, present and future. When anyone has the ability to see these three states of knowledge(and we know they all do), they can logically be held responsible for all personal actions__as all people are truly aware of right and wrong action, where right is simply defined by "not doing what you know to be wrong." We can all see the future of right and wrong action, so we are all held responsible for what we are known to be able to see(all see the law; or not seeing the law is no excuse, as all will plead that excuse...)__It's as simple as that__Seeing affords us free will over our actions__eternally__To think otherwise is insane...

It's not a matter of biology, or psychology__It's a matter of modal logics__mood logics of future actions... Psychologists have always abhored logic__It exposes their ignorance...

The biologists, psychologists just want more jobs for their useless children and friends__The ol' demon nepotism easily explains their motives...

[labelwench]

“Where is the logic in debating an individual’s level of responsibility, when the reality is that none of us are biologically responsible for our actions?" he said.

Cashmore proposes a change, based on “the elimination of the illogical concept that individuals are in control of their behavior in a manner that is something other than a reflection of their genetic makeup and their environmental history.”

Originally posted by Austintorn

From my own research, I have observed that personality appears to be genetic, and that the inherited component is of more influence that the phenotypical influences upon the individual after birth. Dogs, horses and humans arrive with an 'attitude' toward life, which evolves into that which we refer to as 'personality'. Most individuals demonstrate a certain 'mellowing' over time, in response to experience acquired, and conservation of energy applied from such experience.

The premise that none of us is biologically responsible for our actions does not fit with my personal model of experience and observation.

While I agree that our brain chemistry and external conditions play a large part in determining any outcome, there are too many examples in my memory where I and others have selected the least likely choice through deductive reasoning.

Of course, a good philosopher can twist just about any explanation to suit their purpose, or we would not have lawyers arguing the ridiculous fact that a burn caused by a hot beverage should be worthy of the rewarding of damages to the 'victim'.

Only because there are already so many gullible 'victims in waiting' can I see the argument proposed by A. Cashmere finding an audience.

Humans have been attempting to dodge responsibility for their actions since recorded history, and I would suggest since our evolution.

Why?

Dodging responsibility gives us an evolutionary advantage.

'Passing the buck' is the signature of one sector of our species.

'Stepping up to the plate' is the signature of another.

Symbiotic relationship within our species, rather than between species as is more commonly thought of.

We are born into a certain set of personal attributes and there are options available to us.

The argument of Cashmere is only correct in that most people do not utilize their option of choice, and so, to an observer, it may appear, that we did not have an option.

I shall happily disprove Cashmere's premise for the remainder of my life, as it is the means by which I have arrived to this point.

[Fredrick]

The Future Past

And
The Eddies of Time That Fredrick Likes

Atoms of a type are identical,
But one radioactive atom
May decay well before another.

Yet, there is no definitive cause
For the different behaviors,
No way to predict the decay time
By looking at their histories.

What regulates the particles’ behavior?

Not the past.

Where is the information,
If not in the past?

It can only be from the future.

Holy cripes!

Tollaksen and Aharonov designed experiments
In which the outcome was determined
By events occurring after
The experiment was done.

There were three steps:
(1)A “preselection” measurement carried out
On a group of particles,
(2) An intermediate “weak” measurement, and
(3) A subset upon which a final
“Postselection” measurement
Was carried out.

If information flowed from
The future to the past,
Then the effects measured
At the intermediate step
Would be linked to the
Final subset measurement.

A weak intermediate measurement was used,
So as to not disturb the quantum properties:
A motorized mirror whose movement
Could get amplified from the final measurement.

So, when a final measurement was made,
If it was, then it was seen that
The deflection angle of the mirror
Was amplified by more than a 100 times!

Somehow the later decision
To make a final measurement
Appeared to affect the outcome
Of the weak, intermediate measurements,
Even though they were made at an earlier time.

Is the future known?

Yes.

Did the future already occur?

Yes.

How much of it has occurred?

Well, I am not allowed to say,
For that is classified information
That must remain in the TOE Center,
Although Fredrick has access to it.

Thank you for giving me this much credit about looking into the future. From the few moments of knowing I had looked into the future somewhere during my past, I was able to determine that time is not as straightforward as we in general believe. Still, this should not give me that much power of being all-seeing, Austin, for is it not normal that time flows together with matter, and that matter is always of the straightforward kind? I think that during dreams, we may drift towards the portals, and when there is not too much of an action going on (so not mid-stream where too much action is going on) then we can get 'stuck' in an eddy for a while and see stuff passing by that will have a repeating quality but also a connecting-and-disconnecting quality to it.

While I believe you are writing truthfully about future and past in your post, you are describing an experiment that appears to be "viewing reality from under a microscope", and under a microscope all actions are magnified many times. So, if the experiment shows that the actions taken in the experiment are amplified a hundred times, then we should conclude the experiment is not useful as a tool for explaining the larger reality (the one without the set conditions of the experiment), because reality is never amplified (except emotionally, on occasions).

Still, if we are capable of doing this experiment and receive this outcome, then we did gain some knowledge about our reality: reality is not solid to an absolute level. And that would fit in with the assumption that our universe is of a second nature (where the first nature is no longer around) — that our universe is a result from an as such no longer existing reality.

My perspective on time is that I have two perspectives that I can view both but that are like 2D (neither is real, because only the reality is real):

1/ There is only past and future and we are experiencing them at that one spot where both come together (which in general is the mid-stream action-packed reality on route from A to B).

2/ There is only now. Past and future are concepts we can find room for in our brains, and that capability actually delivers us tools to manipulate our present (and this is then evolutionary beneficial).

As you can see, there is no way to combine 1/ and 2/, except in our reality. Our brain cannot combine them, but we can for ourselves if we just accept them as two views on one reality. If matter is king and time its subject, then we should not be surprised to see there are two ways to view time.

[labelwench]

My perspective on time is that I have two perspectives that I can view both but that are like 2D (neither is real, because only the reality is real):

1/ There is only past and future and we are experiencing them at that one spot where both come together (which in general is the mid-stream action-packed reality from A to B).

2/ There is only now. Past and future are concepts we can find room for in our brains, and that capability actually delivers us tools to manipulate our present (and this is then evolutionary beneficial).

As you can see, there is no way to combine 1/ and 2/, except in our reality. Our brain cannot combine them, but we can for ourselves if we just accept them as two views on one reality. If matter is king and time its subject, then we should not be surprised to see there are two ways to view time.

Originally posted by Frederick

The paragraph above sets well with my coffee this morning. Think I shall just ponder this paradox for an interval....thank you for stating it thusly.......

[austintorn@aol.com]

…as all people are truly aware of right and wrong action, — Lloyd

Yes, I’d say that most are, and that they can still do a cost-benefit analysis, such as I can continue to steal but I will probably eventually go to jail for it, but I’ll still do it since it’s easy money. As this is what they’ve become, they are true to their will, as they must be, albeit it a fixed and limited will that stagnated or grooved into some bad behavior pattern.

I’d say that wider learning always provides more informed choices, but at the end of the day we’ll always want our will to reflect who we are, as its opposite would be “undetermined”, which sits even less well than having no free will, for it would have us doing “random” and inconsistent things.

Some may be limited in their learning and reasoning abilities, forever doomed to bounce off the wall of life again and again with little or no progress. The more they get enabled, then even more they wouldn’t see a need to change.

So, can we will that which does the willing? Well, it seems to be subconscious, but at least it depends on our very own memories, learnings, personality, and associations. Simpleton “wills” may even issue forth, but the global brain at least might say, “Nope, what the heck were you thinking!” This kind of talking to one’s self is the higher consciousness speaking to the lower, expressing “free won’t”, but this, too, is also of what we’ve become. We wouldn’t want to suddenly turn into someone else, but we may do so over the years if we are receptive to learning. If not, well, then, bad luck, I guess, and life will fill with turmoil.

So, with learning, we can will something tomorrow that we might not will today. Still not truly "free" but better than air-headed, plus, the results will be better.

[austintorn@aol.com]

1/ There is only past and future and we are experiencing them at that one spot where both come together (which in general is the mid-stream action-packed reality on route from A to B).

2/ There is only now. Past and future are concepts we can find room for in our brains, and that capability actually delivers us tools to manipulate our present (and this is then evolutionary beneficial).

ON THE ROAD
[OF NOW]

She loves road trips; the autumn colors called,
So we were off on the ups and downs
She with taped ankle and myself with wrist,
The warriors running away from home.

The scene was of the turning leaves falling,
Unspoken poems reciting the paths flown,
Only now the scene painted with the words,
As music played poems sung to melodies.

Country roads, quaint inns, dilapidated barns;
What’s this? A dance hall lighting the dark path?
We dance the song of evening bells rung
In a twilight zone in nowhere’s middle.

The music played, past, but not yet past,
For it was in recent memory recalled.
Newly savored sensations continued on—
That which could be presently known.

Mind anticipated the coming tones,
The transitional ‘middle’ blending it
With those sounds not totally gone.

In this past-present-future resides
The delight that none could produce alone—
The smoothly rolling ‘now’.


So, I'll vote for (1).

[austintorn@aol.com]

We “know” we should drink less, eat right, diet,
Make friends, give love, work less, relax, quit
Smoking—but, we don’t, so—do we know it?
NO! We can’t KNOW it unless we DO it.

(So, is the actual doing the only true demonstration of claiming to "know it"?)

[labelwench]

We “know” we should drink less, eat right, diet,
Make friends, give love, work less, relax, quit
Smoking—but, we don’t, so—do we know it?
NO! We can’t KNOW it unless we DO it.

(So, is the actual doing the only true demonstration of claiming to "know it"?)

We are able to contemplate the experiences of another, and we may conceptualize the paths which we may choose among, yet until one has the actual 'experiencing' of a thing,.......anything........, they cannot fully 'know' it.

People will often ask, 'Whats it like?' in regard to many topics, and I try to fit my reply to their framework of reference, if I am able to determine such, but really, I cannot tell you what it 'was like' except in the most rudimentary of terms.

If you need to ask, the telling may guide you, but it is not a substitute for the experience.

I begin to understand now, why some people gently withdraw from sharing. Unless the other has had the experience, you are speaking to the wind.....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

We “know” we should drink less, eat right, diet,

Make friends, give love, work less, relax, quit
Smoking—but, we don’t, so—do we know it?
NO! We can’t KNOW it unless we DO it.

(So, is the actual doing the only true demonstration of claiming to "know it"?)

No, modal logic is provable through model logic's necessities... The third proves the first, which is proven by the third over the second__Modal Logic over Model Logic = Possibility_Probability_Necessity... Always has been the truth, always will be...

There's just far too many psychologists(Husserl phenomenologist style) compared to the far lesser number of logicists(Peirce pragmatic style) in the world today, compared to the 19th and 20th centuries... If one studies Giambattista Vico, (23 June 1668 – 23 January 1744) one will find the source, of futures creating futures...

Ratioed Wisdom Logic rules, as 'The Future Creates The Future', from the futures of all the past's great thinkers' futurist theories__A New Biological Law, and possibly a geological law__(Working on it...) (Even Plato controls our future, toward itself__One day, we'll reach Plato's worlds, if we ever accept logic over psychology_as the true...)

The Great Global Battle...
Psychology / | \ Logic

/ | \ (= logic symbol for related, but not the same...)

The Wisdom of Poetic Logic__The Ideal Eternal Law...

"The true is precisely what is made." G.Vico

The fundamental suppositional study of methodology...

The Contradictions of Logic and Wisdom...

Sapience absolutely requires sentience... It's the emotions that allow us to see and know...

The universal science and wisdom exists in the universal emotions...

There's a science to all art...

The future informs the moment...

Evolution into the ancient past's future psyche...

Wisdom science = Visionary info science...

The Universal flows of knowledge and wisdom...