STer

I guess it depends on which definition of "responsible" you're talking about. If you mean definition 1, a then perhaps your argument is consistent: "liable to be called on to answer" If you mean definition 1, b, 1 then it is not consistent: b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent Even if your unconscious is making the decisions and you have no control, you may very well be liable to be called on to answer, especially in a society that doesn't accept that lack of control. But you certainly couldn't be (sensibly) called to account as the primary cause since, in that scenario, you would not be. "Responsible" is one of those words with multiple meanings where I have found it's really important to clarify which definition you're talking about. I've had a number of discussions before that ended up coming down to a failure to agree on which definition of "responsible" we were referring to.

Sean1105, I find a certain contradiction in what you said. Early on, you point out that we do not have absolute control over our bodies and then even mention the research showing that our unconscious makes decisions before we even know they are being made. Then you go on to say that we are responsible for our feelings. If our unconscious makes decisions without our conscious control in response to factors around us and we simply become aware of them afterward, in what sense are we responsible for our feelings? Many, if not most, of our feelings are things that simply surface to us and we become aware of, not things we choose consciously to feel. And if this is the way the situation is - that we are all vulnerable to our unconscious feelings bubbling up without our control - doesn't it make it even more imperative that we be careful with how we interact with each other? I'm not even taking a stance on these issues. I'm just trying to find consistency in what you said.

The question is whether there is any way - short of extremely invasive measures - to rehabilitate full-fledged psychopaths, for example. That is simply a scientific/medical question. I hope there is. But so far I'm not aware of one. In cases where violent people can be rehabilitated, I am all for us finding ways to do so. What I am against is just assuming that is always the case. Whatever measures work - and by work I mean that we can replicate the results in a reliable way - should of course be used. Again, my only concern is that we shouldn't assume that the same measures work for everybody. If there are a proportion of cases where none of the measures we've found work, we must address what to do in those cases. It sounds like you're calling for experimentation and research to find what works and does not work for different types of violent people. We certainly agree on that. We simply must do this work in a way that is not biased and go from there.My understanding from Robert Hare, however, is that some very compassionate, alternative types of measures like these were indeed being used in Canada and psychopaths were actually being made worse by them. That's why he started advocating so hard that they stop using those measures that help other prisoners when working with psychopaths who require a different approach. The important point is that violent people are not all the same. Different people have different dynamics going on that may require different approaches. What works with one type of violent person may even make a different kind of violent person worse. My first priority when it comes to violent people who can't be rehabilitated is protecting others from them. That, of course, starts with keeping them physically away from people or situations in which they pose an unreasonable risk. I don't like that we live in a world where that is sometimes necessary. But sadly we do.

Sorry. Of course, I agree that knowledge and belief are not exactly the same thing. I've made that clear in my posts since. A person can believe something with 100% certainty that is not true. I would not consider that knowledge though it is indeed a belief. So we agree knowledge and belief are not one and the same. The question is what is the relationship between them? I think we are in the same ballpark. I think knowledge is a belief that is very strongly held and that has a basis for being held so strongly. How strongly and what basis are up for discussion. But the main point is that that basis can never be 100% certain. Knowledge does not require certainty. And the fact that we never really can have certainty doesn't make knowledge impossible as I would define knowledge.

I guess I'm confused about what is the core of what you're trying to get across. Could you give me it boiled down to a couple sentences so I'm sure I'm getting the main idea?

That's an interesting point. I guess it points to the fact that a confidence level, in terms of science, is different than just probability involved in a prediction. There is a difference between the high chance a coin will turn up heads up (the probability involved) and the high confidence level we have about what the probability actually is. That probability is always what it is given the same conditions. We "know" that probability. How the probability manifests on any one throw of the coins is a different animal. I think something isn't being communicated clearly, probably by me. Obviously, when I say knowledge is something we believe with a very high confidence interval, I don't mean that in terms of every individual's beliefs, no matter what their basis. There are people that believe with 100% certainty all sorts of delusions. I wouldn't say they know them. Those delusions aren't adding to the sum of human knowledge. I think what I'm talking about is a confidence interval that can actually be supported, whether empirically or through replication by others. There has to be some basis for that high confidence interval to call it knowledge.

Well Marc, between all the posts I've done here, my other writings which you are aware of, I believe I've addressed everything you've asked and more multiple times (and then you just ask them again). There are also many books I've referred to here and on my sites which offer a lot more. I have nothing more to say on it at this point with you. If you are unconvinced, then you are unconvinced. Personally, I don't even think the point is that you need to be convinced of "my side." The point is really more that you shouldn't be convinced, at this point, of "your side" either. This is an area where we really need more study. To claim to be confident there are not biological underlying causes in a significant number of these cases is, I believe, unfounded. The evidence is mounting that there are such factors in many cases. I think a reasonable person would say that there is enough to give us pause and to require a lot more study before making up our minds. What I've always said is that my view is that there is reason to demand much greater study to determine these answers because the stakes are very high.

As far as the basic organic examples upon which I doubt there is much, if any, disagreement are included anything that diminishes function in areas that are inhibitory of violent behavior or that throw off kilter areas controlling emotion. So this could include: Infections Strokes Traumatic injuries to the head (which can create what is known as pseudopsychopathy) Really any type of process that can damage the normal function of areas like the frontal cortex or amygdala. And a number of these, like the tumor or infection or closed-head injury can be creating symptoms without the person or those around them even realizing the process is there. The only thing that has to be added to this list to complete the story is that people can have abnormal functioning in these areas simply due to genetic mutations (there are genes coding for these areas of the brain and they can, like any other genes, become mutated) or even in utero events. How could anyone seriously argue that the genes coding for these areas are immune to the same problems that can happen to any genes? On top of this add on the fact that many believe traits like those seen in psychopathy actually have an evolutionary role, which would mean that they are selected for and passed along due to their benefits for survival and reproduction, not even only as detrimental mutations. So the abnormal functioning of these brain areas involved in violence may even be, for those individuals, a feature, not a bug.

Or we can simply define knowledge as having a very high level of confidence rather than 100% confidence. If you believe you're 99% confident, but even that belief only has a certain confidence level, that could only reduce your overall confidence, not raise it. Being unsure of how certain you are about your 99% confidence level would never ADD certainty.

Yes, the tumor example is only the most clear cut of an entire category of phenomena. The tumor example shows that we all agree biological origins can underlie violent behavior. The only remaining question is how many and what kinds of biological origins can underlie violent behavior. We're only debating degree here.

It's almost hard to believe how many times you've misunderstood the same statements over and over. I've already responded multiple times, specifically clearing up this "1 in 20" thing you keep bringing up inaccurately, as well as the purpose of the tumor example as being emblematic of a larger point. You remain apparently incapable of understanding these messages. I'm not going to go through it again ad nauseam. Feel free to re-read my previous responses to you on these matters. If you still continue to misunderstand to the extent you seem to, I fear I cannot help you.

Yes we know with certainty. We have many documented cases of people getting brain tumors, for instance, their behavior changing very drastically and then, when the tumor is removed, changing back to normal. While they have the tumor, do you think if you ask why they're doing what they're doing their answer is "Because I have a tumor"? No. They simply begin to desire to do those things, have the drives that go along with them and feel excited by them. Just like when one is heavily drugged and acts differently, that comes along with changes in thinking that justify what they're doing much of the time (if they are still thinking very much). But in both cases, the biological changes in the brain are the origin. That's not a very fruitful angle to take since Robert Hare and many others also have decades of experience and far more studies than Gilligan. And, unlike Gilligan (at least what I've seen of his work, which is admittedly limited), they actually bother to look at the underlying biology and ask what is causing what. Does Gilligan actually look at both the cognitive issues and the biology and systematically rule out the biology as the origin? I'm not familiar enough with his work to know, but I'd be very curious to know on what basis he rules out biological causes. If all he does is say "Well when I interview them they claim they are doing it due to non-biological reasons" that's a very weak argument. There is a litany of studies in psychology, some of them very clever, showing that people very often don't accurately report the causes of their decisions, even when in their normal state of mind. Gilligan could literally be working with a person with a serious brain tumor causing violent behavior, ask them why they are doing it, take their rationalization at face value and never bother to look any deeper into it. I hope that's not his approach and please show me if I'm wrong.

But my point is that it doesn't make sense to judge these behaviors in all people the same way. Different people may have the same behaviors for different reasons. We know with certainty that some people have biological conditions that lead them to act violently. When the biological condition is remedied, their violence is reduced again. And in plenty of these cases, the biological condition comes along with a cognitive component. The person may feel they are acting due to the cognitive component, but it all is emerging from the underlying organic condition. My point is Gilligan needs to have an accurate diagnosis of a person before he can make claims about their prognosis. Treating everyone as if their behavior stems from the same cause is misguided. Gilligan should not be judging someone's prognosis based on how violent they are but on what their diagnosis is and whether it is one we have any success at treating. If I were in charge, my main concern when it comes to psychopaths who cannot be rehabilitated would be to protect those around them. If they act violently and cannot be prevented from this, then I think it's reasonable to keep them locked away from the public.

I'm asking in order to understand exactly what the relationship is, in your view, between belief and knowledge.When you say the belief must be "true," how certain must we be that it is true before we can call it knowledge? You would agree that no scientist would ever claim 100% certainty about the truth of anything right? Everything in science is measured in confidence levels and implicitly understood to be up for questioning at all times.

I haven't looked deeply at a lot of Gilligan's work. So perhaps he addresses this. But violent people don't all fall into one category. I'm sure there are some who are driven mostly by the cognitive role and if you deconstruct that you can rehabilitate them. But does Gilligan address cases where that cognitive role is just a rationalization of deeper biological issues and therefore not a leverage point? I remain very open to seeing evidence that actual psychopaths, with all the neurological markers we see with that and with a history of violence, can be rehabilitated. It would be one of the most important findings in that field. But I haven't seen it from Gilligan or anyone else. The consensus I see in the field is that we still have no way of really rehabilitating such people - only trying to convince them that it's in their own self-interest not to aggress.

Most people on this forum agree that society is devastatingly screwed up. You'd think they'd want this message getting out there so as to encourage people to wake up and become eager to make changes. Instead, what we see is that despite endless amounts of bad news, they still mostly support the system and go along with it. So now the solution is to show good news? I think good vs. bad news isn't the issue. The issue is whether they are focusing on leverage point issues or not. I don't think people would complain in this thread as much if they showed important "bad news." But what they show is often trivial sensationalized bad news or bad news disconnected from the underlying causes.

Did you decide to pick up where we left off with the Gilligan/Robert Hare comparison in that old thread and start it up in a new thread?

Would you agree that knowledge is a belief that you hold with a confidence level of very close to, if not at, 100%?

Remember, what we should be calling it is "the corporate media." They are corporations whose primary goal is to make a profit, not to improve society. If those things can go together great, but wherever they clash, we should expect the profit motive to usually win out. And one of the most insightful things I ever heard was when someone mentioned that when you watch the news, you tend to think you're the audience. But you're not. You are the product. You are what is being sold...to their advertisers.

It's interesting to see this topic discussed in a place so dedicated to markets. The networks show these sensationalized stories for ratings which directly leads to advertiser revenue. They do lots of research. I'm sure if they believed they'd get higher ratings showing more "positive" stories, they'd do that. Or if you believe they are wrong and missing an opportunity, then jump on it and start promoting positive stories and stealing away their advertisers. Isn't that how free marketeers believe it works? Or am I missing something.

1) Of course it's wrong to just call someone "evil" when we have no other explanation. This is a far cry, however, from taking into account the loads of research in which we see actual significant brain and genetic differences in certain people, specifically revolving around empathy/conscience, and then label them accurately as having such differences. 2) Of course many people offer rationalizations for why they committed a violent act. But we know very well from lots of research that the brain very often does things for certain reasons, which may even be unconscious, and then makes up a story about why it did it. So the fact that a particular violent person tells a story about why they did it doesn't mean that is really the reason at all. If a person lacks empathy, hurts someone else and then makes up a story about why they did it - even if that story sounds reasonable - we don't know anything about the real underlying reasons without further research. And in doing that research, we often see significant biological underpinnings. 3) Gilligan focuses on understanding the emotions that underlie violence and says if we do that we've gotten to the root. I disagree. We will really get to the root more when we understand what is going on in the brain when people commit violence. They may well have one thing take place in the brain, then secondarily have an emotion generated that helps them rationalize but is not really the cause. We see this kind of thing in studies of decision-making where people claim to have made a decision for one reason but the researchers can isolate that that was not actually the underlying reason, but just what the person experienced as the reason. 4) It's interesting to see the bookends here. Gilligan claims the correctional officers too often jump to labeling someone evil and he has to sort of talk them out of jumping to that. Robert Hare, on the other hand, has spoken emphatically about the exact opposite experience. He was brought into prisons (this is in Canada) to help consult and found people almost completely unwilling to accept the biological bases and going to great lengths to find non-biological explanations. In fact, they did this so much that they often played right into the hands of psychopaths. I'd love to see Gilligan and Hare have a discussion/debate. 5) I agree that we should take a pragmatic approach that focuses on protecting potential victims, not punishing people just for the sake of punishment.

That's too bad. That seems like a lot of posts from years of discussion that will either be a lot harder to read due to no paragraphs at all like my first example or look very sloppy due to some other errors I'm seeing. For some more examples, here is another of my old posts with some different issues: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/34422-born-evil-ponerology-as-a-transcendent-unifying-priority/ On this one you can see a couple things. 1) The YouTube link, which used to show up as an embedded video, now just shows: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDC0PuUTPFE] On the post itself, that isn't even a hyperlink that can be clicked on either (though it does show as a hyperlink when I paste it here to show you it.) 2) Numbered lists are formatted wrong in various different ways - The first item on the first numbered list (number 1.) is moved down a line oddly. All the items on the second numbered list are moved down that way. Then on the third and fourth numbered lists there are way too many lines between each item. I know that on the old board this post was formatted perfectly because I had put a lot of time into making sure of that so these are definitely new things since the revamp.

I'm finding this thread to be rehashing a lot of the very same points discussed already in a previous thread. And it is also reinforcing why, in that previous thread, I said that these debates, which often stem mostly from disagreements on labels rather than substance, are often easily avoidable if we just talk in terms of how probable we believe a certain well-defined thing is. I think that point applies yet again in this thread. Here is my previous post on that old thread and you can read through that thread for all of that exciting discussion. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35304-dont-atheists-need-to-have-absolute-knowledge-in-order-to-be-atheists/?p=325914

Just as an example, here is an old post of mine http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35304-dont-atheists-need-to-have-absolute-knowledge-in-order-to-be-atheists/page-2#entry326129 It was formatted correctly on the old board. But now the line spaces between paragraphs are gone. I'm seeing a lot of this throughout the site.

Check out ic.org