Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 20th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Tom, There are many reasons why you may not get a reply to a post. Notice that I got zero replies (so far) to my last two thread openers. I thought they were both pretty cool - especially that juggler guy. Oh well.

The reason I have not replied to this one is that I can't quite wrap my brain around it - even though I have probably read it four times by now, separated by a day or two. And each time I try again to understand your point.

That doesn't mean it's not there. It's just that my understanding of evolution and brain science is somewhat different from yours. And the concepts you use to ascribe causality don't map so well (in this case) with what I have read and understood.

I have discovered that the brain has many functional systems (perceptual, conceptual, logical, memory, etc.) that operate both sequentially and concurrently. At the neural level each of these processes has internal amplifiers and inhibitors - that serve to change (distort) the less processed information of the underlying process. The outputs can both feed forward or feed back. But that distortion shapes the information for our own experience and acquired needs (nurture) and according to our genetics (our nature).

It seems like an asynchronous CPU chip where the inputs and the partial outputs propogate through and eventually produce an output (decision) for any set of input conditions.

I see the relevant information being processed in emotional units sometimes attached to conscious mental images (thoughts). You and others may think that emotions are a sideshow and we are really only processing those conscious mental images. But, I don't see that question as material to this one, anyway.

With all that, I have trouble seeing that the existence of a discrete repression module would prove (by itself) that free will does not exist. I don't think one can actually prove that something doesn't exist, at least scientifically. For me, it is just another form of proving that God doesn't exist - which I don't find such an interesting question. Science can say God very probably doesn't exist but must leave the question open for someone in the future to bring in the evidence, if they can.

It may be an interesting philosophical question for some but it just creates confusion and conflict in a science discussion - just like the ID question does for science education. Which is Fred's purpose I'm sure. I imagine that he thinks of himself as our own little Discovery Institute and that maybe Bruce Chapman is following all this and will soon offer him a fellowship for his pointed insights.

But, I'll keep trying to see why you believe this particular Repressor Module provides that proof. Also, I'm not sure I understand why you call it EP's Holy Grail. Are you suggesting that EP's cause celebre is to disprove free will?

Maybe I am just confused but I'm willing to give it another try if you can explain it a little differently.

Margaret

Last edited by Margaret McGhee; March 21st, 2006 at 12:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old March 20th, 2006, 10:14 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee
Maybe I am just confused but I'm willing to give it another try if you can explain it a little differently.
OK, cool, I'll see if I can make my thoughts a bit more clear, since I now see how cloudy a description I wrote. And I'll keep god out of this one, that might help, too.

Most people think that their 'tastes' are choices. They think if they don't like the taste of pork then it's just a matter of opinion, like everyone tastes the same thing when they eat pork. You might convince them that cats don't care for sweet foods because they have no taste buds for sugar, but even that might be rather difficult. You could probably convince some of the more trusting people that there is a chemical in pork that some people can not sense, but not a lot of them. You'd probably have to run a series of experiments that shows the 3 groups of human reactions to the smell of pork: nothing, a mild scent, and stinky socks are the responses I think I remember correctly. You'd probably have to have some of the non-smellers actually squirt the chemical they can't smell on different pieces of paper multiple times until they realize that a smeller actually does sense something they can not. At that point, maybe, they might think that a dislike for pork is more genetic than it is personal 'choice'.

We say that our children hate spinach because they are picky eaters, not that they're 'supertasters' and spinach tastes so bitter that they'd rather starve. And if we tasted the same thing we'd probably barf.

Now, tasting is the easier part. You've seen the difficulty I've had trying to convince people even here in 'Evolutionary Psychology' that thinking and feeling are also genetic.

But now this Repression Module is analogous to the smell of pork. I could do a thought experiment where someone is filmed answering a yes/no question with great certainty. Then we flip a switch and ask again, they give the opposite answer with just as much certainty. That question could actually be "do you think sex with 6yo children is OK?" Having them watch hours of themselves answering both yes and no might give them some insight.

Now, you might think that's a stretch, that somehow the electricity in the switch (or the alcohol, or the drugs, or the anger at your wife's boyfriend (sorry, boy's wifefriend), etc) disabled your conscience, or your 'morals'. But that's my point, if your will is affected by anything, an electrical switch or even your own brain, then your will is, by definition, not free.

So I call it a Holy Grail not because it is proof by itself that there is no free will, only that it is proof by itself that psychology is directly affected by the brain. So those of us who believe that the brain evolved ought to believe that at least a part of psychology evolved. And Evolutionary Psychology is born.

The question then becomes, "How unfree is it?" With the Regret Module as another, much more powerful, example, and other examples sure to come, it's only a matter of time before we actually prove 'your' negative, that there is no free will because every part of the brain that affects will can be turned on and off (I was trying to prove that the will is not totally free, not that it is totally unfree, though that is what I think). Even Fred has agreed at the extreme: that the 'free' will disappears for the brain-dead.

I reread this last paragraph and maybe it's a key to the argument that Fred and I have. I think you're not ultimately responsible for your actions if there was ANY limit on your choice. Again, society has to deter everyone from bad choices, no matter how under the influence of their brains or whatever they are, but we can not label people 'bad' or 'good' just because their brain is not the same as someone else's. It's ultimately not their fault.

BTW, I agree that emotions may actually be more a part of our choices than intellect, and certainly nothing near a sideshow. But, our emotions and intellect are both completely controlled by the brain; there can be nothing else. Except maybe for 'spiritual ether' or something .

And I also liked your computer analogy. And I agree with your description of the complexity of the brain. But, like subatomic physics, it's complex but now unknowable.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old March 21st, 2006, 03:36 AM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

OK Tom, Let's see if I get it.

You are saying that either:

a) We make choices solely according to the operation of our CNS.

or b) There's some ethereal spirit in there, some soul, that directs us.

or c) Some combination of a) and b)


You think it's a). But, the fact that a repressor module has been identified that can control decision-making in some proven cases means . .

. . that even if the spirit has some control over us it does not have complete control.

Free will must be complete if it's truly free. Therefore, free will can not exist.

Is that it?

Margaret
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old March 21st, 2006, 10:33 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee
OK Tom, Let's see if I get it.

You are saying that either:

a) We make choices solely according to the operation of our CNS.

or b) There's some ethereal spirit in there, some soul, that directs us.

or c) Some combination of a) and b)


You think it's a). But, the fact that a repressor module has been identified that can control decision-making in some proven cases means . .

. . that even if the spirit has some control over us it does not have complete control.

Free will must be complete if it's truly free. Therefore, free will can not exist.

Is that it?

Margaret
Thanks, great post! I really appreciate a non-personal discussion, for a change. I'm sorry that I just can't get into your music and repay your generosity.

Yes, that proves to me that psychology evolves along with the brain. And that our will is not all b), so our will is not completely free (except I'd change your "But," to "And,"). It could still be c) or a) combined with whatever each person wants to put in the place of b).

But that's crucial to my 'agenda': we can't hold people to a standard if they have different chemistry in the brain; whether that chemistry is inherited or affected by an uncomfortable environment. No more than we can expect a football team where each player carries a 50 lb weight to play another that doesn't. While many people make bad choices, a lot of them have the deck stacked against them (in fact, I'd say they/we all do). Society must still contain and control them but we ought to be more compassionate than vengeful.

Now, I can't prove a), yet. Though it is what I believe. And I also think that a) is the null hypothesis, so I expect anyone who wants to add a b) to describe the mechanism that realizes their b).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old March 21st, 2006, 10:37 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
TomJ: I reread this last paragraph and maybe it's a key to the argument that Fred and I have. I think you're not ultimately responsible for your actions if there was ANY limit on your choice. Again, society has to deter everyone from bad choices, no matter how under the influence of their brains or whatever they are, but we can not label people 'bad' or 'good' just because their brain is not the same as someone else's. It's ultimately not their fault.
Nor, using your logic, can we label any “society” good or bad just because that society’s collective brain is not the same as another society’s collective brain. (e.g., Nazis and/or Stalinists versus our own)—“It’s ultimately not their fault.” I agree Tom that that is the unavoidable upshot of atheism—there is no right, no wrong, no moral responsibility. Stated another way, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted." (from The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky; and Sartre agreed.)

I know that Todd has indicated in one of his posts that he doesn’t agree with Tom regarding humans not having moral responsibility (or free will), but isn’t anyone here, besides me, somewhat troubled, perhaps even outraged, by Tom’s “It's ultimately not their fault?” I keep waiting for Todd or Carey or someone to say, “OMG, Fred, you really are right about the horrific, unavoidable implications of atheism!”

Note to Margaret: Try not to think of my argument here as being a case, as you suggest, for “Discovery Institute,” or for “God”—rather think of it as a slam-dunk indictment of atheism.


But we’re off topic. This thread was suppose to be more about the actual evidence and science regarding genetic differences—if you people would just read/study Jensen’s book—The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998) (and perhaps some of his more recent material)—then perhaps we could actually intelligently discuss this area, assuming we can avoid just so stories of igloo basketball, and assuming the K-Mart thinkers avoid playing the racist card.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old March 21st, 2006, 10:55 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
I know this supports your agenda, but this is not true. If we as a species are going to persist, everything will not be permitted, god or no. Our social animal instincts will see to that.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old March 21st, 2006, 02:18 PM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Off topic diversion? Maybe not.

Something for all of us to consider:



We shouldn't assume that the window we each look through is the only window in the universe or that it even depicts other than our own filtered view of reality - no matter how much we try to believe otherwise.

Margaret
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 12:35 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Who's got rhythm and where did they get it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomJrzk
So, my answer, in a phrase is "male sexual selection". Paradox solved.
I've thought of another solution to this paradox. Margaret's assertion that football players have fewer groupies than musicians, and should therefore be selected against, brings to mind something I said earlier: "when women actually HAVE choice".

In this solution, football is a proxy for war and war was a good tactic for spreading ones genes. There's a reason for "rape, pillage, and plunder" being listed in that order. Clans have an intense interest in warriors, I could see in clans during more hostile conditions than ours a premium for warriors over those skilled with their guitars.

So, musicians only have an advantage when women have the choice, and choose something besides a man who will protect her when other clans attack. I think I know which the parents would choose if the marriage is arranged, unless music is a proxy for intelligence.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 01:15 PM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Hi Tom, You said,

Quote:
In this solution, football is a proxy for war and war was a good tactic for spreading ones genes. There's a reason for "rape, pillage, and plunder" being listed in that order. Clans have an intense interest in warriors, I could see in clans during more hostile conditions than ours a premium for warriors over those skilled with their guitars.
Take another look at that cartoon I posted yesterday.

I'd say war is a good tactic for spreading better warrior genes. What advantage does the wife of a successful warrior gain? She gets to help spread his genes rather than the genes of the warrior who killed him. In each case though she still spreads her own. Meanwhile the world becomes ever more violent as better warrior genes displace less violent ones.

OTOH good guitar players do require several different kinds of intelligence integrated in one mind and shows that a person has the ability to work hard and be self-motivated to accomplish something that benefits all members of the clan. Those seem like pretty attractive genes to me.

Warrior genes seem pretty risky on the other hand. Cops and soldiers have notoriously bad marriages and are often accused of child and spousal abuse. I see nothing inherently more fit about warriors - who are gone on wars for long periods and may not come home. I think guitar players can make good defenders when necessary - as thousands of musicians (and women) have in all our major conflicts.

When you say
Quote:
. . football is a proxy for war and war was a good tactic for spreading ones genes.
- I think you are speaking on behalf of sperm that has been misled by its testosterone saturated culture to believe that violent competition is the sure path to success.

Margaret

Last edited by Margaret McGhee; March 22nd, 2006 at 01:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old March 22nd, 2006, 02:05 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee
I think you are speaking on behalf of sperm that has been misled by its testosterone saturated culture to believe that violent competition is the sure path to success.
I'm not saying it IS, I'm saying it WAS. There ought to be some basis for men's instinctive drive to compete and enjoy sports, and I don't think it's culture.

How much do you think women had a voice in choosing their mates 500, 5000, 50000 and 500000 years ago? I think that they had little to none, respectively.

Hmmm, Fred may be getting his wish, after all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.