Moral sense
Ron Peterson
> Because the lack of a moral sense is a lack of a very strongly human
> characteristic. Delusions, hallucinations etc. are not so fundamental -
> in fact all other mental illnesses are more extremes on a continuum than
> inhuman behaviour.
How do we know that humans have any moral sense?
Ron
Whenever I look at the other animals and realize that whatever they do
is blameless and they can't do wrong, I envy them the dignity of their
estate, its purity and its loftiness, and recognise that the Moral Sense
is a thoroughly disastrous thing.
- What Is Man? - Mark Twain
Moral action arises from duty, not from a "moral sense." - Immanuel
Kant
A free society requires a moral sense, something that it occasionally
pretends it does not need. It needs it because freedom implies that
important human relationships will be created out of spontaneous human
contact and not decreed by some state authority. - James Q. Wilson
Peter H.M. Brooks
Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Because the lack of a moral sense is a lack of a very strongly human
> > characteristic. Delusions, hallucinations etc. are not so
fundamental -
> > in fact all other mental illnesses are more extremes on a continuum
than
> > inhuman behaviour.
>
> How do we know that humans have any moral sense?
>
I like the quotes too. I don't like agreeing with Kant, but there is a
sense (a very limited one) in which all our actions are enlightened
self-interest.
However, in a psychiatric, as opposed to a philosophical, setting the
matter is much clearer. Ironically it is psychopaths who show most
clearly that most people have a moral sense, their lack of it is so
strikingly that it shows how even the meanest and nastiest, or maddest,
non-psychopath has empathy, even if he chooses not to act on it, and
knows what it would be wrong to do to others not theoretically, but
instinctively - that is the moral sense.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > Because the lack of a moral sense is a lack of a very strongly human
> > characteristic. Delusions, hallucinations etc. are not so
fundamental -
> > in fact all other mental illnesses are more extremes on a continuum
than
> > inhuman behaviour.
>
> How do we know that humans have any moral sense?
>
I like the quotes too. I don't like agreeing with Kant, but there is a
sense (a very limited one) in which all our actions are enlightened
self-interest.
However, in a psychiatric, as opposed to a philosophical, setting the
matter is much clearer. Ironically it is psychopaths who show most
clearly that most people have a moral sense, their lack of it is so
strikingly that it shows how even the meanest and nastiest, or maddest,
non-psychopath has empathy, even if he chooses not to act on it, and
knows what it would be wrong to do to others not theoretically, but
instinctively - that is the moral sense.
>
Robin Faichney
> However, in a psychiatric, as opposed to a philosophical, setting the
> matter is much clearer. Ironically it is psychopaths who show most
> clearly that most people have a moral sense, their lack of it is so
> strikingly that it shows how even the meanest and nastiest, or maddest,
> non-psychopath has empathy, even if he chooses not to act on it, and
> knows what it would be wrong to do to others not theoretically, but
> instinctively - that is the moral sense.
There seems to be some evidence that a tendency to empathise is innate
in (most) humans. I think morality depends upon and builds on that,
and the trouble with psychopaths is that they lack it.
However, I'm also aware that's probably a serious over-simplification.
For instance, it seems autism implies an inability to model the internal
states of others, and it might be difficult to distinguish between that
and a lack of empathy, both conceptually and in practice.
On the third hand, at a first glance, it would appear that psychopathy
is primarily an emotional deficit, while autism is an intellectual one.
--
Robin Faichney
alt.m: "Memes do not exist. Tell everyone you know."
inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
news:77sm0a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > However, in a psychiatric, as opposed to a philosophical, setting
the
> > matter is much clearer. Ironically it is psychopaths who show most
> > clearly that most people have a moral sense, their lack of it is so
> > strikingly that it shows how even the meanest and nastiest, or
maddest,
> > non-psychopath has empathy, even if he chooses not to act on it, and
> > knows what it would be wrong to do to others not theoretically, but
> > instinctively - that is the moral sense.
>
> There seems to be some evidence that a tendency to empathise is innate
> in (most) humans. I think morality depends upon and builds on that,
> and the trouble with psychopaths is that they lack it.
>
>
> However, I'm also aware that's probably a serious over-simplification.
> For instance, it seems autism implies an inability to model the
internal
> states of others, and it might be difficult to distinguish between
that
> and a lack of empathy, both conceptually and in practice.
>
>
> On the third hand, at a first glance, it would appear that psychopathy
> is primarily an emotional deficit, while autism is an intellectual
one.
>
I think that that is a fair summary. What is interesting about both
conditions is their profound alienation from common human concorse.
--
The truth is an ambition which is beyond us.
Peter Ustinov
edvard_k
<snip>
> However, in a psychiatric, as opposed to a philosophical, setting the
> matter is much clearer. Ironically it is psychopaths who show most
> clearly that most people have a moral sense, their lack of it is so
> strikingly that it shows how even the meanest and nastiest, or maddest,
> non-psychopath has empathy, even if he chooses not to act on it, and
> knows what it would be wrong to do to others not theoretically, but
> instinctively - that is the moral sense.
How do you know that a person without empathy would
necessarily behave in an anti-social way? For all you
know the vast majority of persons lacking empathy may
only want to be left alone to pursue their own
interests - train spotting or stamp collecting say -
and have reasoned that the best way of doing this is
to leave other people alone. For all you know the
bulk of meanness nastiness and madness may lie with
non-psychopaths who choose not to act on their
empathy. It just seems unfair to single out
psychopaths and then to demonise them all for the
actions of what may be just a few.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
kames.smiths
"Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
news:77sm0a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
It seems empathy has cognitive and emotional components. An individual
who can understand other people's thoughts and feelings but has no
'feelings' for other people is likely to be manipulative and
dangerous.
Dave Smith
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> How do you know that a person without empathy would
> necessarily behave in an anti-social way? For all you
> know the vast majority of persons lacking empathy may
> only want to be left alone to pursue their own
> interests - train spotting or stamp collecting say -
> and have reasoned that the best way of doing this is
> to leave other people alone.
>
>
> For all you know the
> bulk of meanness nastiness and madness may lie with
> non-psychopaths who choose not to act on their
> empathy. It just seems unfair to single out
> psychopaths and then to demonise them all for the
> actions of what may be just a few.
>
people with empathy, and a moral sense, know when they are going too
far - somebody without doesn't. This makes an enourmous difference.
People who, for example, fight with no fear are much more dangerous,
even if they are small and not that strong, than people with a normal,
sensible level of fear.
Clearly psychopaths are not responsible for all the evil in the world, I
agree. However, without them there would, in my view, certainly be
considerably less.
Peter H.M. Brooks
kames.smiths <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> It seems empathy has cognitive and emotional components. An individual
> who can understand other people's thoughts and feelings but has no
> 'feelings' for other people is likely to be manipulative and
> dangerous.
>
they become - the less bright ones are likely to go to prison for some
minor nastiness, the really bright ones are more suited to economic or
political power.
Robin Faichney
> It seems empathy has cognitive and emotional components.
I believe, in modern usage, "cognitive" includes "emotional", which is
why I used the word "intellectual".
In adults (and probably all but very young children), intellectual empathy
will be evident, but I believe that, at base, it is an innate emotional
tendency. The intellectual aspects develop later.
> An individual
> who can understand other people's thoughts and feelings but has no
> 'feelings' for other people is likely to be manipulative and
> dangerous.
Indeed.
--
"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
> It sounds as if you are endowed like Shiva!
As Shiva's female and I'm not, that caused a double-take, but I'll assume
you were thinking only of arms.
> I think that that is a fair summary. What is interesting about both
> conditions is their profound alienation from common human concorse.
Right.
--
"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> How do you know that a person without empathy would
>> necessarily behave in an anti-social way? For all you
>> know the vast majority of persons lacking empathy may
>> only want to be left alone to pursue their own
>> interests - train spotting or stamp collecting say -
>> and have reasoned that the best way of doing this is
>> to leave other people alone.
>>
>I would like it if that were the case.
Why might it not be the case?
>> For all you know the
>> bulk of meanness nastiness and madness may lie with
>> non-psychopaths who choose not to act on their
>> empathy. It just seems unfair to single out
>> psychopaths and then to demonise them all for the
>> actions of what may be just a few.
>>
>Well, in my view the reason that this is not the case is that most
>people with empathy, and a moral sense, know when they are going too
>far - somebody without doesn't. This makes an enourmous difference.
Most people with a moral sense may know when they are
going too far but that doesn't necessarily mean that
people without don't.
>People who, for example, fight with no fear are much more dangerous,
>even if they are small and not that strong, than people with a normal,
>sensible level of fear.
This has nothing to do with moral sense. And besides
- a person without fear may have insight into
their condition. And they may realise that their
death would prevent them from achieving certain long
term goals they may have and continuing with
pursuits they currently enjoy such as train spotting
and stamp collecting say. And so they may reason
that it would be best to avoid situations where
there is a high probability that they would die.
Although such a person may have no experience of
what it feels like to fear they would give all the
appearance of being a scaredy-cat. Conversely there
may be people who get a thrill out of feeling fear
and so take part in dangerous sports, drive
irresponsibly and fight in wars.
>Clearly psychopaths are not responsible for all the evil in the world, I
>agree. However, without them there would, in my view, certainly be
>considerably less.
There would considerably less 'evil' in the world
if there were no people so why pick on psychopaths?
How do you know that a person without empathy would
necessarily behave in an anti-social way?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > It sounds as if you are endowed like Shiva!
>
> As Shiva's female and I'm not, that caused a double-take, but I'll
assume
> you were thinking only of arms.
>
sexes can't it? Or does it have to be Robyn if one is female.
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in
> >Clearly psychopaths are not responsible for all the evil in the
world, I
> >agree. However, without them there would, in my view, certainly be
> >considerably less.
>
> There would considerably less 'evil' in the world
> if there were no people so why pick on psychopaths?
> How do you know that a person without empathy would
> necessarily behave in an anti-social way?
>
evidence for their being nasty and manipulative. Again, I would urge
reading 'The Mask of Sanity'.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >people with empathy, and a moral sense, know when they are going too
> >far - somebody without doesn't. This makes an enourmous difference.
>
> Most people with a moral sense may know when they are
> going too far but that doesn't necessarily mean that
> people without don't.
>
psychopath has no empathy, so, without empathy, a recognition of ones
own cruelty is not possible - apart from in a theoretical sense.
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in
>> >Clearly psychopaths are not responsible for all the evil in the
>world, I
>> >agree. However, without them there would, in my view, certainly be
>> >considerably less.
>>
>> There would considerably less 'evil' in the world
>> if there were no people so why pick on psychopaths?
>> How do you know that a person without empathy would
>> necessarily behave in an anti-social way?
>>
>Because psychopaths do, because they have no empathy, there is plenty of
>evidence for their being nasty and manipulative.
There may be evidence for there being nasty
and manipulative psychopaths but that isn't
evidence for there being no considerate and
polite ones. There may be more than one
cause of nastiness than a lack of empathy
and a lack of empathy may not always cause
nastyness. If you are wanting to eliminate
nastiness from the gene pool then it may be
better to just concentrate on nastiness -
say by neutering people who have proven (in
a court of law say) to be nasty. Otherwise
you may include people you want excluded
and may exclude people you want included.
>Again, I would urge reading 'The Mask of Sanity'.
It's on the list. First after the ones I've
already bought. OK?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
edvard kardelj
And a theoretical sense may do. Could psychopaths
be persuaded that it is in their own best interest
to act in a considerate way?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
edvard kardelj
And a theoretical sense may do. Could psychopaths
be persuaded that it is in their own best interest
to act in a considerate way?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Steve Marshall
is different for people of different attitudes.
Steve M
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:3c2eaef1$0$1607$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
of
> >evidence for their being nasty and manipulative.
>
> There may be evidence for there being nasty
> and manipulative psychopaths but that isn't
> evidence for there being no considerate and
> polite ones.
>
trademark is charm, superficial charm it may be, but it is effective.
However, the distinguishing factor is that a psychopath will never have
done anything genuinely considerate for somebody else, there always has
to be a quid pro quo if only a matter of ingratiating themselves with a
rich or powerful person. If you find somebody who is genuinely
considerate then that person is not a psychopath.
>
> There may be more than one
> cause of nastiness than a lack of empathy
> and a lack of empathy may not always cause
> nastyness. If you are wanting to eliminate
> nastiness from the gene pool then it may be
> better to just concentrate on nastiness -
> say by neutering people who have proven (in
> a court of law say) to be nasty. Otherwise
> you may include people you want excluded
> and may exclude people you want included.
>
more totalitarian than most people hold with.
I agree that there are other sources of nastiness, however the sort of
large scale damaging nastiness that causes death and/or misery to
thousands is not the province of the thug who hits old ladies across the
head to steal their handbags.
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> >Well, no, it doesn't follow from that, I agree. The case is that a
> >psychopath has no empathy, so, without empathy, a recognition of ones
> >own cruelty is not possible - apart from in a theoretical sense.
>
> And a theoretical sense may do. Could psychopaths
> be persuaded that it is in their own best interest
> to act in a considerate way?
>
order to achieve their ends - their charm is one of their weapons. Top
psychopaths seldom show their true colours as they have little need to,
they achieve positions of wealth and power where they can indulge
themselves - of course people suffer at their hands, but they are
underlings, or 'enemies', and don't know that they have been the target
of a psychopath.
That is why the book is called the 'Mask of Sanity', psychopaths do wear
a mask of apparent sanity the better to achieve their ends.
Remember that no psychopath considers himself to be insane.
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >Well, no, it doesn't follow from that, I agree. The case is that a
>> >psychopath has no empathy, so, without empathy, a recognition of ones
>> >own cruelty is not possible - apart from in a theoretical sense.
>>
>> And a theoretical sense may do. Could psychopaths
>> be persuaded that it is in their own best interest
>> to act in a considerate way?
>>
>Absolutely! They normally do give the appearance of consideration in
>order to achieve their ends - their charm is one of their weapons. Top
>psychopaths seldom show their true colours as they have little need to,
>they achieve positions of wealth and power where they can indulge
>themselves - of course people suffer at their hands, but they are
>underlings, or 'enemies', and don't know that they have been the target
>of a psychopath.
So are you saying that it would be imposable to make
a coherent case for behaving in a considerate manner
to be in ones own best interest? And that perhaps
altruism is its own reward for those with empathy?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> a coherent case for behaving in a considerate manner
> to be in ones own best interest? And that perhaps
> altruism is its own reward for those with empathy?
>
is still out there to be answered one way or another.
I don't think that a psychopath would understand that there could be any
answer other than 'yes' to your final question.
I think that there is a subjective feeling of satisfaction as a result
of doing something to help somebody for whom one feels empathy. Indeed I
would be the first to agree that this subjective feeling has almost
certainly evolved as a result of such acts of apparent altruism as a
result of empathy being advantageous to the actor. I don't think that
diminishes the difference, though.
To my mind psychopathy has evolved to fill the niche created by trusting
people - by exploiting them.This has been made possible by removing
from them the feelings of guilt and contrition that people with a moral
sense feel when they betray somebody who has trusted them. Clearly, if
there were more than a substantial minority of psychopaths people would
be less trusting, the niche would cease to be there and psychopaths
would lose their advantage.
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
<snip>
>There certainly are polite and apparently considerate psychopaths! Their
>trademark is charm, superficial charm it may be, but it is effective.
>However, the distinguishing factor is that a psychopath will never have
>done anything genuinely considerate for somebody else, there always has
>to be a quid pro quo if only a matter of ingratiating themselves with a
>rich or powerful person. If you find somebody who is genuinely
>considerate then that person is not a psychopath.
Genuinely considerate?
<snip>
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
consideration shown to somebody from whom advancement cannot be expected
that has not been performed with an eye to an external observer, some
quite unremarked act of consideration. If you have a psychopath on your
hands you won't find one. If you have a normal person you will find
quite a number, many to insignificant to seem relevant.
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> So are you saying that it would be imposable to make
>> a coherent case for behaving in a considerate manner
>> to be in ones own best interest? And that perhaps
>> altruism is its own reward for those with empathy?
>>
>No, that isn't my point. The old question 'is it rational to be moral'
>is still out there to be answered one way or another.
Yes, in the long term view. Perhaps that is
something else the psychopath lacks other than
empathy?
>I don't think that a psychopath would understand that there could be any
>answer other than 'yes' to your final question.
>
>I think that there is a subjective feeling of satisfaction as a result
>of doing something to help somebody for whom one feels empathy. Indeed I
>would be the first to agree that this subjective feeling has almost
>certainly evolved as a result of such acts of apparent altruism as a
>result of empathy being advantageous to the actor. I don't think that
>diminishes the difference, though.
That would account for 'true altruism' - e.g.
anonymous donations to charity - a by-product.
>To my mind psychopathy has evolved to fill the niche created by trusting
>people - by exploiting them. This has been made possible by removing
>from them the feelings of guilt and contrition that people with a moral
>sense feel when they betray somebody who has trusted them. Clearly, if
>there were more than a substantial minority of psychopaths people would
>be less trusting, the niche would cease to be there and psychopaths
>would lose their advantage.
Then perhaps the number of psychopaths has
reached a stable level that suits all best.
The more psychopaths (or defectors from the
common good) the more disadvantageous this is
for psychopaths. The fewer psychopaths there
are then the more successful they are and the
more disadvantageous this is for co-operators.
You would have to eliminate all defectors
simultaneously. Or they could be made more
obvious - branding say.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:02:30 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >There certainly are polite and apparently considerate psychopaths!
>Their
>> >trademark is charm, superficial charm it may be, but it is effective.
>> >However, the distinguishing factor is that a psychopath will never
>have
>> >done anything genuinely considerate for somebody else, there always
>has
>> >to be a quid pro quo if only a matter of ingratiating themselves with
>a
>> >rich or powerful person. If you find somebody who is genuinely
>> >considerate then that person is not a psychopath.
>>
>> Genuinely considerate?
>>
>Yes, as I say. You can work it out - you look for an act of
>consideration shown to somebody from whom advancement cannot be expected
>that has not been performed with an eye to an external observer, some
>quite unremarked act of consideration.
An act can be made to look genuinely altruistic.
An act can be made to look as if it has not been
performed with an eye to an external observer.
>If you have a psychopath on your
>hands you won't find one. If you have a normal person you will find
>quite a number, many to insignificant to seem relevant.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:53:07 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> >edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> So are you saying that it would be imposable to make
> >> a coherent case for behaving in a considerate manner
> >> to be in ones own best interest? And that perhaps
> >> altruism is its own reward for those with empathy?
> >>
> >No, that isn't my point. The old question 'is it rational to be
moral'
> >is still out there to be answered one way or another.
>
> Yes, in the long term view. Perhaps that is
> something else the psychopath lacks other than
> empathy?
>
at anticipating the negative consequences of their actions - they'll
just take the risk and act all surprised if they get caught.
>
> >I don't think that a psychopath would understand that there could be
any
> >answer other than 'yes' to your final question.
> >
> >I think that there is a subjective feeling of satisfaction as a
result
> >of doing something to help somebody for whom one feels empathy.
Indeed I
> >would be the first to agree that this subjective feeling has almost
> >certainly evolved as a result of such acts of apparent altruism as a
> >result of empathy being advantageous to the actor. I don't think that
> >diminishes the difference, though.
>
> That would account for 'true altruism' - e.g.
> anonymous donations to charity - a by-product.
>
charity' though.
>
> >To my mind psychopathy has evolved to fill the niche created by
trusting
> >people - by exploiting them. This has been made possible by removing
> >from them the feelings of guilt and contrition that people with a
moral
> >sense feel when they betray somebody who has trusted them. Clearly,
if
> >there were more than a substantial minority of psychopaths people
would
> >be less trusting, the niche would cease to be there and psychopaths
> >would lose their advantage.
>
> Then perhaps the number of psychopaths has
> reached a stable level that suits all best.
> The more psychopaths (or defectors from the
> common good) the more disadvantageous this is
> for psychopaths. The fewer psychopaths there
> are then the more successful they are and the
> more disadvantageous this is for co-operators.
> You would have to eliminate all defectors
> simultaneously. Or they could be made more
> obvious - branding say.
>
would rather a physical, say genetic, test that was unequivocal - this
could be used to preculed them from public office or positions of
authority. The test would have to be carried out very carefully, though,
psychopaths would be first rate a exchanging samples etc. to beat the
tests.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >>
> >Yes, as I say. You can work it out - you look for an act of
> >consideration shown to somebody from whom advancement cannot be
expected
> >that has not been performed with an eye to an external observer, some
> >quite unremarked act of consideration.
>
> An act can be made to look genuinely altruistic.
> An act can be made to look as if it has not been
> performed with an eye to an external observer.
>
tears' could have been invented for psychopaths. Again, this is why it
would be good to have an objective test.
edvard kardelj
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:53:07 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
<snip>
>> >No, that isn't my point. The old question 'is it rational to be
>> >moral' is still out there to be answered one way or another.
>>
>> Yes, in the long term view. Perhaps that is
>> something else the psychopath lacks other than
>> empathy?
>>
>Quite a few things, yes, friends for one. Many psychopaths are hopeless
>at anticipating the negative consequences of their actions - they'll
>just take the risk and act all surprised if they get caught.
That wouldn't make them very successful individuals.
<snip>
>They don't need branding, people simply need training to spot them. I
>would rather a physical, say genetic, test that was unequivocal - this
>could be used to preculed them from public office or positions of
>authority. The test would have to be carried out very carefully, though,
>psychopaths would be first rate a exchanging samples etc. to beat the
>tests.
Wouldn't the inability to anticipate the consequences
of their actions preclude them public office and
positions of power. You would more likely find them
in the doss houses and acute psychiatric wards.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >> >moral' is still out there to be answered one way or another.
> >>
> >> Yes, in the long term view. Perhaps that is
> >> something else the psychopath lacks other than
> >> empathy?
> >>
> >Quite a few things, yes, friends for one. Many psychopaths are
hopeless
> >at anticipating the negative consequences of their actions - they'll
> >just take the risk and act all surprised if they get caught.
>
> That wouldn't make them very successful individuals.
>
as being 'brave', 'seizing the opportunity', being 'decisive' etc. and,
despite often leading to negative consequences is often (particularly in
boom times) seen to be a positive asset worthy of promotion.
>
> <snip>
>
> >They don't need branding, people simply need training to spot them. I
> >would rather a physical, say genetic, test that was unequivocal -
this
> >could be used to preculed them from public office or positions of
> >authority. The test would have to be carried out very carefully,
though,
> >psychopaths would be first rate a exchanging samples etc. to beat the
> >tests.
>
> Wouldn't the inability to anticipate the consequences
> of their actions preclude them public office and
> positions of power. You would more likely find them
> in the doss houses and acute psychiatric wards.
>
Cleckley interviews are in some sort of institution.
However, despite this, a fair number are in senior positions wielding
great power. Their impulsiveness and inability to articipate
consequences does indeed lead to very nasty situations, wars even, they
claim [and excuses and lies are like breathing to psychopaths] that
other people are responsible and get away with the most dreadful
decisions, so that they can make them again.
As I have said, their existance is certainly a problem for humanity.
kames.smiths
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a0pjmo$9kb$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> I think that there is a subjective feeling of satisfaction as a
result
> of doing something to help somebody for whom one feels empathy.
Indeed I
> would be the first to agree that this subjective feeling has almost
> certainly evolved as a result of such acts of apparent altruism as a
> result of empathy being advantageous to the actor. I don't think
that
> diminishes the difference, though.
>
> To my mind psychopathy has evolved to fill the niche created by
trusting
> people - by exploiting them.This has been made possible by removing
> from them the feelings of guilt and contrition that people with a
moral
> sense feel when they betray somebody who has trusted them. Clearly,
if
> there were more than a substantial minority of psychopaths people
would
> be less trusting, the niche would cease to be there and psychopaths
> would lose their advantage.
Do you think morality is just an adaptation resulting from
evolutionary selection processes? It can be difficult to see one's own
moral sentiments in this light. For example, how would you explain
your views about the attack on the WTC in sociobiological terms?
Dave Smith
Dr Robin Bignall
I don't believe so. I think that in every generation there are people
who firmly believe that they were put on earth to kick ass and tell
others what to do. I don't say that they are all psychopaths, but many
of them end up in positions where they rule other people in some
fashion, usually by fear. Their behaviour is not modified even when
somebody above them in the hierarchy kicks their ass. They simply pass
the kick downwards and work even harder to join the more senior
ass-kickers. They see being tough and nasty as a positive advantage in
life, and a conscience as a weakness. "Nice guys don't win!"
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
edvard kardelj
This sounds just like the kind of person we need to
take charge of our ruthless and systematic program
to eliminate all psychopaths.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> > It sounds as if you are endowed like Shiva!
>>
>> As Shiva's female and I'm not, that caused a double-take, but I'll
> assume
>> you were thinking only of arms.
>>
> Sorry, yes, that is what I meant - though Robin can be used by both
> sexes can't it? Or does it have to be Robyn if one is female.
The female Robin is an Americanism, I believe (unlike the female robin).
The singer/songwriter Robyn Hitchcock is male. But there are no rules!
--
"The concept of information is the key that decodes mind, matter,
meaning, consciousness..."
edvard kardelj
<ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote:
>Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It sounds as if you are endowed like Shiva!
>>>
>>> As Shiva's female and I'm not, that caused a double-take, but I'll
>> assume
>>> you were thinking only of arms.
>>>
>> Sorry, yes, that is what I meant - though Robin can be used by both
>> sexes can't it? Or does it have to be Robyn if one is female.
>
>The female Robin is an Americanism, I believe (unlike the female robin).
>The singer/songwriter Robyn Hitchcock is male. But there are no rules!
How appropriate in this thread you should
mention Robyn Hitchcock
All together now!
Uncorrected personality traits that seem
Whimsical in a child may prove
To be ugly in a fully grown adult...
http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/Hitchcock/PersonalityTraits.html
http://www.robynhitchcock.com/
http://www.theos-place.com/
http://www.glasshotel.net/gh/
http://www.triskellion.com/robynhclub/rhaudio.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It sounds as if you are endowed like Shiva!
> >>
> >> As Shiva's female and I'm not, that caused a double-take, but I'll
> > assume
> >> you were thinking only of arms.
> >>
> > Sorry, yes, that is what I meant - though Robin can be used by both
> > sexes can't it? Or does it have to be Robyn if one is female.
>
> The female Robin is an Americanism, I believe (unlike the female
robin).
> The singer/songwriter Robyn Hitchcock is male. But there are no
rules!
>
However, Happy New Year!
Regards,
Peter
Peter H.M. Brooks
kames.smiths <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Do you think morality is just an adaptation resulting from
> evolutionary selection processes? It can be difficult to see one's own
> moral sentiments in this light. For example, how would you explain
> your views about the attack on the WTC in sociobiological terms?
>
I agree that this is the interesting question. I don't think that the
attack on the WTC is very different from many wicked
attacks on civilians in the past - it is really just part of a long
series of attacks on civilians.
However, as attacks on civilians are concerned, I think that there is a
case to answer.
As I see it the control of states, interest groups, etc. is largely in
the hands of psychopaths, which is a problem.
From a sociobiological point of view I think that the world would be a
better place if the psychopaths involved were disposed of.
Robin Faichney
> How appropriate in this thread you should
> mention Robyn Hitchcock
> All together now!
> Uncorrected personality traits that seem
> Whimsical in a child may prove
> To be ugly in a fully grown adult...
> http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/Hitchcock/PersonalityTraits.html
> http://www.robynhitchcock.com/
> http://www.theos-place.com/
> http://www.glasshotel.net/gh/
> http://www.triskellion.com/robynhclub/rhaudio.html
Thanks for these. Despite being aware of the name, I don't think I've
ever heard anything by him.
--
Robin Faichney
"It is tempting to suppose that some concept of information could serve
eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory," say
Daniel Dennett and John Haugeland. The theory is here: http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> ...there are no rules!
>>
> There certainly are rules!
Only if you believe in them.
> However, Happy New Year!
The same to you, and everyone else in the relevant cultural category.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >> ...there are no rules!
> >>
> > There certainly are rules!
>
> Only if you believe in them.
>
belief.
>
> > However, Happy New Year!
>
> The same to you, and everyone else in the relevant cultural category.
>
kames.smiths
> From a sociobiological point of view I think that the world would be
a
> better place if the psychopaths involved were disposed of.
So you think you can determine how things ought to be, as distinct
from how they are, from sociobiology?
Dave Smith
Peter H.M. Brooks
kames.smiths <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
What I mean is that I am qualifying what I mean by 'a better place', in
other words, what sense I am seeing things improved. That is that human
behaviour is likely to be less 'nasty, brutish and short' without
psychopaths around. Lets say it would be a place that one would be
happier for ones descendants to live in.
Peter H.M. Brooks
{R} Richard Ashton <{R}@semolina.org> wrote in message
> In uk.philosophy.atheism on Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:37:05 -0000,
kames.smiths in
> <YElY7.23545$Zg2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net> aspersed:
>
You can see how things could be, but I think that 'ought to be' is a
moral judgement, not something that sociobiology is involved with.
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> >> ...there are no rules!
>> >>
>> > There certainly are rules!
>>
>> Only if you believe in them.
>>
> I think that rules have an independant existance that doesn't require
> belief.
I'd be interested to hear more about such rules. For instance, what are
they made of? :-)
>> > However, Happy New Year!
>>
>> The same to you, and everyone else in the relevant cultural category.
>>
> I'm not sure what 'cultural category' I might fit into.
The one that believes this an appropriate occasion on which to utter
phrases such as "Happy New Year!" Or under words, those who believe in
that rule.
--
"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> ...there are no rules!
> >> >>
> >> > There certainly are rules!
> >>
> >> Only if you believe in them.
> >>
> > I think that rules have an independant existance that doesn't
require
> > belief.
>
> I'd be interested to hear more about such rules. For instance, what
are
> they made of? :-)
>
theorem stuff.
>
> >> > However, Happy New Year!
> >>
> >> The same to you, and everyone else in the relevant cultural
category.
> >>
> > I'm not sure what 'cultural category' I might fit into.
>
> The one that believes this an appropriate occasion on which to utter
> phrases such as "Happy New Year!" Or under words, those who believe
in
> that rule.
>
arbitrary selection of one day as the start of a year is clearly
administratively convenient, the decision to use it as an excuse for
celebration is understandable, if peculiar.
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> >> ...there are no rules!
>> >> >>
>> >> > There certainly are rules!
>> >>
>> >> Only if you believe in them.
>> >>
>> > I think that rules have an independant existance that doesn't
> require
>> > belief.
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear more about such rules. For instance, what
> are
>> they made of? :-)
>>
> Rule stuff. Much the same fabric as algorithm stuff, story stuff and
> theorem stuff.
I'm sorry, but that's not very helpful. Can you say any more about
the stuff of which any or all of these is/are composed?
edvard_k
What is wrong with the existing psychometric tests and
how would a genetic test be any better?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
edvard_k
> edvard kardelj <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >No, that isn't my point. The old question 'is it rational to be
> > >> >moral' is still out there to be answered one way or another.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, in the long term view. Perhaps that is
> > >> something else the psychopath lacks other than
> > >> empathy?
> > >>
> > >Quite a few things, yes, friends for one. Many psychopaths are
> > >hopeless at anticipating the negative consequences of their actions -
> > >they'll just take the risk and act all surprised if they get caught.
> >
> > That wouldn't make them very successful individuals.
> >
> You'd be surprised! The above behaviour is seen in politics and business
> as being 'brave', 'seizing the opportunity', being 'decisive' etc. and,
> despite often leading to negative consequences is often (particularly in
> boom times) seen to be a positive asset worthy of promotion.
<snip>
> > Wouldn't the inability to anticipate the consequences
> > of their actions preclude them public office and
> > positions of power. You would more likely find them
> > in the doss houses and acute psychiatric wards.
> >
> Well, some indeed are in prisons and doss houses - all those that
> Cleckley interviews are in some sort of institution.
>
> However, despite this, a fair number are in senior positions wielding
> great power. Their impulsiveness and inability to articipate
> consequences does indeed lead to very nasty situations, wars even, they
> claim [and excuses and lies are like breathing to psychopaths] that
> other people are responsible and get away with the most dreadful
> decisions, so that they can make them again.
>
> As I have said, their existance is certainly a problem for humanity.
Wouldn't it then be easier to concentrate on the problem of the
wrong type of person being selected for certain positions instead
of trying to eliminate certain personality types from the gene
pool? And wouldn't it be better if personality tests on the born
tested personality (as well at least) and not the make up of genes
since since there are other factors (experience), other than
genetic make up, involved in making us the type of persons we are?
e. kardelj
a.a #177
kames.smiths
This seems to be a utilitarian argument - life would be better for
most, if we sacrifice a few. Are you claiming that the end justifies
the means?
Dave Smith
Reg Hems
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>>> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote
>>>>> ...there are no rules!
>>>> There certainly are rules!
>>> Only if you believe in them.
>> I think that rules have an independant existance that doesn't require
>> belief.
> I'd be interested to hear more about such rules. For instance, what are
> they made of? :-)
>>>> However, Happy New Year!
>>> The same to you, and everyone else in the relevant cultural category.
>> I'm not sure what 'cultural category' I might fit into.
> The one that believes this an appropriate occasion on which to utter
> phrases such as "Happy New Year!" Or under words, those who believe in
> that rule.
I wish people a Good New Year because I /want/ to.
A better example, which make me cringe, is perhaps:
"How are you?"
"Very well, thank you. How are you?
"Very well, thank you".
My own reply which works most of the time, thus proving that this just
white noise (like "For what we are about to receive...."):
"How are you?"
"Yes"
"Very well, thank you".
* Rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men.
--
Reg Hems ZFC LXX \_
BBC B Micro Iss.3&7 \_
Atomwide Serial board \_
Diamond SupraExpress 56 \_
ARM3 PC 420 IDE-SCSI 8 Mb \_
reg...@argonet.co.uk |
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in
> > >
> > True, I agree. This is indeed one of the problems - the term
'crocodile
> > tears' could have been invented for psychopaths. Again, this is why
it
> > would be good to have an objective test.
>
> What is wrong with the existing psychometric tests and
> how would a genetic test be any better?
>
them - though I know that many disagree, I think that the variability is
too high.
The MMPI doesn't provide clear cut binary answers, it also, despite not
being a projective test, requires too much subjective analysis.
The point is that a genetic test would be unequivocal.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in
> >>
> > theorem stuff.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's not very helpful. Can you say any more about
> the stuff of which any or all of these is/are composed?
>
rather than a Jungian 'shared unconsciousness', I refered in jest.
However, despite the jest, it is an interesting topic, I would say that
the stuff is most closely related to the technical meaning of
'information' - which can be measured by, for example, it
compressibility.
Peter H.M. Brooks
edvard_k <notho...@gotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > As I have said, their existance is certainly a problem for humanity.
>
> Wouldn't it then be easier to concentrate on the problem of the
> wrong type of person being selected for certain positions instead
> of trying to eliminate certain personality types from the gene
> pool? And wouldn't it be better if personality tests on the born
> tested personality (as well at least) and not the make up of genes
> since since there are other factors (experience), other than
> genetic make up, involved in making us the type of persons we are?
>
>
Convicted criminals are excluded, for example, these measures clearly
don't work, as unconvicted criminals have no problem being elected.
It is because of the failure of these methods that I suggested mine.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > What I mean is that I am qualifying what I mean by 'a better place',
> in
> > other words, what sense I am seeing things improved. That is that
> human
> > behaviour is likely to be less 'nasty, brutish and short' without
> > psychopaths around. Lets say it would be a place that one would be
> > happier for ones descendants to live in.
>
> This seems to be a utilitarian argument - life would be better for
> most, if we sacrifice a few. Are you claiming that the end justifies
> the means?
>
in the argument. I am not suggesting sacrificing any living people, only
aborting foetuses, something that is already done today, to protect
people from a known and quantifiable danger.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> * Rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men.
>
manage very complex tasks - like running a post office or railway.
Ron Peterson
> Qualified franchises have been tried before - and are in effect now.
> Convicted criminals are excluded, for example, these measures clearly
> don't work, as unconvicted criminals have no problem being elected.
In the U.S., many states don't allow persons convicted of a felony to
vote, but there isn't any law against those persons running for office.
Ron
Ron Peterson
> The point is that a genetic test would be unequivocal.
If there is a genetic factor involved, would it involve a single gene
or multiple genes? If the 'psychopath' personality depends on a single
gene, is it a recessive gene? Is the gene sex link, with only males
being susceptible?
Ron
Peter H.M. Brooks
Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
it, it is their problem.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Cleckley didn't have any in his first edition, but corrected it in later
ones.
It would leave the answer to the other questions to geneticists and
their experiments.
edvard_k
Is it? It may unequivocaly tell you that the genetic conditions
are present for making someone more likely to have a psychopathic
personality but may not tell you unequivocaly that a person has
a psychopathic personality since there are other factors than
genetic make up involved in making us the persons we are. So it
may be better to test the thing you are looking for psychopathic
traits in - namely the personality, rather than something one
step removed.
e. kardelj
a.a #177
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Is it? It may unequivocaly tell you that the genetic conditions
> are present for making someone more likely to have a psychopathic
> personality but may not tell you unequivocaly that a person has
> a psychopathic personality since there are other factors than
> genetic make up involved in making us the persons we are. So it
> may be better to test the thing you are looking for psychopathic
> traits in - namely the personality, rather than something one
> step removed.
>
There is no evidence that any psychopath has ever been cured of the
condition, and many, many treatments have been tried. To me this
suggests that it is something intrinsic, unchangable and not something
from background - the twin studies I copied here tended to support that.
Robin Faichney
Mmm.. "information" -- very interesting. Noticed the name of my
website?
I agree with you, but I'll go further, and suggest that the particular
class of information item to which rules etc belong is the "meme".
No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
between matter and information.
--
"A prime source of meta-memes" -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
Des
"Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
news:djo11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
> between matter and information.
>
So what stuff is matter made from then?
Des
Ron Peterson
> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in
>> If there is a genetic factor involved, would it involve a single gene
>> or multiple genes? If the 'psychopath' personality depends on a single
>> gene, is it a recessive gene? Is the gene sex link, with only males
>> being susceptible?
> No, it is not sex linked, there are certainly female psychopaths -
> Cleckley didn't have any in his first edition, but corrected it in later
> ones.
Suppose that the gene is recessive, but in the X chromosome, then if
that gene has a frequency of 10%, then 10% of the males would be
susceptible and 1% of the women.
> It would leave the answer to the other questions to geneticists and
> their experiments.
Suppose the gene were recessive, but the complete absence of the gene
would deprive a person of critical thought. There would be then 3
categories of people, the followers, the leaders, and the trouble
makers.
Ron
kames.smiths
>........... I am not suggesting sacrificing any living people, only
> aborting foetuses, something that is already done today, to protect
> people from a known and quantifiable danger.
What about parental consent?
Dave Smith
Robin Faichney
Matter stuff.
--
"The concept of information is the key that decodes mind, matter,
meaning, consciousness..."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Peter Ashby
Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in
>
> >> If there is a genetic factor involved, would it involve a single gene
> >> or multiple genes? If the 'psychopath' personality depends on a single
> >> gene, is it a recessive gene? Is the gene sex link, with only males
> >> being susceptible?
>
> > No, it is not sex linked, there are certainly female psychopaths -
> > Cleckley didn't have any in his first edition, but corrected it in later
> > ones.
>
> Suppose that the gene is recessive, but in the X chromosome, then if
> that gene has a frequency of 10%, then 10% of the males would be
> susceptible and 1% of the women.
Where do you get 1% from? And are you remembering that female carriers
will be mosaic for the recesive gene and if they are mosaic in the right
places may also display some aspects of phenotype.
Peter
--
Peter Ashby
Wellcome Trust Biocentre
University of Dundee, Scotland
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.
Des
"Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:djo11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>
> >> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
> >> between matter and information.
>
> > So what stuff is matter made from then?
>
> Matter stuff.
>
And how is that different from mental stuff and mathematical stuff?
Des
Peter Ashby
"Des" <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
> "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> news:skr11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
> > Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:djo11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
> >
> > >> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
> > >> between matter and information.
> >
> > > So what stuff is matter made from then?
> >
> > Matter stuff.
> >
>
> And how is that different from mental stuff and mathematical stuff?
Say what? Slop some of that in a parcel, send it over here and I'm sure
I can rustle up some people to analyse it Des. Care to cite any
references on the composition of these stuffings?
Des
"Peter Ashby" <p.r....@MAPS.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby->
> Say what? Slop some of that in a parcel, send it over here and I'm sure
> I can rustle up some people to analyse it Des. Care to cite any
> references on the composition of these stuffings?
>
I'll wrap up some mathematical stuff in some material stuff just as soon as
you can wrap up some material stuff in some mathematical stuff.
Which is all just a silly way of saying that ideas and numbers are every
bit as fundamental as material substance - at least from an explanatory pov.
Happy New Year btw.
Des
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> > Yes, well, you know, I trust, that I refer to a platonic 'reality',
> > rather than a Jungian 'shared unconsciousness', I refered in jest.
> > However, despite the jest, it is an interesting topic, I would say
that
> > the stuff is most closely related to the technical meaning of
> > 'information' - which can be measured by, for example, it
> > compressibility.
>
> Mmm.. "information" -- very interesting. Noticed the name of my
> website?
>
> I agree with you, but I'll go further, and suggest that the particular
> class of information item to which rules etc belong is the "meme".
> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
> between matter and information.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote in message
Presumably those of the Penrose camp might argue that matter is a result
of consciousness, so the Universe is made of thoughts.
Peter H.M. Brooks
kames.smiths <kames....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
pandemic, or even a serious endemic disease, then, as with quarantine,
individual objections don't carry any weight. Besides, isn't it likely
that, if it is a genetic condition, then one or both parents may be
psychopaths - incapable of love, and hence bad parents likely to
brutalise their child, compounding the problem.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in
> In uk.philosophy.humanism Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in
>
> >> If there is a genetic factor involved, would it involve a single
gene
> >> or multiple genes? If the 'psychopath' personality depends on a
single
> >> gene, is it a recessive gene? Is the gene sex link, with only males
> >> being susceptible?
>
> > No, it is not sex linked, there are certainly female psychopaths -
> > Cleckley didn't have any in his first edition, but corrected it in
later
> > ones.
>
> Suppose that the gene is recessive, but in the X chromosome, then if
> that gene has a frequency of 10%, then 10% of the males would be
> susceptible and 1% of the women.
>
ought to have made it clearer.
>
> > It would leave the answer to the other questions to geneticists and
> > their experiments.
>
> Suppose the gene were recessive, but the complete absence of the gene
> would deprive a person of critical thought. There would be then 3
> categories of people, the followers, the leaders, and the trouble
> makers.
>
Dr Robin Bignall
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> * Rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men.
>>
>My brother used to point out that procedures enabled stupid people to
>manage very complex tasks - like running a post office or railway.
Your brother was right. However, he assumed that the management was
competent.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Peter H.M. Brooks
sure
> > I can rustle up some people to analyse it Des. Care to cite any
> > references on the composition of these stuffings?
> >
>
> I'll wrap up some mathematical stuff in some material stuff just as
soon as
> you can wrap up some material stuff in some mathematical stuff.
>
> Which is all just a silly way of saying that ideas and numbers are
every
> bit as fundamental as material substance - at least from an
explanatory pov.
>
existance. Orcs are more fundamental than Elves in Lord of the Rings,
but I don't see that this means that they are more likely to knock on my
door.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote in message
news:6m093uss1qisnvfed...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 21:48:01 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> >Reg Hems <reg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> * Rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men.
> >>
> >My brother used to point out that procedures enabled stupid people to
> >manage very complex tasks - like running a post office or railway.
>
> Your brother was right. However, he assumed that the management was
> competent.
>
procedures are effective - those that wrote them could be long dead. It
does assume that the workers can follow the procedures - and,
importantly, that the procedures have enough checks, balances and 'give'
to correct the inevitable errors.
Ron Peterson
> In article <3c346f1b$0$43575$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>> Suppose that the gene is recessive, but in the X chromosome, then if
>> that gene has a frequency of 10%, then 10% of the males would be
>> susceptible and 1% of the women.
> Where do you get 1% from? And are you remembering that female carriers
> will be mosaic for the recesive gene and if they are mosaic in the right
> places may also display some aspects of phenotype.
I hypothesized the 10% number, and then took 10% of 10% to get 1% when
both X chromosomes are carriers of the gene. I didn't know about the
X chromosome mosaicism where about 50% of the cells are dominated by
each particular X chromosome. Clearly we need some accurate numbers as
to how many 'psychopaths' of each sex that there are.
If the cause is genetic, some protein may or may not be produced
depending on the presence of the gene. If we could determine that
protein, a drug could be used to suppress that protein.
Ron
Robin Faichney
> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:djo11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>>
>> > No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
>> > between matter and information.
>> >
>>
>> So what stuff is matter made from then?
>>
> Back from your hols then Des, I hope you enjoyed them.
> Presumably those of the Penrose camp might argue that matter is a result
> of consciousness, so the Universe is made of thoughts.
Why do you say that? I never saw Penrose as an idealist.
--
Robin Faichney
"One person's mess is another's complexity"
Robin Faichney
> "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> news:skr11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:djo11a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>>
>> >> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the relationship
>> >> between matter and information.
>>
>> > So what stuff is matter made from then?
>>
>> Matter stuff.
> And how is that different from mental stuff and mathematical stuff?
Matter stuff just is, while mental stuff is *about* stuff. Mathematical
stuff is a subset of mental stuff.
Robin Faichney
I have never met her, and insist you withdraw that filthy insinuation!
--
Robin Faichney
alt.m: "Memes do not exist. Tell everyone you know."
Peter H.M. Brooks
> both X chromosomes are carriers of the gene. I didn't know about the
> X chromosome mosaicism where about 50% of the cells are dominated by
> each particular X chromosome. Clearly we need some accurate numbers as
> to how many 'psychopaths' of each sex that there are.
>
> If the cause is genetic, some protein may or may not be produced
> depending on the presence of the gene. If we could determine that
> protein, a drug could be used to suppress that protein.
>
too - though it might have to be put into the water supply for them to
take it, as I have said, psychopaths never believe that there is
anything wrong with them.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > Yes, well, you know, I trust, that I refer to a platonic
'reality',
> >> > rather than a Jungian 'shared unconsciousness', I refered in
jest.
> >> > However, despite the jest, it is an interesting topic, I would
say
> > that
> >> > the stuff is most closely related to the technical meaning of
> >> > 'information' - which can be measured by, for example, it
> >> > compressibility.
> >>
> >> Mmm.. "information" -- very interesting. Noticed the name of my
> >> website?
> >>
> >> I agree with you, but I'll go further, and suggest that the
particular
> >> class of information item to which rules etc belong is the "meme".
> >> No need for Platonism when you have a good grasp of the
relationship
> >> between matter and information.
> >>
> > Presumably you enjoyed Susan Blackmore on the subject.
>
> I have never met her, and insist you withdraw that filthy insinuation!
>
enjoying here on the subject hardly. 'The Meme Machine' is an
interesting take on the subject.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in >
result
> > of consciousness, so the Universe is made of thoughts.
>
> Why do you say that? I never saw Penrose as an idealist.
>
I was joking, Penrose had the idea that microtubules (part of the
structure of cell walls) were responsible, when found in the human
brain, for consciousness - an attempt to introduce souls through a most
peculiar and unlikely avenue. He liked involving quantum mechanics [well
it had to be an improvement on bog roll] to justify this - hence my
comment.
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in >
>> > Presumably those of the Penrose camp might argue that matter is a
> result
>> > of consciousness, so the Universe is made of thoughts.
>>
>> Why do you say that? I never saw Penrose as an idealist.
>>
> Nobody who makes money from bog roll could be called an idealist, no!
> I was joking, Penrose had the idea that microtubules (part of the
> structure of cell walls) were responsible, when found in the human
> brain, for consciousness - an attempt to introduce souls through a most
> peculiar and unlikely avenue.
I'm familiar -- vaguely, anyway -- with Penrose's view, and it seems
rather a stretch to characterise it as "an attempt to introduce souls".
Even allowing that, though, that would make him a dualist, rather than
an idealist. I never got the slightest impression that he doubted the
objective existence of matter.
> He liked involving quantum mechanics [well
> it had to be an improvement on bog roll] to justify this - hence my
> comment.
Given his professional background, I'd have thought QM to be an area
in which he's fairly secure. I've absolutely no idea where bog roll
comes in to all this. Maybe I'm guilty of being impressed by irrelevant
credentials, but given Penrose's standing in his own field, I'd hesitate
to dismiss as laughable his views on anything connected to it, however
tenuously.
--
Robin Faichney
"It is tempting to suppose that some concept of information could serve
eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory," say
Daniel Dennett and John Haugeland. The theory is here: http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> > Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> the
> particular
>> >> class of information item to which rules etc belong is the "meme".
>>
> 'The Meme Machine' is an
> interesting take on the subject.
Indeed. I first came across her (ahem) on a radio show in which she
debated with Stephen Jay Gould, an arch-anti-memeticist. Fascinating!
My only problem with Susan Blackmore is wondering what she sees in that Adam
Hart Davis!
--
Robin Faichney
"One person's mess is another's complexity"
Des
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:a12143$383$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> Back from your hols then Des, I hope you enjoyed them.
>
Thank you.
Actually I haven't really ventured very far from my keyboard - although I've
made a conscious effort to avoid using it.
> Presumably those of the Penrose camp might argue that matter is a result
> of consciousness, so the Universe is made of thoughts.
No, I don't think that's quite right.
I (and I believe Penrose - though he can speak for himself) believe that the
human experience cannot be explained purely in terms of the material.
Rather, it is necessary to include both mental and logical/mathematical
components in the explanatory framework.
Such an explanatory framework is in fact very similiar to that which most
(if not all) serious thinkers adopt in practice even if they try to convince
themselves that everything (including their subjective experience and
understanding) can in principle be reduced to the material - whatever that
might be.
Des
Des
"Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > And how is that different from mental stuff and mathematical stuff?
>
> Matter stuff just is,
This sounds rather tautological - is there nothing more that you can say
about matter stuff to distinguish it from mental and mathematical stuff.
> while mental stuff is *about* stuff.
So as well as being it is also being about - does this make it more real
than matter stuff which just is?
After all mental stuff can also be about stuff that isn't.
> Mathematical stuff is a subset of mental stuff.
Does this mean that mathematical stuff cannot exist without minds?
Would this mean that the truth value of a mathematical statement only exists
once it has been proved?
Des
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >> Why do you say that? I never saw Penrose as an idealist.
> >>
> > Nobody who makes money from bog roll could be called an idealist,
no!
>
> > I was joking, Penrose had the idea that microtubules (part of the
> > structure of cell walls) were responsible, when found in the human
> > brain, for consciousness - an attempt to introduce souls through a
most
> > peculiar and unlikely avenue.
>
> I'm familiar -- vaguely, anyway -- with Penrose's view, and it seems
> rather a stretch to characterise it as "an attempt to introduce
souls".
> Even allowing that, though, that would make him a dualist, rather than
> an idealist. I never got the slightest impression that he doubted the
> objective existence of matter.
>
>
> > He liked involving quantum mechanics [well
> > it had to be an improvement on bog roll] to justify this - hence my
> > comment.
>
> Given his professional background, I'd have thought QM to be an area
> in which he's fairly secure. I've absolutely no idea where bog roll
> comes in to all this. Maybe I'm guilty of being impressed by
irrelevant
> credentials, but given Penrose's standing in his own field, I'd
hesitate
> to dismiss as laughable his views on anything connected to it, however
> tenuously.
>
here, though I have not been one agreeing with it, that QM is an area
where nobody is 'secure' - it has been a badge of pride for various
people to claim that they don't understand it.
The bog roll comes from Penrose tiling. Penrose patented some of his
tesselations in the plane and, when he found them printed on his bog
roll he sued. They were so printed as using them kept a uniform tension
in the paper preventing costly tearings during manufacture. He won and
got the money. Good luck to him, I say. However, it is an amusing place
for a mathematician to make money and gives some insight into his charac
ter. Look at is as an antidote to arguments from authority.
If you read 'The Emperor's New Mind' where he first exposes his theory
about consciousness, you can see the flaws in his microtubule idea quite
easily - he doesn't even try to address the question that they are found
in all sorts of creatures of all sorts of size, and that human brains
vary considerably in size and geometry, even between the sexes, at both
a gross and a microscopic scale - facts that would make his idea quite
unworkable that he choses simply to leave unaddressed.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in
> > interesting take on the subject.
>
> Indeed. I first came across her (ahem) on a radio show in which she
> debated with Stephen Jay Gould, an arch-anti-memeticist. Fascinating!
>
wrong end of the stick for himself - and stuck to it.
>
> My only problem with Susan Blackmore is wondering what she sees in
that Adam
> Hart Davis!
>
I thought that the main problem was that Susan took the thesis a little
far - understandable at such an early stage in the subject's life
(memetics, I mean, not Susan), but dangerous to credibility.
Robin Faichney
> "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> news:03821a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> > And how is that different from mental stuff and mathematical stuff?
>>
>> Matter stuff just is,
> This sounds rather tautological - is there nothing more that you can say
> about matter stuff to distinguish it from mental and mathematical stuff.
That's certainly the main, perhaps the only difference. As Brentano
said, intentionality is the mark of the mental. Rocks and puddles aren't
about anything, they just exist "for their own sake", while thoughts,
feelings, hopes, desires, are all about things. (And "thoughts" includes
mathematical concepts.)
> > while mental stuff is *about* stuff.
> So as well as being it is also being about - does this make it more real
> than matter stuff which just is?
> After all mental stuff can also be about stuff that isn't.
I don't see why that should make it either more or less real.
>> Mathematical stuff is a subset of mental stuff.
> Does this mean that mathematical stuff cannot exist without minds?
Yes.
> Would this mean that the truth value of a mathematical statement only exists
> once it has been proved?
Mathematical statements, truth values etc exist only in minds. If and
only if you "believe in" the statement, then the truth value follows.
Of course, like all other intentional phenomena, mathematical statements
can be divided into those that accord with reality and those that don't,
but that doesn't make them any less mental.
--
Robin Faichney
alt.m: "Memes do not exist. Tell everyone you know."
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> Why do you say that? I never saw Penrose as an idealist.
>> >>
>> > Nobody who makes money from bog roll could be called an idealist,
> no!
>>
>> > I was joking, Penrose had the idea that microtubules (part of the
>> > structure of cell walls) were responsible, when found in the human
>> > brain, for consciousness - an attempt to introduce souls through a
> most
>> > peculiar and unlikely avenue.
>>
>> I'm familiar -- vaguely, anyway -- with Penrose's view, and it seems
>> rather a stretch to characterise it as "an attempt to introduce
> souls".
>> Even allowing that, though, that would make him a dualist, rather than
>> an idealist. I never got the slightest impression that he doubted the
>> objective existence of matter.
>>
> Many mathematicians are platonists.
So you think platonists are idealists?
<snip>
> The bog roll comes from Penrose tiling. Penrose patented some of his
> tesselations in the plane and, when he found them printed on his bog
> roll he sued. They were so printed as using them kept a uniform tension
> in the paper preventing costly tearings during manufacture. He won and
> got the money. Good luck to him, I say. However, it is an amusing place
> for a mathematician to make money and gives some insight into his charac
> ter. Look at is as an antidote to arguments from authority.
His action there could easily be viewed as extremely sensible. It seems
sillier to me to forgo a legitimate source of income merely because of
such a scatological taint. Is no one who invests or works in bog roll
production to be taken seriously?
> If you read 'The Emperor's New Mind' where he first exposes his theory
> about consciousness, you can see the flaws in his microtubule idea quite
> easily - he doesn't even try to address the question that they are found
> in all sorts of creatures of all sorts of size, and that human brains
> vary considerably in size and geometry, even between the sexes, at both
> a gross and a microscopic scale - facts that would make his idea quite
> unworkable that he choses simply to leave unaddressed.
I did read it, when it first came out, and I think some of these factors,
perhaps all of them, are not in fact significant. However, I am not
currently in a position to pursue this.
--
"The concept of information is the key that decodes mind, matter,
meaning, consciousness..."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in
>> > 'The Meme Machine' is an
>> > interesting take on the subject.
>>
>> Indeed. I first came across her (ahem) on a radio show in which she
>> debated with Stephen Jay Gould, an arch-anti-memeticist. Fascinating!
>>
> Poor Stephen seems to have chosen the role of skilled grasper of the
> wrong end of the stick for himself - and stuck to it.
Could be.
>> My only problem with Susan Blackmore is wondering what she sees in
> that Adam
>> Hart Davis!
>>
> You've lost me there.
He's her husband, and a pop science TV presenter.
> I thought that the main problem was that Susan took the thesis a little
> far - understandable at such an early stage in the subject's life
> (memetics, I mean, not Susan), but dangerous to credibility.
I agree it was perhaps indiscreet of her to put the more farout ideas
in that book, but I have to say, I find them very appealing.
--
"A prime source of meta-memes" -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
Peter H.M. Brooks
Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in
>
little
> > far - understandable at such an early stage in the subject's life
> > (memetics, I mean, not Susan), but dangerous to credibility.
>
> I agree it was perhaps indiscreet of her to put the more farout ideas
> in that book, but I have to say, I find them very appealing.
>
memetics are yet to be defined. There is a newsgroup (alt.memtics, I
think) but it rather fizzled out.
I think that, if there were some definitions agreed upon, and some
agreed rules of memetic operation, then it would be easier to
distinguish flights of fancy that had some possible foundation in fact
from those that didn't.
Des
"Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Matter stuff just is,
>
> > This sounds rather tautological - is there nothing more that you can say
> > about matter stuff to distinguish it from mental and mathematical stuff.
>
> That's certainly the main, perhaps the only difference. As Brentano
> said, intentionality is the mark of the mental. Rocks and puddles aren't
> about anything, they just exist "for their own sake", while thoughts,
> feelings, hopes, desires, are all about things. (And "thoughts" includes
> mathematical concepts.)
I'm afraid I can't agree with this.
The state of being (whether for a material, mental or mathematical object)
is every bit as subjective as the state of being-about.
If there is a distinguishing feature of the mental it is that it represents
the very essence of our existence. Iow, the experience of our existence.
Since it is impossible to make any objective distinction between
mathematical and material objects I prefer to keep them at the same level of
existence in their respective realms.
>
> > > while mental stuff is *about* stuff.
>
> > So as well as being it is also being about - does this make it more real
> > than matter stuff which just is?
> > After all mental stuff can also be about stuff that isn't.
>
> I don't see why that should make it either more or less real.
There are no such things as imaginary thoughts whereas it is not clear
whether there are such things as purely imaginary material objects.
Therefore a thought can only be real whereas the subject of that thought may
not be.
>
> >> Mathematical stuff is a subset of mental stuff.
Only in the same sense that material objects are.
<snip>
> > Would this mean that the truth value of a mathematical statement only
exists
> > once it has been proved?
>
> Mathematical statements, truth values etc exist only in minds. If and
> only if you "believe in" the statement, then the truth value follows.
But I could set up a mindless computer to evaluate the truth value of the
statement "n==prime" (where n is some large integer) and perform some action
which depends on the value of that statement. I may have no idea at all of
the value of this statement but this will not influence the action
performed. So in what sense does the truth value only exist in my mind?
Note that the computer's action could also be predicated on the existence of
some physical object - which supports the assertion that mathematical and
material objects are equally real and in some sense analogous.
<snip>
Des
kames.smiths
How does forced compliance square with your anarchism? I think it
would be difficult to draw the line anywhere, if you started forcing
women to have abortions. Some would be conscientious objectors. Some
would avoid having any medical tests if they could. Even if you could
identify potential "psychopaths" soon after conception with one
hundred percent accuracy and abort them, you would still have to worry
about immigration!
Dave Smith
Robin Faichney
> Robin Faichney <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in
>>
>> > I thought that the main problem was that Susan took the thesis a
> little
>> > far - understandable at such an early stage in the subject's life
>> > (memetics, I mean, not Susan), but dangerous to credibility.
>>
>> I agree it was perhaps indiscreet of her to put the more farout ideas
>> in that book, but I have to say, I find them very appealing.
>>
> I found them fascinating. It is true, though, that the fundamentals of
> memetics are yet to be defined. There is a newsgroup (alt.memtics, I
> think) but it rather fizzled out.
alt.memetics is not very much less busy than this group, I'd say, but
much of its traffic is well off-topic. The memetics mailing list is
better, though that's not saying much. See http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/
> I think that, if there were some definitions agreed upon, and some
> agreed rules of memetic operation, then it would be easier to
> distinguish flights of fancy that had some possible foundation in fact
> from those that didn't.
I try to clarify the basics of memetics at http://www.ii01.org/culture.html
--
"The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter."
Robin Faichney -- inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
Robin Faichney
> "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ksr31a...@linuxsys.ii01.org...
>> Des <DesGr...@removebtclick.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Robin Faichney" <ro...@ii01.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> Matter stuff just is,
>>
>> > This sounds rather tautological - is there nothing more that you can say
>> > about matter stuff to distinguish it from mental and mathematical stuff.
>>
>> That's certainly the main, perhaps the only difference. As Brentano
>> said, intentionality is the mark of the mental. Rocks and puddles aren't
>> about anything, they just exist "for their own sake", while thoughts,
>> feelings, hopes, desires, are all about things. (And "thoughts" includes
>> mathematical concepts.)
> I'm afraid I can't agree with this.
> The state of being (whether for a material, mental or mathematical object)
> is every bit as subjective as the state of being-about.
Things like rocks are generally considered to be objective phenomena.
Do you disagree with that?
> If there is a distinguishing feature of the mental it is that it represents
> the very essence of our existence. Iow, the experience of our existence.
Are you sure it isn't the existence of our experience?
> Since it is impossible to make any objective distinction between
> mathematical and material objects I prefer to keep them at the same level of
> existence in their respective realms.
What's a "level of existence"?
>> > > while mental stuff is *about* stuff.
>>
>> > So as well as being it is also being about - does this make it more real
>> > than matter stuff which just is?
>> > After all mental stuff can also be about stuff that isn't.
>>
>> I don't see why that should make it either more or less real.
> There are no such things as imaginary thoughts whereas it is not clear
> whether there are such things as purely imaginary material objects.
> Therefore a thought can only be real whereas the subject of that thought may
> not be.
I'm writing a novel. The hero thinks this sort of stuff is meaningless
crap. Isn't that an imaginary thought?
>> >> Mathematical stuff is a subset of mental stuff.
> Only in the same sense that material objects are.
I suppose you think the reason things maintain their consistency even
while unperceived by any human is that they continue to exist in the
mind of God?
>> > Would this mean that the truth value of a mathematical statement only
> exists
>> > once it has been proved?
>>
>> Mathematical statements, truth values etc exist only in minds. If and
>> only if you "believe in" the statement, then the truth value follows.
> But I could set up a mindless computer to evaluate the truth value of the
> statement "n==prime" (where n is some large integer) and perform some action
> which depends on the value of that statement. I may have no idea at all of
> the value of this statement but this will not influence the action
> performed. So in what sense does the truth value only exist in my mind?
You said it yourself: the computer is mindless. Whatever it's doing is
meaningless unless and until someone projects meaning upon it.
> Note that the computer's action could also be predicated on the existence of
> some physical object - which supports the assertion that mathematical and
> material objects are equally real and in some sense analogous.
The computer's action is intrinsically meaningless in either case.
And I never suggested that material and mental objects are not equally
real. (Not that "real" means much in such an airy-fairy context.)
Philip Preston
>
>Well, medical ethics would suggest that, if you are attacking a
>pandemic, or even a serious endemic disease, then, as with quarantine,
>individual objections don't carry any weight.
But you made it clear that this genetic cleansing was to be carried out for
political, not medical, reasons.
> Besides, isn't it likely
>that, if it is a genetic condition, then one or both parents may be
>psychopaths - incapable of love, and hence bad parents likely to
>brutalise their child, compounding the problem.
What do you think should be done about the non-psychopathic children of
psychopaths?
Regards,
Philip.