A situation on identity. [Archive]

Yahweh

27th June 2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Here is the situation...:

A man, who is not insane but nevertheless bloodthirsty and cruel, goes on a killing rampage, murdering thousands. He eventually suffers an accident and is inflicted with amnesia, wiping out his memory.

Time goes on, and he develops as if he never was a crazed killer. But the memories of what he once did come back.

Should he turn himself in to be punished by the law? Would that be the more ethical thing to do? Or is he not responsible?

I have my own answer, however I want to read others' replies first.
Did you get the inspiration for this question from what I believe was a 1985 case where a man went on a spree of burning down "black people" churches. In the final church burning something exploded, something heavy hit him in the head and knocked him unconscious. The guy sat in the hospital for several days suffering from severe amnesia only to be later arrested for serial arson. I saw that case on Unsolved Mysteries.

Personally, I believe in both cases described, the person who suffered the amnesia is not responsible... it took me several minutes to arrive at that conclusion. Yes, I'm sure anyone can say that but I would guess it takes a fair amount of evidence to prove whether the person truely suffered from amnesia. It is like being born again.

To be punished for a crime that you honestly have no memory of is no different than jailing an innocent man. Almost like punishing someone for crimes commited in a past life. It is not however the same as becoming intoxicated, because while intoxicated you have 2 options: 1. You make conscious decisions and are still held accountable for actions. 2 Youre quietly passed out on the floor.

In actuality, amnesia makes the perfect rehabilitation. Imagine how different the world would be if we could make dangerous people complete forget everything, and become functioning non-threatening members of society. The only fault comes when the memories return.

BobK

27th June 2003, 01:52 AM

Welcome back Lord Kenneth (great new nic!)

I think approximately same situation could develop without amnesia. Like getting stranded on a desert island for an extended period of time.

I could see this person reflecting on past actions and coming to the conclusion that the death and destruction they imposed on others was simply impulse, of no real benefit to themselves and detrimental to the people they inflicted themselves on.

As to the punishment part of the equation, it seems to me that punishment is an inducement not to repeat the action. Sort of like a young child touching a hot electric stove. They quickly learn not to repeat the mistake.

The important part is to learn what you can about your surroundings. You can learn by making mistakes(sometimes quite painfully) or you can learn by observation and/or reason. The main point being to get through life as smoothly and enjoyably as possible.

If I was this hypothetical person, I would not offer myself up to punishment by society. I may have to live with my past, but that is something we all have to live with, and no amount of punishment is going to change that.

Once a person has reasonable control of their emotions and feels they have learned, past misdeeds slowly fade into the back of their mind and only occasionally come to the surface. Carrying around a load of guilt about your past is simply nonproductive, although for minor misdeeds, offering an apology might ease pangs of conscience faster.

Emotional control is something that can be quite hard to learn and no one ever gets it totally right.:)

BobM

27th June 2003, 07:13 AM

But in the end, if you don't believe in souls and that stuff, he is not the same person, and it would be asking a lot for him to be punished for something he didn't do.

From a legal standpoint, he is indeed the same person.

Should he turn himself in? That's up to him. I wouldn't turn myself in.

If you knew him, and you found this out, should you turn him? I think so. Purely biologically, he's the same person. He may not feel like going on a killing spree just this instant, but how do you know that whatever set him off before won't set him off again?

Soubrette

27th June 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by BobM

From a legal standpoint, he is indeed the same person.

Should he turn himself in? That's up to him. I wouldn't turn myself in.

If you knew him, and you found this out, should you turn him? I think so. Purely biologically, he's the same person. He may not feel like going on a killing spree just this instant, but how do you know that whatever set him off before won't set him off again?

Would you turn yourself in if you had never had the memory wiped Bob :) ?

And I agree with you - you are more than the sum of your memories. You would have to know what caused the killing spree in the first place and if for example it has a physiological (and some people argue all mental and emotional responses are physiological in nature) basis like hard to control temper due to excess testosterone, psychopathy (where people with this have abnormal brain patterns) etc then merely wiping a person's memory may not effect these "brain behaviours" so much.

Sou

Dancing David

27th June 2003, 07:29 AM

There is a lot to think about here.

This gets stright to the illusiory nature of 'self'.

But legaly, he is in the body that commited the crime, so he is guilty. If he should turn himself in or not is a great debate.

This gets striaght to the standard of care issue as well. If someone suffers from alcoholic seizures or blackouts , are they culpable for the crimes they commit while intoxicated? They are yes, because they did not exercise the care to not become drunk.

If I was that person, I don't know what I would do, are they going to kill thousands of people again.

The point to punishment is remove the potential for future harm from society.

UnrepentantSinner

27th June 2003, 07:30 AM

Answer - You should be locked away in a Lunatic Asylum and Prison for the Criminally Insane before you have a chance to act this fantasy out.

I'm sorry all, but I don't see a change yet... call me skeptical. :(

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by BobM

If you knew him, and you found this out, should you turn him? I think so. Purely biologically, he's the same person. He may not feel like going on a killing spree just this instant, but how do you know that whatever set him off before won't set him off again?

Environment is just as much a factor as genes.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 07:44 AM

This situation has nothing to do with me.

The problem with some of these replies is that some people instantly assume that because he is a mass serial killer, he is insane. You don't have to be insane to kill people-- in fact, I'm sure most murderers are not insane.

BobK

27th June 2003, 08:38 AM

Should he turn himself in to be punished by the law? Would that be the more ethical thing to do? Or is he not responsible?

Should not turn himself in.

No ethics involved unless someone else is being punished for his deeds.

He is responsible, but that's purely academic if no one knows but him.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 10:19 AM

Let's modify it a bit.

Now, let's use the exact same situation.. but through the eyes of a third party.

Would YOU turn him in? Providing you yourself would not directly benefit (no reward or anything).

AmateurScientist

27th June 2003, 10:44 AM

Lord Kenneth (DC, whatever),

It's a great question. Besides going to the issue of identity, it speaks to the issue of the purpose of criminal justice.

There are differing schools of thought for the justification for punishment. Some believe it to be for deterrence, whether it is general or specific. Others believe punishment is rightfully meted out as retribution.

Under the retribution model, I suppose one might conclude that the victims and society and justice demand that the perpetrator of the crimes pay for it. Thus, turning the guy in might be seen as justified. On the other hand, even under the retribution model, if one does not regard the guy as the same person, then it's not fair to make the newfound identity pay for someone else's crimes.

Under a deterrence model, it depends on whether you favor general or specific deterrence.

If general deterrence is the goal (deterring others from committing similar crimes) I can understand a justification for turning the guy in. If you punish him, you are deterring others from committing murder. This is so even if one regards him as a different person. Not punishing him might encourage others to fake an amnesia defense. As a society, we cannot allow that.

Under specific deterrence, I suppose it depends on what motivated him to kill in the first place. As Sou points out, we are most likely more than just the sum of our memories. Therefore, just because the guy doesn't remember the crimes doesn't mean he isn't predisposed to commit them again. Under your facts, you have it as given that the guy is a serial murderer. Thus, one can conclude that some anti-social pathology likely led to his killing repeatedly. It cannot be ascribed simply to an instance of a crime of passion or opportunity.

Under specific deterrence, I suppose one might turn the guy in. I can also hypothesize rationales for not turning him in under specific deterrence, depending on how truly changed the guy is.

AS

slimshady2357

27th June 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
This situation has nothing to do with me.

The problem with some of these replies is that some people instantly assume that because he is a mass serial killer, he is insane. You don't have to be insane to kill people-- in fact, I'm sure most murderers are not insane.

First of all, you yourself called him a 'crazed killer' in your first post :rolleyes:

Second of all, he went on a 'rampage, murdering thousands'

Given the information present we can only assume he was insane at the time, by any reasonable definition of insane.

And I agree, you don't have to be insane to kill people, it can happen for all kinds of reasons. But you do have to be insane to kill thousands of people on a 'killing rampage' in a 'crazed state'.
Unless of course, this guy was in some war, in which case the details would have been nice.

I wouldn't turn myself in, not unless I felt I was not totally in control of my own actions. And I don't know if I would turn someone else in..... depends on what he is like now, but I would probably rather be safe then sorry and let the courts decide whether he should be punished.

Adam

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 11:07 AM

Now for my answer.

If materialism is true, then only matter creates conciousness(or more accurately forms conciousness as a process of matter).

Now, what seperates a person from being another person? Different particles, yes, and the body's entire configuration of them.

Every nanosecond (and of course even before that) we change, even slightly, as our molecules and such change and shift. What we usually define as the same person is actually a different person, who is the same except with a few miniscule differences.

Such is why you are a different person than the one you were yesterday, an hour ago, or even a minute ago. The exact amount of chemicals in your body and variations of them are different-- this isn't dualism, where the mind and body are seperate, but materialism, where we are the process of matter and energy, physical processes.

You will always share the same genes, of course, with your past and future selves. This does not, however, account for environment, which forms who we are as well.

It is hard to explain, so I hope nobody understand what I was saying or trying to express...

Our memories tell us what we did in the past and our current mindset and base personality interacts with it to basically make up our entire personality and ideas. The man in the example's personality has changed as a result of the loss of his memories, and he has developed with making new ones, so my verdict is the man is a new person and should not be punished for what a man who is no longer existing (and is no longer similar to) did.

Here's an extention:

Now, the man who killed all those people is dead, but an mad scientist re-creates him with all his past murderous memories... what he was like before he got knocked out and had amnesia. He may or may not get the memories the guy had after he got amnesia, but it doesn't matter, the doctor creates the man to have the same personality he had when he was killing people.

But, this is not the same man, the same particles are not making him up, only different ones, a copy of it. So one can say that he did not kill all those people, that this new man is just a clone with the memories implanted.

Should this new man be jailed? Punished?

Basically, while it may be different particles and slightly different atomic and chemical configurations in the body, people define who one is in a more general and not exact sense.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by slimshady2357

First of all, you yourself called him a 'crazed killer' in your first post :rolleyes:

Second of all, he went on a 'rampage, murdering thousands'

Given the information present we can only assume he was insane at the time, by any reasonable definition of insane.

And I agree, you don't have to be insane to kill people, it can happen for all kinds of reasons. But you do have to be insane to kill thousands of people on a 'killing rampage' in a 'crazed state'.
Unless of course, this guy was in some war, in which case the details would have been nice.

I wouldn't turn myself in, not unless I felt I was not totally in control of my own actions. And I don't know if I would turn someone else in..... depends on what he is like now, but I would probably rather be safe then sorry and let the courts decide whether he should be punished.

Adam

Oops, I did make mistakes, although I did first specify he was not insane.

He could have killed them for any reason... not liking their personalities, their political alliegence...

BobK

27th June 2003, 03:00 PM

This is not really a very logical scenario but I'll give it a try using the assumption that I was the only witness to the atrocities.

If I know what this person has done in the past, and I can satisfy myself 100% that this person will never have a negative impact on my existence I would not turn him in.

The problem with meeting this standard is that there is no known way I can achieve anywhere near this level of certainty.

This leaves me with only two possible choices I am aware of.

1) Turn him in and hope he never escapes or is released back into society.
I've got a problem with this one because the assumption is that I'm the only one aware the atrocities. Therefore I would have to testify and that means his word against mine. Might not convict even with other circumstantial evidence. This would put me in serious jeopardy. I think I'll pass on that one. To iffy.

2) Find the means and opportunity to take him out myself. Some serious planning will be necessary to ensure success and avoid prosecution. Rather unpalatable, but that seems like the way to go.

Just thought of one more choice that might be used by some others.

Do nothing and hope for the best.

Soubrette

28th June 2003, 01:01 AM

All quotes in bold originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Now for my answer.

If materialism is true, then only matter creates conciousness(or more accurately forms conciousness as a process of matter).

So you're asking this question using the assumption that materialism is true? In my opinion the guy should be turned in for definite then :)

Now, what seperates a person from being another person? Different particles, yes, and the body's entire configuration of them.

If "entire configuration of them" also involves the occupation of a different space at the same time then I agree totally with this. I think this is a very important separation:p

Every nanosecond (and of course even before that) we change, even slightly, as our molecules and such change and shift. What we usually define as the same person is actually a different person, who is the same except with a few miniscule differences.

Indeed but each different particle is miniscule and so similar as to be undiscernable. If I took 10 red bricks from house and replaced them with 10 other red bricks is my house a different house?

What I'm trying to say here is that I think your definition of a different person is stretching it a little. If I cut my fingernails or my hair I've lost a fair bit of particles there - lost it - not replaced it, but am I a different person?

Such is why you are a different person than the one you were yesterday, an hour ago, or even a minute ago. The exact amount of chemicals in your body and variations of them are different-- this isn't dualism, where the mind and body are seperate, but materialism, where we are the process of matter and energy, physical processes.

But the exact amount are so negligibly different that it makes in effect no difference. If I put a molecule of orange juice into my pint of water - I still have water.

You will always share the same genes, of course, with your past and future selves. This does not, however, account for environment, which forms who we are as well.

Although there is more and more research that shows us that genetic factors are maybe more important than we'd previously thought. Adopted people often share things like mental characteristics, preferences and body shape with their birth families. I watched a programme once about it (that's as good a cite as you get from me ;)) Two twin girls were brought up by two different families - one in a "health conscious" gym orientated family. The other in a more relaxed McDonalds type family. They both weighed within a couple of pounds of each other. Although in my opinion the health conscious one looked slightly better toned.

So it doesn't look like the influences are 50% genetic and 50% environment.

It is hard to explain, so I hope nobody understand what I was saying or trying to express...

I hope that's not precisely what you meant to say here :eek:

Our memories tell us what we did in the past and our current mindset and base personality interacts with it to basically make up our entire personality and ideas. The man in the example's personality has changed as a result of the loss of his memories, and he has developed with making new ones, so my verdict is the man is a new person and should not be punished for what a man who is no longer existing (and is no longer similar to) did.

We are a tabula rasa? Current thinking does not support that idea. We are hard wired for language, possibly religion and certain views of the world. We are influenced by our chemical make up. It's not your memories that make a person prone to depression, it's the chemical make up in your brain.

Here's an extention:

Now, the man who killed all those people is dead, but an mad scientist re-creates him with all his past murderous memories... what he was like before he got knocked out and had amnesia. He may or may not get the memories the guy had after he got amnesia, but it doesn't matter, the doctor creates the man to have the same personality he had when he was killing people.

But, this is not the same man, the same particles are not making him up, only different ones, a copy of it. So one can say that he did not kill all those people, that this new man is just a clone with the memories implanted.

Should this new man be jailed? Punished?

So the crux of your argument is basically because this man is made up of different atoms than the original man - he is not the same man. Even though he will feel he is the same man and indeed like you say - we are slightly different from nanosecond to nanosecond and ever onward.

I feel your argument carries a big problem - if you feel that the man should not be punished then you have to explain why the original man (under your argument that we are the same but different on a moment to moment basis) should be punished for his crimes - or indeed why anyone should be punished for their crimes.

To me - if you believe in materialism then the man's consciousness is recreated, in effect "he" is recreated as a materialist should feel there is nothing special about consciousness - thus he should be punished. If you feel it is a different "he" then you would have to explain why.

Basically, while it may be different particles and slightly different atomic and chemical configurations in the body, people define who one is in a more general and not exact sense.

That's because we know we are a continuous person, I'm guessing we assume that others too have that sense of self because we do - then we go to university and start contemplating our navels :p.

It's nothing to do with defining people in a general and inexact sense and all to do with the first person evidence that we have of ourselves - in my opinion.

Sou
(Edited for emphasis)

Lord Kenneth

28th June 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette
All quotes in bold originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Now for my answer.

If materialism is true, then only matter creates conciousness(or more accurately forms conciousness as a process of matter).

So you're asking this question using the assumption that materialism is true? In my opinion the guy should be turned in for definite then :)

No, my answer, not the question.

Now, what seperates a person from being another person? Different particles, yes, and the body's entire configuration of them.

If "entire configuration of them" also involves the occupation of a different space at the same time then I agree totally with this. I think this is a very important separation:p

That's a given, because I already mentioned theyare different atoms.

Every nanosecond (and of course even before that) we change, even slightly, as our molecules and such change and shift. What we usually define as the same person is actually a different person, who is the same except with a few miniscule differences.

Indeed but each different particle is miniscule and so similar as to be undiscernable. If I took 10 red bricks from house and replaced them with 10 other red bricks is my house a different house?

Yes, but as is with people, the difference is miniscule. Your house, afterall, has changed.

What I'm trying to say here is that I think your definition of a different person is stretching it a little. If I cut my fingernails or my hair I've lost a fair bit of particles there - lost it - not replaced it, but am I a different person?

You are a different person, in body, maybe not brain (disregarding changes in brain independent from losing hair or fingernails).

These differences, however, are so small they are negligible.

Such is why you are a different person than the one you were yesterday, an hour ago, or even a minute ago. The exact amount of chemicals in your body and variations of them are different-- this isn't dualism, where the mind and body are seperate, but materialism, where we are the process of matter and energy, physical processes.

But the exact amount are so negligibly different that it makes in effect no difference. If I put a molecule of orange juice into my pint of water - I still have water.

You have a glass of water with a "molecule of orange juice".

There is a difference, but it is so small that we cannot detect it. Just because it is so small, however, doesn't make it the same.

You will always share the same genes, of course, with your past and future selves. This does not, however, account for environment, which forms who we are as well.

Although there is more and more research that shows us that genetic factors are maybe more important than we'd previously thought. Adopted people often share things like mental characteristics, preferences and body shape with their birth families. I watched a programme once about it (that's as good a cite as you get from me ;)) Two twin girls were brought up by two different families - one in a "health conscious" gym orientated family. The other in a more relaxed McDonalds type family. They both weighed within a couple of pounds of each other. Although in my opinion the health conscious one looked slightly better toned.

So it doesn't look like the influences are 50% genetic and 50% environment.

I don't know, but environment certainly is more of a factor in shaping personality and such than it is in shaping the body...

It is hard to explain, so I hope nobody understand what I was saying or trying to express...

I hope that's not precisely what you meant to say here :eek:

Oops.

Our memories tell us what we did in the past and our current mindset and base personality interacts with it to basically make up our entire personality and ideas. The man in the example's personality has changed as a result of the loss of his memories, and he has developed with making new ones, so my verdict is the man is a new person and should not be punished for what a man who is no longer existing (and is no longer similar to) did.

We are a tabula rasa? Current thinking does not support that idea. We are hard wired for language, possibly religion and certain views of the world. We are influenced by our chemical make up. It's not your memories that make a person prone to depression, it's the chemical make up in your brain.

I never said it wasn't.

However, our memories help us shape our personalities. If you hate someone, you aren't going to hang around them. If you have bad experiences with a certain group of people, you most likely aren't going to be like them. How you are raised is a large factor in how you act. This does work together with genetics, though.

Here's an extention:

Now, the man who killed all those people is dead, but an mad scientist re-creates him with all his past murderous memories... what he was like before he got knocked out and had amnesia. He may or may not get the memories the guy had after he got amnesia, but it doesn't matter, the doctor creates the man to have the same personality he had when he was killing people.

But, this is not the same man, the same particles are not making him up, only different ones, a copy of it. So one can say that he did not kill all those people, that this new man is just a clone with the memories implanted.

Should this new man be jailed? Punished?

So the crux of your argument is basically because this man is made up of different atoms than the original man - he is not the same man. Even though he will feel he is the same man and indeed like you say - we are slightly different from nanosecond to nanosecond and ever onward.

Not because he is made of different atoms, but because his entire body is not in the same atomic configuration. He may be similar enough to be considered by our standards to be the same man, but truthfully he really isn't.

You keep on implying dualism in your arguments... conciousness is a product of brain activity, whether you know it or not, you seem to be implying that who we are is independent of that.

I feel your argument carries a big problem - if you feel that the man should not be punished then you have to explain why the original man (under your argument that we are the same but different on a moment to moment basis) should be punished for his crimes - or indeed why anyone should be punished for their crimes.

To me - if you believe in materialism then the man's consciousness is recreated, in effect "he" is recreated as a materialist should feel there is nothing special about consciousness - thus he should be punished. If you feel it is a different "he" then you would have to explain why.

Me: Man with amnesia should not go to jail, he has developed anew under different circumstances learning things again for the very first time.

Recreated man, however, is similar enough by our standards to be jailed for the crime.

Basically, while it may be different particles and slightly different atomic and chemical configurations in the body, people define who one is in a more general and not exact sense.

That's because we know we are a continuous person, I'm guessing we assume that others too have that sense of self because we do - then we go to university and start contemplating our navels :p.

It's nothing to do with defining people in a general and inexact sense and all to do with the first person evidence that we have of ourselves - in my opinion.

It doesn't matter if we "know" we are the same person. Also, it doesn't matter if a person's existence is continuous or not.
[/QUOTE]

Soubrette

29th June 2003, 07:16 AM

LC

One quick point - it is you that seems to be espousing some kind of dualism. It is you that seems to be saying that memory or consciousness is something special to a specific individual so much so that even an exact copy of that individual is different.

I am merely taking the Material pov that consciousness is nothing special - if you recreate me - you recreate my exact same consciousness thus to all intents and purposes you have two mes.

Both cupable because both are me.

Sou

Drifterman

29th June 2003, 08:15 AM

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

But, to alter the situation somewhat:

Imagine that an individual rationally decides to commit a series of murders (the reasons for their doing so are irrelevent).

These murders are carried out with the prior knowledge that, once these murders have been accomplished, this individual will voluntarily undergo a process whereby the memories of the murderous acts are erased, knowing that the justice system in their society will regard the post erasure individual as separate from the murderer.

Has the murderous individual found a way to get away with murder?

Or has the murderer committed the crime and then punished themself?

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette
LC

One quick point - it is you that seems to be espousing some kind of dualism. It is you that seems to be saying that memory or consciousness is something special to a specific individual so much so that even an exact copy of that individual is different.

I am merely taking the Material pov that consciousness is nothing special - if you recreate me - you recreate my exact same consciousness thus to all intents and purposes you have two mes.

Both cupable because both are me.

Sou

I have said nothing of the sort.

If a person's body is even different so that only one atom in the body is slightly "out of place", you can consider them different people.

However, both are similar enough to consider them the same person-- the difference is negligible (and the difference in atom can only be in their non-brain body, as well).

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Drifterman
Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

But, to alter the situation somewhat:

Imagine that an individual rationally decides to commit a series of murders (the reasons for their doing so are irrelevent).

These murders are carried out with the prior knowledge that, once these murders have been accomplished, this individual will voluntarily undergo a process whereby the memories of the murderous acts are erased, knowing that the justice system in their society will regard the post erasure individual as separate from the murderer.

Has the murderous individual found a way to get away with murder?

Or has the murderer committed the crime and then punished themself?

The murderer has commited the crime and then changed who he is... so the actual personality that killed the people no longer exists.

ImpyTimpy

29th June 2003, 07:44 PM

I have to agree with Sou here. What we're basically heading down into is a fallacy of composition (or the Franko fallacy). Just because we have changed one or two parts of a larger system, we have not altered the system as a whole.

In terms of a human body, the whole is in fact a seperate entity from the systems that it is made up of.

Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I have said nothing of the sort.

If a person's body is even different so that only one atom in the body is slightly "out of place", you can consider them different people.

However, both are similar enough to consider them the same person-- the difference is negligible (and the difference in atom can only be in their non-brain body, as well).

SquishyDave

29th June 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.
He is only evil by your definition of evil. Evil is a moral term, and so is relative.

Anyway, if you delete his entire memory, how is he the same person? He may have decided to murder all those people because he was abused as a child, perhaps sold off as a child sex slave, but upon all his memories being deleted, there is no longer a cause for his murders, no longer a memory of them, and so no more future murders, as he is now a well adjusted person who has no huge emotional baggage. What set them off literally does not exist any more. (the side issue is whether if he gets his memory back he becomes a killer again. but I'm assuming he doesn't get his memories back in a meaningful way)

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I have to agree with Sou here. What we're basically heading down into is a fallacy of composition (or the Franko fallacy). Just because we have changed one or two parts of a larger system, we have not altered the system as a whole.

No such fallacy was made.

I was not indicating merely someone's brain or personality, but their entire body. And if even the structure changes by one atom, both structures (humans and their bodies) are different.

The brain is as much a part of the body as the heart or lungs-- it's just what defines our behavior and personality.

In terms of a human body, the whole is in fact a seperate entity from the systems that it is made up of.

Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

Conciousness is not a by-product of the brain, conciousness is part of the brain's actual functions.

And yes, you are correct on it not altering the end-by product. This is why the difference between both people in my examples is negligible.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.

Ah, ImpyTimpy, never the critical thinker.

If the man's personality has re-formed, he IS NOT THE SAME PERSON as the homicidal man.

The potential may still exist-- it exists in all of us. However, environment is a huge factor in what controls our behavior.

In this situation, the man learns things anew, and he may very well be shocked and horrified about what "he" did in the past.

ImpyTimpy

29th June 2003, 08:29 PM

He is evil because he chose to commit an evil act (perceived evil by others).

Additional factors (such as abuse etc) do not negate the fact he made a concious choice to murder all these people. As was pointed out he was not insane.

This by itself is a very definition of evil.

**EDITED TO ADD**

Sorry, forgot to address your other points :p

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

That'd only hold true if he lived away from other sources of information (society) and only knew how to abuse/hurt others. If that were so he'd classify as insane but as was clearly stated, the man was not insane.

Originally posted by SquishyDave

He is only evil by your definition of evil. Evil is a moral term, and so is relative.

Anyway, if you delete his entire memory, how is he the same person? He may have decided to murder all those people because he was abused as a child, perhaps sold off as a child sex slave, but upon all his memories being deleted, there is no longer a cause for his murders, no longer a memory of them, and so no more future murders, as he is now a well adjusted person who has no huge emotional baggage. What set them off literally does not exist any more. (the side issue is whether if he gets his memory back he becomes a killer again. but I'm assuming he doesn't get his memories back in a meaningful way)

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

ImpyTimpy

29th June 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

No such fallacy was made.

I was not indicating merely someone's brain or personality, but their entire body. And if even the structure changes by one atom, both structures (humans and their bodies) are different.

That's why I mention fallacy of composition. Fallacy of composition means that what holds for individual parts of a system must hold for the entire system. In the same sense, saying that because we altered one area of the system, the entire system is altered is heading into fallacy of composition see?

The brain is as much a part of the body as the heart or lungs-- it's just what defines our behavior and personality.

Exactly, but they are just parts of the system.

Conciousness is not a by-product of the brain, conciousness is part of the brain's actual functions.

I disagree, I would say conciousness arises from brain activity. There was a very interesting discussion on blind sight somewhere on these boards which essentially shows us conciousness is a seperate entity to the brain (it arises from the brain chemistry/is a by-product of brain).

And yes, you are correct on it not altering the end-by product. This is why the difference between both people in my examples is negligible.

Take someone who's had a heart-transplant. They are the same person - their conciousness is the by product of the end system, not individual parts of the system.

They are exactly the same person if we remove any new memories acquired during the heart-transplant process.

Ah, ImpyTimpy, never the critical thinker.

If the man's personality has re-formed, he IS NOT THE SAME PERSON as the homicidal man.

I disagree here and I fail to see how it relates to my critical thinking skills...

To me since the man made a concious choice to be evil, he is still an evil person, since something fundamental about this person causes him to be evil (genetics, who knows...).

The potential may still exist-- it exists in all of us. However, environment is a huge factor in what controls our behavior.

Sorry, but can you provide evidence that environment is a huge factor in our behaviour?

Last time I checked, this was a highly debated issue.

In this situation, the man learns things anew, and he may very well be shocked and horrified about what "he" did in the past.
That may be, but he made a concious decision to be evil. This suggests a fundamental flaw in the person's nature.

American

29th June 2003, 08:50 PM

It's not about turning himself in or not. It's about society dealing with the problem of citizens killing each other. I'm sure a court would take his condition in to consideration once they catch him.

Should he speed it up by turning himself in? It's in his interest. We all make sure of that.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

That's why I mention fallacy of composition. Fallacy of composition means that what holds for individual parts of a system must hold for the entire system. In the same sense, saying that because we altered one area of the system, the entire system is altered is heading into fallacy of composition see?

We are not talking about a or the product of a system, but the entire system itself.

If a part of a system has been altered, then the system has been altered. If you alter the foot, it doesn't mean the heart is altered, but it does mean the body is altered.

Sorry, but can you provide evidence that environment is a huge factor in our behaviour?

Last time I checked, this was a highly debated issue.

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

That may be, but he made a concious decision to be evil. This suggests a fundamental flaw in the person's nature. [/B]

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

If a person is racist, then suffers this same fantasy amnesia and grows up with a black family, do you think he will be racist if his memory comes back or will he regret "his" past?

scribble

30th June 2003, 11:47 AM

For sucha basic philosophy question, this thread has spawned many interesting replies. I particularly enjoy BobK's first post and his musing on the necessity of guilt.

My personal take on the situation is he should still be punished for the actions he took.

I do not believe having been 'out of your mind' at the time of a murder or other crime should be a valid defense against punishment, although in this country (USA) it often is. If someone gets drunk and kills another, they are still culpable for the killing. If someone eats too many twinkies and goes off on a mad sugar buzz, they are still culpable for the damage they cause.

If you think this sounds harsh, consider: If he laters recovers his memory, will he also recover the killer's personality with it? Whether he does or not, does this change what makes appropriate sentencing?

-Chris

Ratman_tf

30th June 2003, 02:55 PM

Anyone watch the Babylon 5 episode "Passing Through Gethsemane"?

ImpyTimpy

30th June 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

We are not talking about a or the product of a system, but the entire system itself.

If a part of a system has been altered, then the system has been altered. If you alter the foot, it doesn't mean the heart is altered, but it does mean the body is altered.

Strawman, I'm not claiming not changing a foot will not alter the appearance.

I'm arguing that the by-product of the body/brain system - conciousness - remains the same even if parts of the body are replaced.

Please, try to actually show how removing one or two atoms out of the body will effectively alter the end product (conciousness).

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

Like I said, last time I checked this was a debated issue. You're not providing any evidence to support your position just state the conclusion again to be your evidence.

This is in fact a fallacy. It's called Circulus in demonstrando.

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

This is another fallacy (besides being absurd but I'm going to humour you) called fallacy of undistributed middle.

If a person is racist, then suffers this same fantasy amnesia and grows up with a black family, do you think he will be racist if his memory comes back or will he regret "his" past?
This is a fallacy as well called plurium interrogationum, since you're posing a complex question yet demanding a simple answer.

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

Strawman, I'm not claiming not changing a foot will not alter the appearance.

I'm arguing that the by-product of the body/brain system - conciousness - remains the same even if parts of the body are replaced.

Please, try to actually show how removing one or two atoms out of the body will effectively alter the end product (conciousness).

You apparently didn't read what I wrote, as I was explaining what I meant, not accusing you of arguing anything, because you apparently didn't understand what I meant. I think you simply were trying to tack fallacies on me because I've done it so easily on you in the past.

Like I said, last time I checked this was a debated issue. You're not providing any evidence to support your position just state the conclusion again to be your evidence.

Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

Also, this is a bit off the point, but two cloned cats will not have the same spots. Do you know WHY? I do, but apparently whether cloned cats have the same spots is a "highly debated issue", as you would probably say. :rolleyes:

This is in fact a fallacy. It's called Circulus in demonstrando.

Care to explain? It sure seems to me that how you act is highly influenced by how you grow up, and all you've done is say it's wrong without explaining why, only constantly repeating that "it's a highly debated issue".

This is another fallacy (besides being absurd but I'm going to humour you) called fallacy of undistributed middle.

Again, I see no fallacy. I think you're just... what's the word? Oh, yes, of course... too stupid to even know what you're talking about.

But by all means, go ahead and redeem yourself.

This is a fallacy as well called plurium interrogationum, since you're posing a complex question yet demanding a simple answer.

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

Again, you are grasping for straws. I never demanded a simple answer.

I tried giving you evidence, but all you do is wave it away because it is "highly debated" (debated by no one except you, it seems).

In fact, you haven't even provided evidence yourself that this subject is "highly debated".

ImpyTimpy

30th June 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

You apparently didn't read what I wrote, as I was explaining what I meant, not accusing you of arguing anything, because you apparently didn't understand what I meant. I think you simply were trying to tack fallacies on me because I've done it so easily on you in the past.
Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

When have you tacked fallacies on me in the past?? Evidence?

And again, you're making fallacies a second.. Hasty generalisation this time.

Enough said.

Also, this is a bit off the point, but two cloned cats will not have the same spots. Do you know WHY? I do, but apparently whether cloned cats have the same spots is a "highly debated issue", as you would probably say. :rolleyes:

Strawman, we're not talking cloned cats which are two seperate systems.

Will you provide some actual evidence or are we going to have more words?

Care to explain? It sure seems to me that how you act is highly influenced by how you grow up, and all you've done is say it's wrong without explaining why, only constantly repeating that "it's a highly debated issue".

You're shifting the burden of proof, you made the claim the environment is highly influencial on development and provided a fallacy to justify it, not evidence.

EVIDENCE please.

Again, I see no fallacy. I think you're just... what's the word? Oh, yes, of course... too stupid to even know what you're talking about.

But by all means, go ahead and redeem yourself.

Fallacy of undistributed middle means that you take two points and say they are similar without actually showing how they are similar.

This is precisely what you have done and I simply pointed it out.

Again, you are grasping for straws. I never demanded a simple answer.

You asked whether he will be racist or not.

I tried giving you evidence, but all you do is wave it away because it is "highly debated" (debated by no one except you, it seems).

In fact, you haven't even provided evidence yourself that this subject is "highly debated".
You never provided evidence for your claims. Shifting the burden of proof isn't getting you out of this one.

Will you provide any evidence for your claims? Will you construct a logically valid argument?

Is that crickets I hear chirping?

SquishyDave

30th June 2003, 06:51 PM

Hi Impy Timpy

We disagreed earlier over the relative nature of evil. I think we can drop that though, because we won't convince each other on that point, but I would like to make the case for environment changing behaviour.

Here is a quote from an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48651-2003Jun29.html?nav=hptoc_n)

Researchers in London have shown that cab drivers develop enlarged hippocampuses, the part of the brain that stores spatial memory and holds mental "maps." And others have found that the part of the brain devoted to processing music grows larger in musicians over time -- and does so differently depending on the kind of instrument a person plays. In trumpet players, the neurons that respond to brassy resonances rewire themselves and expand, while the brain region that responds to string sounds expands in string players.

In string players, moreover, the part of the motor cortex that controls the hand that works the fingerboard is enlarged, but not so for the region controlling the hand that does the bowing.

The article is unrelated about how some people have at least twice the underwater visual acuity than enyone thought possible,but it does show how dramatically the brain can be changed by upbringing alone, and even as in the quote, just by what you do every day.

It's not exactly along the same lines, but if children on those islands mentioned in the article can learn to close their pupils 20 percent more than everyone else, they would loose this ability if they had amnesia and then didn't use it for long enough that it left that part of the brain that stores your repetitive task stuff, like driving a car. (can't remember it's name)

This suggests personality can be altered by upbringing too. I don't have any actual links to this topic specifically, but at the very least that article is very interesting and suggestive.

I know I haven't shown evidence for my stance exactly but thanks for your time. :)

ImpyTimpy

30th June 2003, 07:06 PM

Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

:)

Originally posted by SquishyDave
Hi Impy Timpy
We disagreed earlier over the relative nature of evil. I think we can drop that though, because we won't convince each other on that point, but I would like to make the case for environment changing behaviour.

Here is a quote from an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48651-2003Jun29.html?nav=hptoc_n)

The article is unrelated about how some people have at least twice the underwater visual acuity than enyone thought possible,but it does show how dramatically the brain can be changed by upbringing alone, and even as in the quote, just by what you do every day.

It's not exactly along the same lines, but if children on those islands mentioned in the article can learn to close their pupils 20 percent more than everyone else, they would loose this ability if they had amnesia and then didn't use it for long enough that it left that part of the brain that stores your repetitive task stuff, like driving a car. (can't remember it's name)

This suggests personality can be altered by upbringing too. I don't have any actual links to this topic specifically, but at the very least that article is very interesting and suggestive.

I know I haven't shown evidence for my stance exactly but thanks for your time. :)

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

:)

...Your point?

Just because homosexuality may be genetic, doesn't mean a vast, even the majority, of people's personalities are.

I myself am an identical twin, me and my brother has different personalities, with some similarities. Now, how do you explain that?

SquishyDave

30th June 2003, 07:24 PM

Well that's a good point Impy Timpy, and I agree it is only one of many factors, but I would be inclined to think it has an effect on personality. For example, I would suggest two completely different people are raised identically, and badly. One ends up treating their kids in the same bad way, the other takes it on board and resolves to be better than their upbringing and treats their kids better then they were treated. Same upbringing different results. But you get the same two people and raise them extremely well. They both might become good parents.

Is this scenario so unlikely? We can blame the first guy for not rising above his upbringing when others have, but given the good break would he still be a bad parent? I think he wouldn't.

This scenario shows both our points I think, different upbringing brings a different result to the same person (my point), but same upbringing brings different results to different people (your point, I think). I think that is how the rich tapestry upbringing works (at a very simplistic level) and in the end we seem to coming at the same point from different angles.

What do you think Impy? have I misstated your position? If so let me know.

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

:)

c4ts

30th June 2003, 07:40 PM

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Usually amnesia victims are reduced to the mindset of a 3-year-old. He couldn't be held responsible for his actions.

This is a fantasy amnesia. It's a hypothetical situation.

ImpyTimpy

30th June 2003, 08:39 PM

As I already stated, it seems to me personality is a complex issue only partly made up of nurture.

Otherwise you and your identical twin would have quiet the same personalities - you would have both being raised in the same household (same nurture).

Please note I'm not arguing personality traits are purely genetic.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on the evidence of nurture being the single largest contributing factor to personality development.. :D

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

...Your point?

Just because homosexuality may be genetic, doesn't mean a vast, even the majority, of people's personalities are.

I myself am an identical twin, me and my brother has different personalities, with some similarities. Now, how do you explain that?

Fun2BFree

30th June 2003, 10:15 PM

I admit I have not carefully read everybody's posts since they seem to have gone off the deep end on tangents...American hinted at what I believe is the root of the correct answer....The criminal justice system has nothing to do with what the criminal is made up of--whether materialism is true, or the nature or root of evil...it is created by society to satisfy societies desires for safety primarily and some would say retribution or punishment...Deterring future crimes, preventing a criminal from doing more crime and rehabiliting criminals all go towards making society safer....then there is the lust for revcenge element....this murderer will have left behind thousands--THOUSANDS of family members---it is what they and what society in general would want that matters and if the "new minded" guy wants to be a part of society he will seek to satisfy those desires --and I suspect most people would not be satisfied with this guy wandering around loose or satisfied if he was never caught after doing what he did...imagine if the sniper in DC had never been caught but just stopped...you think people would be comforted by that uncertainty???? Definitely not--- the families of the victims and not most of society living at risk wondering if the murderer of thousands might be coming again...so yes I would turn him in and he should turn himself in. Easy...Next question.

Lord Kenneth

1st July 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
As I already stated, it seems to me personality is a complex issue only partly made up of nurture.

Otherwise you and your identical twin would have quiet the same personalities - you would have both being raised in the same household (same nurture).

Please note I'm not arguing personality traits are purely genetic.

If the way me and my twin acted was mostly genetic, ImpyTimpy, then there would be little difference between his and my personalities. We have not led the exact same lives.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on the evidence of nurture being the single largest contributing factor to personality development.. :D

I'm still waiting for you to explain these "fallacies" of mine. Oh, and anything I say you won't be satisfied with, I already gave decent enough of examples.

Dancing David

1st July 2003, 09:50 AM

Wow, there is alot of the underlying message of the buddha here.

There are two seperate issues that need to be decided.
1. Is the murderer likely to murder again?

2. What constitute continuity of the body?

The reason for punishing people is to prevent future crime, in both cases, the original and the simuylacrum, I posit that the basis of punishment would be based on the propensity for future crimes. And on societies need to exact vengance.

On this whole thing of the body changing by obe molecule, it is the meories that establish our identity(note, not the self). So while the physical body of the somalacrum is different the propensity for future crime is high.

So, what if some one has a stroke and forgets that they were a guard at the Nazi death camps, I say kill them

Laws are not about abstract values they are about human values.

ImpyTimpy

2nd July 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

If the way me and my twin acted was mostly genetic, ImpyTimpy, then there would be little difference between his and my personalities. We have not led the exact same lives.

I'm still waiting for you to explain these "fallacies" of mine. Oh, and anything I say you won't be satisfied with, I already gave decent enough of examples.
You're creating nothing more then a red herring... However, I will address your points just so you can go back to showing me evidence... (crickets chirping :p)

Alright, let me repeat what I just said, if both of your personality traits were enviromental you'd both be similar since you're both brought up in the same household. Like you said, you're not, therefore I'm lead to believe there may be other factors for personality development. I do not wish to dwell on this anymore, since you're starting to make a red herring. You made a claim, I want to see proof to back it up - show me some scientific literature that proves environment is the large determining factor of someone's personality.

As to the fallacies, allow me to explain how you make them, it might help you construct valid arguments in the future.

First of all, I ask you to show evidence that environment determined the personality, to which you respond with:

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

I point out this is Circulus in demonstrando... Since you don't know what the means, and yoiu seem to have missed my explanation I'll explain it again - you're altering the conclusion to be the premise and repeating it again.

Next when you say:

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

I pointed out it's a fallacy of undistributed middle and since you don't seem to understand what it means I'll explain it again. You're simply stating two things are similar (the same in fact) without showing how they are the same.

And finally, you say

Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

Which I point out is a fallacy of hasty generalization.. Since you don't seem to understand that either, I'll explain it. It means you're drawing a conclusion from a very limited sample to support your argument (environment determines personality - your sample is people who you know).

Now once again, I ask you to show evidence and stop making red herrings (it means address the points in the debate, stop going off on different tangents to divert attention away from topics you at hand). Also tone down on the personal attacks, they're not needed, they simply expose you're not confident in your position.

Lord Kenneth

2nd July 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

You're creating nothing more then a red herring... However, I will address your points just so you can go back to showing me evidence... (crickets chirping :p)

Alright, let me repeat what I just said, if both of your personality traits were enviromental you'd both be similar since you're both brought up in the same household. Like you said, you're not, therefore I'm lead to believe there may be other factors for personality development. I do not wish to dwell on this anymore, since you're starting to make a red herring. You made a claim, I want to see proof to back it up - show me some scientific literature that proves environment is the large determining factor of someone's personality.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand what I mean by "environment".

I refer to "environment" to be the more standard-psychological definition ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environment )-- what kind of family they are raised by, the actions of people around them, basically things outside of their own bodies altering their experiences. You are thinking it is simply the terrian, weather patterns, etc, aren't you? That would make sense as to your odd accusations of fallacies.

Anyways, here are some articles dealing on the subject:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

But, if genes, like I thought you were proposing, are mainly what defines us, then me and my twin should be almost exactly alike in personality-- this is not so.

[/QUOTE]

ImpyTimpy

3rd July 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand what I mean by "environment".

I refer to "environment" to be the more standard-psychological definition ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environment )-- what kind of family they are raised by, the actions of people around them, basically things outside of their own bodies altering their experiences. You are thinking it is simply the terrian, weather patterns, etc, aren't you? That would make sense as to your odd accusations of fallacies.

No need to define what you meant, it was pretty obvious. As to my supposedly odd accusations, I showed how they apply, if you don't like it, don't try and make logical arguments.

Anyways, here are some articles dealing on the subject:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

But, if genes, like I thought you were proposing, are mainly what defines us, then me and my twin should be almost exactly alike in personality-- this is not so.

First of all, thank you for trying to provide evidence to support your position. However, I need to ask you to review your own evidence before submitting it.

Take a look here:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p14/article.jhtml?term=

Is your best bet for evidence if you only read the abstract...

Unfortunetly, when you read into the article you find on page 14:

Given that all humans are one species and that personality has genetic roots (Rieman et al. 1997), the similarities among cultural groups are likely to be greater than the differences. Not surprisingly, most personality researchers emphasize the similarities in personality structure across cultures.

So cultural similarities are in fact caused by genetic similarities...

Onto the next article.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

Things are even worse for your case here. Their conclusions are:

We believe adult personality is characterised more by plasticity than by increasing calcification, and the mechanisms of personality change can be understood best by considering the life contexts that accompany change," they concluded.

And plasticity is defined as:

[/B]
The biological view is the so-called 'plaster' hypothesis, where personality is genetically determined and 'sets' or matures after 30. In contrast, contextual theories argue that personality is determined by a number of influences, such as life stages, experiences, social environment, and gender.[/B]

Your third source is laughable - it's merely a presentation, not a scientific document or a report on scientific findings. It gives no references whatsoever so it's facts can not be verified. I thought you would do better then this :(

Your final news article does you no better, look

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Most human behaviors are not influenced by nature or nurture but by nature and nurture, he says

In light of you saying this:

but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor...

This becomes just something you believe in. The world unfortunetly is not made up of our beliefs. :p

Also don't throw a strawman into the discussion, I never said genes influence personality more, I insisted that I assume it's one of the many deciding factors. I also said I am not sure on this issue. Thanks for the articles though, they certainly seem to shed some light on it.

I hope you can take this as a learning experience and not think I'm trying to attack you.

Lord Kenneth

3rd July 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

So cultural similarities are in fact caused by genetic similarities...

No, cultural similarities can most likely be from genetics, not every cultural similarity can possibly be from genetics alone.

Personality does have genetic roots. However, environment interacts with how we are genetically stuctured.

Onto the next article.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

Things are even worse for your case here. Their conclusions are:

And plasticity is defined as:

Now that I go over it again (I skimmed through last time), I don't even see how that source was relevant to the argument. It seems support neither argument and only talks about how personalities change while people age...

Your third source is laughable - it's merely a presentation, not a scientific document or a report on scientific findings. It gives no references whatsoever so it's facts can not be verified. I thought you would do better then this :(

The third source, in fact, mentions work and findings of several scientists. What are you talking about? You skimmed it, and didn't read it...?

Your final news article does you no better, look

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

I never said personalities were determined by only one or the other. I said that they work together, but...:

In light of you saying this:

Hmm... odd, you didn't quote me entirely. Let's pull up what I said, shall we?

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

Clearly, you are not being honest by ignoring things I have said. I said I find environment to be more of a deciding factor because it is more variable-- it can be changed and manipulated.

Also don't throw a strawman into the discussion, I never said genes influence personality more, I insisted that I assume it's one of the many deciding factors. I also said I am not sure on this issue. Thanks for the articles though, they certainly seem to shed some light on it.

I hope you can take this as a learning experience and not think I'm trying to attack you. [/B]

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

That is just a sample of some of your statements regarding nature and nuture. When you constantly attack the claim that "nature plays a major role..." like that, it very much appears that you think it is mostly genetics and not environment.

I never said that genetics don't play a major role, they do. I, however, think that environment plays a role moreso because it is variable and can very much change.

ImpyTimpy

3rd July 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

No, cultural similarities can most likely be from genetics, not every cultural similarity can possibly be from genetics alone.

Just paraphrasing the author of the article in your link. That seems to be what he was getting at (and that was a lot of reading :mad: :p ). The article wasn't relevant to your argument to be honest but it made some good reading.

Personality does have genetic roots. However, environment interacts with how we are genetically stuctured.

Now that I go over it again (I skimmed through last time), I don't even see how that source was relevant to the argument. It seems support neither argument and only talks about how personalities change while people age...

That's exactly my point - check your sources before using them.

The third source, in fact, mentions work and findings of several scientists. What are you talking about? You skimmed it, and didn't read it...?

I did read it. I should've said it wasn't referenced properly. It gives mentions of two scientists and a very short mention of another but doesn't give further details (journal/paper details for cross reference). In academic terms, this article was worthless, in fact, it wouldn't even stand up as an academic paper.

I never said personalities were determined by only one or the other. I said that they work together, but...

Hmm... odd, you didn't quote me entirely. Let's pull up what I said, shall we?

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

Clearly, you are not being honest by ignoring things I have said. I said I find environment to be more of a deciding factor because it is more variable-- it can be changed and manipulated.

Sorry if I came off as dishonest. I also note you've changed your stance from environment plays a huge role in personality to environment plays a slightly larger role in personality... I'm glad you're able to recognise facts and change your beliefs (if only slightly, it's a start).

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

That is just a sample of some of your statements regarding nature and nuture. When you constantly attack the claim that "nature plays a major role..." like that, it very much appears that you think it is mostly genetics and not environment.

I never said that genetics don't play a major role, they do. I, however, think that environment plays a role moreso because it is variable and can very much change.
:mad: You're still pushing a strawman. I repeatedly pointed out I am not claiming genetics plays a major role in personality development, simply that I do not know.

Still, I am glad you've changed your original claim to reflect the facts more closely, however the articles do state that nature and nurture play equal roles in the development.

I don't mean to come off sounding mean, but what you find is what you believe in, not what the articles seem to suggest. The articles actually suggest genetics and environment play equal roles in the development.

P.S.

Thanks for maintaining a civil tone, it's a welcome change :)