Coffee! Neuroscience: Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 16, 2009

Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I found this chilling:

Abstract:
This paper questions criminal law’s strong presumption of free will. Part I assesses the ways in which environment, nurture, and society influence human action. Part II briefly surveys studies from the fields of genetics and neuroscience which call into question strong assumptions of free will and suggest explanations for propensities toward criminal activity. Part III discusses other “causes” of criminal activity including addiction, economic deprivation, gender, and culture. In light of Parts I through III, Part IV assesses criminal responsibility and the legitimacy of punishment. Part V considers the the possibility of determining propensity from criminal activity based on assessing causal factors and their effects on certain people. In this context, the concept of dangerous individuals and possible justifications for preventative detention of such individuals in order to protect society is assessed. The concluding section suggests that the law should take a broader view of factors that could have determinant effects on agents’ actions.

The part that bugs me is “possible justifications for preventative detention”.

That’s what always happens when free will is denied. Somehow or other, the idea gets started that we can detect in advance who will commit a crime. Then you needn’t do anything to get arrested and put away. Someone just needs to have a theory about you.

But no one can truly predict the future in any kind of detail.

What about the Fort Hood massacre, you ask? Well, according to a number of reports, that guy had been advertising his grievances for some months. You sure wouldn’t need a brain scan or materialist theories about free will to figure out that he wasn’t happy in the Army and should just have been discharged – which is what he wanted. You’d just need to listen to what he actually said.

Also just up at my neuroscience blog, The Mindful Hack:

Neuroskepticism: A breath of fresh air, and maybe more legal safety too

Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine?

Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought

Curiosity and the dead cat

Comments

#4 The difference between detaining the mentally ill and detaining the “just plain naughty” is vast, as any criminal court would know. We detain the mentally ill if and when they pose a threat to themselves or others *and are not considered responsible for their actions* If only it were that easy. I think you may be confusing the defence of diminished responsibility for a crime already committed with preventative detention. Most Western countries (including Canada) allow detention on the basis of assessment of risk of violence and some degree of mental disorder - but mental disorder can cover a huge variety of things including "personality disorders" which certainly do not entail that the patient is not responsible for what they do.Mark Frank_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Leviathan(1): You summarily reject as an assertion all evidence for a nonphysical component to human consciousness (especially all the data of parapsychology and psychical research). I won't go to the trouble of citing voluminous references. This data makes a strong (though of course not absolutely conclusive) case for a mobile center of human consciousness. Leviathan: "As a strong proponent of Intelligent Design I must object to the constant use of supernaturalism and theology to try and disprove Darwinian antics. There is much more fertile ground to be harvested in this area that does not require the invoking of a deity." The science of ID is the detection of design in life. Inherent is the assumption that design is teleological. The intelligent source and purposes of this designing force are beyond the science, and I agree that it is unfortunate that many ID advocates use revealed religious doctrine as an argumenrt. But you seem have summarily dismissed the "supernatural" (something beyond the conventional world of physics and chemistry and mechanics) in any speculation as to that general source. This would include both an omnipotent Diety as revealed in Christianity, or some other form of discarnate intelligent spiritual intervention. If so, are you visualizing advanced aliens, or some built-in Lamarkian force, or what? These alternatives seem to have insuperable problems. I think the data leads inevitably to some sort of "supernatural" source as defined above.magnan_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Denyse wrote in #4: On the other hand, if you think free will a myth, welcome to the materialist nightmare. So far as I can see, materialism is opposed to traditional civil rights. As a Christian in the Reform camp, I too think that free will is a myth. The "problem" of God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility is solved by notin that man is responsible, not because he is (allegedly) free, but by Divine fiat. If your response is, "but that's not fair", welcome to Romans 9.wrf3_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Leviathan at 1, you are free to disprove Darwinian antics from any perspective you wish. The castle is crumbling, and anyone who wants can get a souvenir brick. Get yours now. Get several. Mark Frank at 2, you just replaced my fridge. The difference between detaining the mentally ill and detaining the "just plain naughty" is vast, as any criminal court would know. We detain the mentally ill if and when they pose a threat to themselves or others *and are not considered responsible for their actions*. If you mean by "just plain naughty", serial murders, terrorists, frauds, and rapists, this is the first time I have ever seen the word "naughty" used to describe it. Don't try that in a criminal court in my jurisdiction. I am told by friends and relatives who work in the criminal court system that judges and justices of the peace here rarely value such terms. After all, they must also deal with the victim impact statements. Tribune7 at 3, yes - that is the key, and the basis of my concern. Is it reasonable to hold the person morally culpable? No one can predict the future with certainty, so "preventative detention" would only be justified if we were morally certain that the person would not know what he was doing, and therefore could not take responsibility for his own actions. This does happen in certain mental illnesses - but diagnoses must, of course, be made with great care in such cases. On the other hand, if you think free will a myth, welcome to the materialist nightmare. So far as I can see, materialism is opposed to traditional civil rights.O'Leary_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

In most Western countries we already detain people on mental health grounds because we think they are likely to be violent (or harm themselves) – even when they haven’t done anything wrong. Actually, the reasoning is that they have done something "wrong" i.e. shown themselves by deed as being incapable of functioning in society. It's just that we don't hold them morally culpable. These deeds, btw, almost always involve things that would otherwise be thought of as crimes such trespassing, public disturbance and even, often, violence. But it is always a deed not some pre-test or screening procedure that is the reason for the incarceration.tribune7_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

In most Western countries we already detain people on mental health grounds because we think they are likely to be violent (or harm themselves) - even when they haven't done anything wrong. Do you find this principle chilling? And don't fool yourself that there is clear difference between the mentally ill and the just plain naughty.Mark Frank_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Miss O'Leary, may I ask you how exactly you believe the brain implements supernatural characteristics within its design schemata? I.E., why would the Designer bother with a supernatural component when a natural, or "materialist" component is all that is needed to fully explain brain / mind phenomena? Furthermore, do you believe that humans have what is commonly regarded as a "soul"? If so, what evidence do you have for this position? Do you object to the idea that once the necessary components for life are no longer present in the body of an organism, the organism ceases living? How exactly do we go about detecting the supernatural "mind"? As a strong proponent of Intelligent Design I must object to the constant use of supernaturalism and theology to try and disprove Darwinian antics. There is much more fertile ground to be harvested in this area that does not require the invoking of a deity.Leviathan_{November 16, 2009
November
11
Nov
16
16
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply