(The way we use) law is unjust!

[Steve3007]

"No specific to a part." It's not impossible that at least at different times it would involve all of the brain, but even if just distributed across the brain, that would be "not specific to a part." You might think that it is (I can't know that you wouldn't think this). There's no reason to believe that it is,though.

Great. So, yet again:

viewtopic.php?p=360360#p360360

From these exchanges it seems to me pretty clear that you are saying that human brains are subject to what I have termed one-way causality.

You're determined not to address this aren't you!

[Pattern-chaser]

You're determined not to address this aren't you!

It's starting to look as though Terrapin Station is posting only to prevent or disrupt discussion. If so, erm, that would be ... disappointing.

[Terrapin Station]

I offered the example of someone deceived into unknowingly and unwillingly committing a crime. Justice seems to indicate that the person who pulled the (figurative) trigger is innocent; it's the person who deceived them who bears the guilt. In the case of someone hiring a hit-man, justice (again) seems to indicate that both are guilty of murder, for different and obvious reasons. Quibbling about so much, over so many posts, seems to indicate you are not here to explore and discover, but for other reasons.... Are you nervous about questioning letter-of-the-law 'justice'? Or is it something else?

"You are not here to explore and discover"--indeed that's the case. I've been doing this stuff for a long time. I'm not at a stage where I'm still discovering the range of views out there, I've long since developed my own views, and I'm not at a stage of discovering or meeting objections to my views.

Not that it's impossible for someone to come up with something I've not encountered before, but unfortunately it doesn't happen very often.

Re ethics, I'm not of the opinion that someone ordering or hiring someone else to commit murder is responsible for the murder. With that, I also don't believe there's a correct or incorrect answer. It comes down to how we feel, what facts count for us or don't count for us re moral culpability.

If you don't know what I consider to be the case re deception, etc., as we were discussing, I'm happy to let you know if you ask (though as I said I might need more details in some cases, otherwise I'd have to just present what I consider the possibilities depending on the details), but I've long had views about this stuff, and I'm more than familiar with other views being expressed, so no, I'm not here for the purpose of "exploring and discovering" in the sense you mean.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops, lol--this should have read: "I'm not at a stage of discovering or just now learning how to meet objections to my views."

[Terrapin Station]

"No specific to a part." It's not impossible that at least at different times it would involve all of the brain, but even if just distributed across the brain, that would be "not specific to a part." You might think that it is (I can't know that you wouldn't think this). There's no reason to believe that it is,though.

Great. So, yet again:

viewtopic.php?p=360360#p360360

From these exchanges it seems to me pretty clear that you are saying that human brains are subject to what I have termed one-way causality.

You're determined not to address this aren't you!

What do you still have questions about? (Don't say the whole post or I'm not bothering. I'm not going over all of that again if you have no idea of my views about any of that by this point.)

[Pattern-chaser]

I offered the example of someone deceived into unknowingly and unwillingly committing a crime. Justice seems to indicate that the person who pulled the (figurative) trigger is innocent; it's the person who deceived them who bears the guilt. In the case of someone hiring a hit-man, justice (again) seems to indicate that both are guilty of murder, for different and obvious reasons. Quibbling about so much, over so many posts, seems to indicate you are not here to explore and discover, but for other reasons.... Are you nervous about questioning letter-of-the-law 'justice'? Or is it something else?

"You are not here to explore and discover"--indeed that's the case. I've been doing this stuff for a long time. I'm not at a stage where I'm still discovering the range of views out there, I've long since developed my own views, and I'm not at a stage of discovering or meeting objections to my views.

Not that it's impossible for someone to come up with something I've not encountered before, but unfortunately it doesn't happen very often.

Re ethics, I'm not of the opinion that someone ordering or hiring someone else to commit murder is responsible for the murder. With that, I also don't believe there's a correct or incorrect answer. It comes down to how we feel, what facts count for us or don't count for us re moral culpability.

If you don't know what I consider to be the case re deception, etc., as we were discussing, I'm happy to let you know if you ask (though as I said I might need more details in some cases, otherwise I'd have to just present what I consider the possibilities depending on the details), but I've long had views about this stuff, and I'm more than familiar with other views being expressed, so no, I'm not here for the purpose of "exploring and discovering" in the sense you mean.

So you're saying that you have nothing to contribute to this topic, but you continue to post (again and again). It seems reasonable to conclude that you are posting here only to disrupt the discussion of others. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's starting to look as though @Terrapin Station is posting only to prevent or disrupt discussion. If so, erm, that would be ... disappointing.

Maybe I'm disrupting some "let's do some Gumby improv" skit, but that's worth disrupting.

Ah, so as I found on another forum (that I subsequently left), you are saying that the discussion of certain topics should be disrupted? And you, of course, are the arbiter of what should be disrupted, and what should be permitted? I think not. If you don't like a topic, just leave it alone and don't post, please. Thanks.

[Terrapin Station]

So you're saying that you have nothing to contribute to this topic, but you continue to post (again and again). It seems reasonable to conclude that you are posting here only to disrupt the discussion of others. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Isn't "either you're here to explore and discover or you have nothing to contribute to a topic" a false dichotomy?

[Terrapin Station]

Ah, so as I found on another forum (that I subsequently left), you are saying that the discussion of certain topics should be disrupted?

Certainly if the topic amounts to pretending to be Gumbies, yes.

[Steve3007]

What do you still have questions about?

From these exchanges it seems to me pretty clear that you are saying that human brains are subject to what I have termed one-way causality.

"One-way" causality. You regard actions as having effects, but not beings affected, yes?

Therefore, whatever part or parts of the human brain actions happen in, or are currently happening in, you regard as having an effect but not being affected, yes? So...

In the past few posts, where I said "brain" read "the part of the brain in which actions are initiated" or some such thing.

...it seems to me pretty clear that you are saying that human brains are subject to what I have termed one-way causality. Yet you also regard human brains as being made as the same stuff as other objects.


For some reason, you've skirted around this by saying a bunch of irrelevant stuff about actions being functions of the brain, in only parts of the brain, distributed around the brain etc. and ignoring everything else.

[Steve3007]

Couple of typos in the above. Hopefully still reasonably readable.

[Terrapin Station]

"One-way" causality. You regard actions as having effects, but not beings affected, yes?

I've answered this two or three times now. Yes, because of what the term "action" refers to. Actions are intentional, willed decisions to do something.

Therefore, whatever part or parts of the human brain actions happen in, or are currently happening in, you regard as having an effect but not being affected, yes? So...

Yes. Insofar as we're talking about brains functioning to perform actions.

it seems to me pretty clear that you are saying that human brains are subject to what I have termed one-way causality.

ONLY insofar as we're talking about actions per se. Not otherwise. Brains do a lot of things other than actions.

Yet you also regard human brains as being made as the same stuff as other objects.

Yes, and I've explained at least five or six times now, I don't believe that all non-brain objects are subject to "two-way causality."

For some reason, you've skirted around this by saying a bunch of irrelevant stuff about actions being functions of the brain, in only parts of the brain, distributed around the brain etc. and ignoring everything else.

Again, I've explained all of the above at least two or three times, and parts of it I've explained five or six times.

Do you still have questions about it?

[Steve3007]

Yes, and I've explained at least five or six times now, I don't believe that all non-brain objects are subject to "two-way causality."

You've mentioned it once previously to me, as I recall.

On what basis would you decide whether a non-brain object is subject to "one-way" or "two-way" causality? Is it related to the complexity of the object's structure?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, and I've explained at least five or six times now, I don't believe that all non-brain objects are subject to "two-way causality."

You've mentioned it once previously to me, as I recall.

On what basis would you decide whether a non-brain object is subject to "one-way" or "two-way" causality? Is it related to the complexity of the object's structure?

Once again, "I don't believe that all non-brain objects are subject to 'two-way causality'" is part of what this passage tells you: "I don't buy strong determinism in general. The view that 'the world is strongly deterministic, so that if human actions are not, it requires some extraordinary explanation,' doesn't hold water/isn't supportable. That view is based on a very antiquated view of the sciences and what they can do."

I buy the Humean criticism of the idea that we can observe causality--we can't. It's something that we postulate abductively or heuristically. It's certainly plausible to assume that many phenomena are causal in nature--to assume that event x occurred because it was caused to occur by some antecedent event that directly, contiguously interacted with something else to cause x. But there's no good reason to assume that ALL phenomena (again, talking completely outside of the context of brains, people, etc.) are causal in that manner. The faith-based belief that all phenomena are causal in that manner is the general sense of strong determinism. It stems from antiquated scientific assumptions.

[Steve3007]

Once again...

Yes, you've repeated the part in which you tell me what you don't buy more than once. Here, you've also repeated the part in which you say that the thing you don't buy is based on "a very antiquated view of the sciences". We've previously had some conversations on some specifics of some scientific issues. If we ever discussed further that "antiquated view of the sciences", those previous conversations may be relevant.

So here's the part where you tell me what you buy.

I buy...

As I've said recently (and at various times previously), I agree that we clearly don't observe causality any more than we observe Newton's Law of Gravitation (for example). We observe correlated events. As I said, my view is that causality is in the same class as laws and principles of Nature. It's a useful model for describing and predicting instances of correlation. The stronger the correlation, the more we are apt to infer causality. Just as with any other law/principle of Nature.

...It's certainly plausible to assume that many phenomena are causal in nature ... But there's no good reason to assume that ALL phenomena (again, talking completely outside of the context of brains, people, etc.) are causal in that manner...

From your wording, it appears that, though we postulate causality abductively/heuristically, and not all phenomena are causal, causality (where present) ontologically exists in Nature. That is, as opposed to being a model. i.e. you view causality (where present) as real and not abstract.

Is that your view?

As to the question: What criteria do you use for deciding which phenomena are causal?

I presume, from what you've said, that it's simply based on observations of correlation with contiguous antecedent events. No such correlation; no causality. Yes?