So, the existence of a biochemical imbalance is associated with a predisposition to commit violent crime is so trivial and obvious that it's not worth mentioning?
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Oct 4, 2020, 1:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > That was great, Eric. It leads me to try and figure out the minimum > conditions under which I would accept neurological evidence in a courtroom. > So, another hypothetical. > > > > Let it be the case that we have done studies of a thousand subjects > arrayed with brain probes like an inverse porcupine. We do a simple > procedure in which we tell them to do an act, like “pick up a pencil” and > then watch the brain activity while they are fulfilling the act. And then > over and over again with similar acts. From these studies, we learn that > during that period of act-fulfillment, one particular region of > hypothalamus, always goes “bling-bling.” We name this location the > “teleonucleus” (*locus teleonomis). *We now ask ten of the subjects to do > their bit for science and come back for further studies. We insert a deep > electode in to *l. teleonomis *and find that by activating and > inactivating the electrode, we turn on and .off the ability of the subjects > to perform the simple request on command. So now we have good evidence that > activity in *l.teleonomicus *is necessary to and sufficient for the > formation of and action upon an intention. > > > > Now, unlikely as all that is, we get to the hard part. We have to find > some case in which sampling the activity of *l. teleonomicus* is easier > than asking the subjects to perform simple commands. Ok, I can think of > one. Jones is accused of a terrible crime which requires forming and > acting on an intention. The police bungle the arrest and jones is shot > dead. Jones’s wife sues the police, claiming the underlying crime could > not have been performed by Jones because he was incapable of forming an > intention. Since Jones is dead, the simple test procedure cannot be > performed. So Jones’s wife demands an autopsy, where it is found that > indeed, Jones had developed a cancerous lesion in *l. teleonomicus. *Judgment > is made in favor if the wife. > > > > Possible, yes. But so improbable that I still cannot understand the > rapturous applause and millions of grant dollars that follow when somebody > shows that activity of the brains is – wonder of wonders! – actually > related to behavior. > > > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark > University > > > [email protected] > > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:13 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff > > > > During last Friday's meeting, there was a discussion about brains and > behavior. We were somehow discussing murders and Bruce brought up an > example of a friend who helps determine (using EEG and MRI) whether the > behavior of the murder had an "organic" cause. People with an organic cause > go to mental-health facilities, those would get the death penalty (roughly > speaking, obviously there in-between scenarios). Nick quickly pointed out > that was some variety of crazy dualism, because all behavior has an organic > cause. A few back and forths revealed a two things that seemed worth > capturing: > > > > 1) IF we are really talking about "does the behavior have an organic > cause", THEN Nick is surely correct, and all the EEGs and MRIs are doing is > telling us how obvious/easily-detectable-by-current-means the organic cause > is. In some future world, where our instruments have much, much finer > resolution, we will be able to find an "organic cause" for every behavior, > which means the whole process as currently performed is just silly. > > > > 2) However, if that talk of organic causes is just a useful shorthand of > some sort, the process might be perfectly reasonable, just poorly > specified. > > > > 3) At some point Bruce said that we were trying to determine whether the > person was capable of premeditation, and that seemed (to me) to create a > window for a perfectly reasonable process, while still acknowledging Nick's > point. > > > > 4) IF we were interested in "can the person premeditate" and we had > separate research showing that certain types of obvious (with current > technology) EEG and MRI results were highly correlated with an inability to > sustain behavior-directed-towards-a-goal, then we could reasonable use EEG > and MRI results to abduct whether or not the person in question was capable > of premeditation. > > > > 5) Of course, if we had a video of the person premeditating, none of the > brain scans would be necessary or relevant --- this would be an example of > the broader principle that, when asking questions about psychology, > behavioral evidence beats anatomical evidence. However, absent such direct > evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to look for known correlates of > behavioral patterns, including neuo-anatomical correlates. > > > > 6) Some weird things happen to our thinking if we forget that we are using > the anatomy to make inferences about behavior-patterns. The whole process > makes sense if the thing we are interested in is ability-to-premeditate, > and we are using the neuro-anatomy to guess at that, because that keeps us > clear that the neuro-anatomy is not itself premeditation or the lack > thereof. The whole process is incoherent if we think some mass killers kill > because of the way their brains are, but others mass killers kill and their > brains have nothing to do with it. THAT SAID, it can be a useful shorthand > to talk *as if* we are interested in the neuro-anatomy itself. The useful > shorthand is not only much quicker in a conversation or in writing, it also > adds a false sense of definitiveness to the scientific findings (which is > useful to the scientist), which in turn adds a false sense of > definitiveness to the legal proceedings (which is useful to the legal > system). Challenging the shorthand therefore feels like a challenge to the > basic functioning of science and the legal system that accepts such > science. > > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
