thought control?

[YT2095]

if we`re not actualy in control of our own thoughts, is the criminal justice system justified at all?

surely we could all plead (random neurons or whatever) made me do it?

[Kevin Conti]

Science is the most objective way to knowledge, but it is not the answer to everything. Yes determinism exists and individuals may committ criminal deviant acts that are the result of causal psychological factors, e.g. depression, love, brain damage, e.g. frontal lobe damage, instincts, e.g. seeing your wife cheating. But on the whole we possess psychological mechanisms that allow us to tell right from wrong, we have moral schemas, and we have the ability to recognise a crime. THerefore, the criminal justice system is legitimated and it serves as a higher order body to act as an aversion system to deter people from criminal acts.

 

Think of determinism as a pressure, in hard science disciplines it is always predictible and the laws of atoms follow it. However, in human beings determinism is less pronounced. It affects us in the form of instincts, psychological feelings/emotions, genetic predispositions, environmental upbringing, social class, social development etc. But crucially it only makes a specific behaviour more likely, it does not always mean that behaviour is guranteed or cannot be overcome. When you are really angry and upset for e.g. your levels of norepinephrine and serotonin may be lowered, but the power of thought and rationalisation can overcome that, it does not give legitimate pretext to act upon it badly.

[YT2095]

that sounds about good to me, I beleive we`re all responsible for our own actions (appart from those with pathological disorders). I also beleive the brain is extremely complex and often defies (and will continue to defy) current understanding. I don`t beleive there is a "random" element though, all is triggered by chemicals and the like, external stimuli based upon previous experiences and understanding.

that`s my opinion anyway

[Glider]

in regards to ur first answer i agree that people react different according to their perception of the event. My point being that we choose to react or not to react. If we have no control then criminals or padophiles would have no hope of ever being cured, phobias would never be dominated. At every miute of every day we have dozens of thoughts go through our heads but we choose what we want and don't want to react to.

This is pretty much what I said. Whilst the fact that we react, and the nature of our reaction, are not under our control, we do have 'executive control' over our ultimate behaviour (usually).

 

 

To say that something is impossible without trying would be pretty arrogant.

er...not sure where that comes from.

 

 

I beleive we can control our thoughts and emotions because i have made a strong effort to eradicate my mind of any thought that i deemed hazourdous or unproductive to my wellbeing.

I believe we cannot control our initial emotional responses to things and subsequent behavioural propensities because I am aware of the large (and growing) body of emprical evidence in support of it. We can alter the class of affective-motivational response to a thing over time and with effort, e.g. using cognitive behavioural intervention in dealing with phobias. But our basic affective-motivational state is constantly changing throughout the day, and usually in response to things we are not even aware of. Our environment influences our emotional state. We have no control over that. This, in turn, will have an influence on our behavioural propensities on a very basic level. We have no control over that either. What we can control is the ultimate output (behaviour), which we monitor and 'edit' according to learned social mores.

 

To assume that we have total control over everything we feel and what we think is simply vanity. We simply can't conceive of ourselves as being anything less than in total control of our own minds. The very idea is abhorrent to us. Well, we're going to have to get over it. We do not have the degree of control we think we do.

 

 

Where do u think the term peace of mind comes from.

I have no idea.

 

 

if we`re not actualy in control of our own thoughts' date=' is the criminal justice system justified at all?

surely we could all plead (random neurons or whatever) made me do it?[/quote']

Not really, as thinking about something (however bad) is not yet a crime. Acting upon the thought may be (depending upon the thought) and, as I have said, we have ultimate executive control over our behaviour (usually).

[Kevin Conti]

I've mentioned the neurological determinism factors in terms of them determining what we think of, how we think, and therefore how we behave. But there is a deeper motivation that is a incredibly strong reinforcer of behaviour, the purpose of the Action-Attention-Reward system(AAR) in influencing behaviour. It is this adapation that explains why so many peoples may committ criminal or deviant acts. Specifically, An action (such as selling drugs) leads to attention (an indicator of status) that in the Short term releases rewarding brain chemicals, and in the long term improves reproductive success - at least the way we think subconsciously (although studies backs it up). This is usually one evolutionary reason why males are predisposed to commit crimes linked to status gaining.

 

Furthermore, Activiites that lead to feelings of increased status are very rewarding. They release dopeamine and endorphins, which result in greater emotional feelings. the reward system is crucial for human motivation and what ever brings such rewards is likely to be repeated. We did not have drugs in ancestral times so any behaviour that resulted in very good rewards would had been repeated again. Drugs take advantage of this desire and this it is the reason why they are so highly addictive. So this is yet another factor that may pre-determine how we think and behave.

 

In other contexts, we have little control over our sexuality and the thoughts that we get are usually our adapative processes that encourage us to engage in sexual behaviour to increase our reproductive chances. As an example, no NORMAL mentally stable sexually capable man will never fail to have sexual thoughts about attractive looking girls he knows. Similarly, no girl will reject her appearence as she knows that it is the most important factor in her attempts to attract her ideal man.

[YT2095]

Not really, as thinking about something (however bad) is not yet a crime. Acting[/i'] upon the thought may be (depending upon the thought) and, as I have said, we have ultimate executive control over our behaviour (usually).

as I stated in post #20, I`m in total agreement with you

I used that to demonstrate how ridiculous the entire idea would be

[Glider]

(Pssst...post #20 is by Crash. I didn't post on determinism until #24, but anyway...)

 

...AHA! I see now

 

 

Kevin Conti

 

Very interesting post. However, the mechanism of determinism I'm talking about works on a much more fundamental level. It is a preattentive process and has been described as 'Universal and unconditional'. It doesn't require cognition, nor does it require pre-existing constructs concerning social status and attention seeking behaviours. For example, social status is defined differently between cultures (although increasingly less so), but the automatic preattentive processes I'm talking about are universal to the species. It is not a learned process, but is 'hard-wired'; non-volitional and occurs outside of conscious awareness.

 

It is based upon the preattentive processing of environmental information, most of which we are not consciously aware, yet which influences our basic affective-motivational state and which results in concomitant changes to our behavioural propensity. Whilst we do have overall 'executive control' over our behaviour, the our affective-motivational state carries significant weight in the decisional process and our behaviour is invariably influenced, moreso the less we think about it.

[eloi]

I believe we cannot control our initial emotional responses to things and subsequent behavioural propensities

 

This is where the secret is, its the initial thought that one has to control. U always have choice, u choose what enters and what doesnt. We are not at mercy of life, its not what we feel that governs what we think but rather what we think that goerns what we feel. The problem is people have difficulty maintaining constent vigilance over their thoughts, but its only at the beggining that things are difficult then it becomes like everytrhing else a built in mechanism. Try it and you will see.

[Glider]

This is where the secret is, its the initial thought that one has to control.

What 'secret'?

 

 

U always have choice, u choose what enters and what doesnt.

No we don't. Whilst we have a relatively small point of attentional focus, everything that falls within the perceptual field of any given sensory modality will be processed; this is universal and unconditional.

 

 

We are not at mercy of life, its not what we feel that governs what we think but rather what we think that goerns what we feel.

This assumes cognition precedes affect, which is not the case (see for example Zajonc, 1980; 1984). Affect precedes, and therefore influences, what we think.

 

 

The problem is people have difficulty maintaining constent vigilance over their thoughts, but its only at the beggining that things are difficult then it becomes like everytrhing else a built in mechanism. Try it and you will see.

It is true that people have problems maintaining a constant vigilance over their own thoughts. Due to the focussed nature of our conscious attention, we cannot both self-monitor and function in our environment. However, practice won't help. The automatic, preattentive evaluation of our immediate environment is non-conscious, so we cannot consciously monitor it. Most of the stimuli that are evaluated, we are not even aware of on a conscious level. Further, the affective-motivational changes have been shown to occur within 250ms (1/4 of a second), on exposure to stimuli of 40ms (e.g. Bargh, et al. 1996). It is not possible to consciously monitor these events.

 

References:

 

Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, P. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 104-128.

 

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-111.

 

Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39 (2), 117-123.

[Radical Edward]

if we`re not actualy in control of our own thoughts' date=' is the criminal justice system justified at all?

surely we could all plead (random neurons or whatever) made me do it?[/quote']

 

 

again, what is "we". what is this control? There is no logical basis for the existance of free will or some sort of control, since things are either random, or they are not.

 

As for the justice system, perhaps there is no justification for it, but this does not really matter. There is no justification in purely objective terms for anything. The justice system could simply be seen as one set of memeplexes driving out a detrimental memeplex, just as female robins refuse to breed with an unfit male, slicing an "inferior" genotype.