Are we responsible?

[Steve Walker]

No I'd go along with that, but there may be a lot of our "self" that we do not control, even if we think we do.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find the area of research fascinating.

I'm not sure how much of it we control at all, in the sense of being consciously aware of it. I wonder if our perception of our conscious thought is just equivalent to the machine reading its own console output and feeding it back into the program - are we able to observe our own thought processes as if they were not part of us, or are we just observing what we thought after the event?

[chesters1]

How many people have to confirm the observation for it to be a fact

[corydoras]

I'm not sure how much of it we control at all, in the sense of being consciously aware of it. I wonder if our perception of our conscious thought is just equivalent to the machine reading its own console output and feeding it back into the program - are we able to observe our own thought processes as if they were not part of us, or are we just observing what we thought after the event?

I don't know, I suspect that your subconscious mind understands the difference between right and wrong, but that's just a suspicion, not a belief nor an opinion. I don't understand enough about the subject to make any kind of informed opinion.

 

I think it's a bad idea to try to make analogies between brains and electronic computers though.

[Leon Roskilly]

 

Give me an example of a fact that cannot be verified to be true.

 

Father Christmas does not exist.

[corydoras]

How many people have to confirm the observation for it to be a fact

One. Science is not a democracy.

[Emma two]

An excellent point!

So what does Dawkins say on the subject in that book? Does he see choice as an illusion?

 

 

An excellent point!

So what does Dawkins say on the subject in that book? Does he see choice as an illusion?

In a nutshell Dawkins advances from a position of human (and that of other srecies) behaviour being dictated by genes, and the genes will induce us to do what is best for them, not necessarily for the individual...here is a summary...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

 

If you really want to get your teeth into the philosophy of punishment. then I recommend Michel Foucault, start with Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish#Punishment

 

I'm not one of those who believe everything in 'Wiki' but those links sum things up.

[corydoras]

Father Christmas does not exist.

It's 50:50 that he does

[corydoras]

I'm not one of those who believe everything in 'Wiki' but those links sum things up.

No one should believe anything from any single source. One should do one's own research. Wiki is a good place to start though. Good entries will cite other reading.

[chesters1]

One should not believe anything from any source

You cannot research anything second hand you are depending on the opinion being correct in the first place and basing your opinion on that ,unless you see the raw data yourself and know firstly its true ,unbiased and complete ,see how its collected and the instruments used and how they collect it ,then from start to finish see and agree every stage is also completed without bias and complete then see the final paper you cannot even start to base your opinion on anything.

Too many people merely except any nonsence without question and ex ept it as true

Edited December 12, 2013 by chesters1

[Steve Walker]

I think it's a bad idea to try to make analogies between brains and electronic computers though.

Meant as more of a metaphor than an analogy - to suggest that perhaps the mind cannot see what it is thinking, but can see what it has thought.