[FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff

Sun Oct 4 16:23:42 EDT 2020

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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> 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
>
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:13 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201004/51798e0f/attachment.html>