A situation on identity.

[Drifterman]

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

But, to alter the situation somewhat:

Imagine that an individual rationally decides to commit a series of murders (the reasons for their doing so are irrelevent).

These murders are carried out with the prior knowledge that, once these murders have been accomplished, this individual will voluntarily undergo a process whereby the memories of the murderous acts are erased, knowing that the justice system in their society will regard the post erasure individual as separate from the murderer.

Has the murderous individual found a way to get away with murder?

Or has the murderer committed the crime and then punished themself?

 

[Lord Kenneth]

LC

One quick point - it is you that seems to be espousing some kind of dualism. It is you that seems to be saying that memory or consciousness is something special to a specific individual so much so that even an exact copy of that individual is different.

I am merely taking the Material pov that consciousness is nothing special - if you recreate me - you recreate my exact same consciousness thus to all intents and purposes you have two mes.

Both cupable because both are me.

Sou

I have said nothing of the sort.

If a person's body is even different so that only one atom in the body is slightly "out of place", you can consider them different people.

However, both are similar enough to consider them the same person-- the difference is negligible (and the difference in atom can only be in their non-brain body, as well).

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

But, to alter the situation somewhat:

Imagine that an individual rationally decides to commit a series of murders (the reasons for their doing so are irrelevent).

These murders are carried out with the prior knowledge that, once these murders have been accomplished, this individual will voluntarily undergo a process whereby the memories of the murderous acts are erased, knowing that the justice system in their society will regard the post erasure individual as separate from the murderer.

Has the murderous individual found a way to get away with murder?

Or has the murderer committed the crime and then punished themself?

The murderer has commited the crime and then changed who he is... so the actual personality that killed the people no longer exists.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

I have to agree with Sou here. What we're basically heading down into is a fallacy of composition (or the Franko fallacy). Just because we have changed one or two parts of a larger system, we have not altered the system as a whole.

In terms of a human body, the whole is in fact a seperate entity from the systems that it is made up of.

Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.

I have said nothing of the sort.

If a person's body is even different so that only one atom in the body is slightly "out of place", you can consider them different people.

However, both are similar enough to consider them the same person-- the difference is negligible (and the difference in atom can only be in their non-brain body, as well).

 

[SquishyDave]

Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.

He is only evil by your definition of evil. Evil is a moral term, and so is relative.

Anyway, if you delete his entire memory, how is he the same person? He may have decided to murder all those people because he was abused as a child, perhaps sold off as a child sex slave, but upon all his memories being deleted, there is no longer a cause for his murders, no longer a memory of them, and so no more future murders, as he is now a well adjusted person who has no huge emotional baggage. What set them off literally does not exist any more. (the side issue is whether if he gets his memory back he becomes a killer again. but I'm assuming he doesn't get his memories back in a meaningful way)

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I have to agree with Sou here. What we're basically heading down into is a fallacy of composition (or the Franko fallacy). Just because we have changed one or two parts of a larger system, we have not altered the system as a whole.

No such fallacy was made.

I was not indicating merely someone's brain or personality, but their entire body. And if even the structure changes by one atom, both structures (humans and their bodies) are different.

The brain is as much a part of the body as the heart or lungs-- it's just what defines our behavior and personality.

In terms of a human body, the whole is in fact a seperate entity from the systems that it is made up of.

Conciousness is a by-product of the brain, altering atoms here or there does not alter the end-by product.

Conciousness is not a by-product of the brain, conciousness is part of the brain's actual functions.

And yes, you are correct on it not altering the end-by product. This is why the difference between both people in my examples is negligible.

As for the murder, I would say he should still be punished After all, they are guilty of the crime and whatever set them off in the first place most likely still exists. Also one must consider that they are fundementally evil, since they made the sane choice of murdering the people in the first place.

Ah, ImpyTimpy, never the critical thinker.

If the man's personality has re-formed, he IS NOT THE SAME PERSON as the homicidal man.

The potential may still exist-- it exists in all of us. However, environment is a huge factor in what controls our behavior.

In this situation, the man learns things anew, and he may very well be shocked and horrified about what "he" did in the past.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

He is evil because he chose to commit an evil act (perceived evil by others).

Additional factors (such as abuse etc) do not negate the fact he made a concious choice to murder all these people. As was pointed out he was not insane.

This by itself is a very definition of evil.

**EDITED TO ADD**

Sorry, forgot to address your other points

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

That'd only hold true if he lived away from other sources of information (society) and only knew how to abuse/hurt others. If that were so he'd classify as insane but as was clearly stated, the man was not insane.

He is only evil by your definition of evil. Evil is a moral term, and so is relative.

Anyway, if you delete his entire memory, how is he the same person? He may have decided to murder all those people because he was abused as a child, perhaps sold off as a child sex slave, but upon all his memories being deleted, there is no longer a cause for his murders, no longer a memory of them, and so no more future murders, as he is now a well adjusted person who has no huge emotional baggage. What set them off literally does not exist any more. (the side issue is whether if he gets his memory back he becomes a killer again. but I'm assuming he doesn't get his memories back in a meaningful way)

How is a person who has been abused, didn't go insane from it, but had a different view on how to interact with his fellow man fundementally evil?

 

[ImpyTimpy]

No such fallacy was made.

I was not indicating merely someone's brain or personality, but their entire body. And if even the structure changes by one atom, both structures (humans and their bodies) are different.

That's why I mention fallacy of composition. Fallacy of composition means that what holds for individual parts of a system must hold for the entire system. In the same sense, saying that because we altered one area of the system, the entire system is altered is heading into fallacy of composition see?

The brain is as much a part of the body as the heart or lungs-- it's just what defines our behavior and personality.

Exactly, but they are just parts of the system.

Conciousness is not a by-product of the brain, conciousness is part of the brain's actual functions.

I disagree, I would say conciousness arises from brain activity. There was a very interesting discussion on blind sight somewhere on these boards which essentially shows us conciousness is a seperate entity to the brain (it arises from the brain chemistry/is a by-product of brain).

And yes, you are correct on it not altering the end-by product. This is why the difference between both people in my examples is negligible.

Take someone who's had a heart-transplant. They are the same person - their conciousness is the by product of the end system, not individual parts of the system.

They are exactly the same person if we remove any new memories acquired during the heart-transplant process.

Ah, ImpyTimpy, never the critical thinker.

If the man's personality has re-formed, he IS NOT THE SAME PERSON as the homicidal man.

I disagree here and I fail to see how it relates to my critical thinking skills...

To me since the man made a concious choice to be evil, he is still an evil person, since something fundamental about this person causes him to be evil (genetics, who knows...).

The potential may still exist-- it exists in all of us. However, environment is a huge factor in what controls our behavior.

Sorry, but can you provide evidence that environment is a huge factor in our behaviour?

Last time I checked, this was a highly debated issue.

In this situation, the man learns things anew, and he may very well be shocked and horrified about what "he" did in the past.

That may be, but he made a concious decision to be evil. This suggests a fundamental flaw in the person's nature.

 

[American]

It's not about turning himself in or not. It's about society dealing with the problem of citizens killing each other. I'm sure a court would take his condition in to consideration once they catch him.

Should he speed it up by turning himself in? It's in his interest. We all make sure of that.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

That's why I mention fallacy of composition. Fallacy of composition means that what holds for individual parts of a system must hold for the entire system. In the same sense, saying that because we altered one area of the system, the entire system is altered is heading into fallacy of composition see?

We are not talking about a or the product of a system, but the entire system itself.

If a part of a system has been altered, then the system has been altered. If you alter the foot, it doesn't mean the heart is altered, but it does mean the body is altered.

Sorry, but can you provide evidence that environment is a huge factor in our behaviour?

Last time I checked, this was a highly debated issue.

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

That may be, but he made a concious decision to be evil. This suggests a fundamental flaw in the person's nature. [/B]

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

If a person is racist, then suffers this same fantasy amnesia and grows up with a black family, do you think he will be racist if his memory comes back or will he regret "his" past?

 

[scribble]

For sucha basic philosophy question, this thread has spawned many interesting replies. I particularly enjoy BobK's first post and his musing on the necessity of guilt.

My personal take on the situation is he should still be punished for the actions he took.

I do not believe having been 'out of your mind' at the time of a murder or other crime should be a valid defense against punishment, although in this country (USA) it often is. If someone gets drunk and kills another, they are still culpable for the killing. If someone eats too many twinkies and goes off on a mad sugar buzz, they are still culpable for the damage they cause.

If you think this sounds harsh, consider: If he laters recovers his memory, will he also recover the killer's personality with it? Whether he does or not, does this change what makes appropriate sentencing?

-Chris

 

[Ratman_tf]

Anyone watch the Babylon 5 episode "Passing Through Gethsemane"?

 

[ImpyTimpy]

We are not talking about a or the product of a system, but the entire system itself.

If a part of a system has been altered, then the system has been altered. If you alter the foot, it doesn't mean the heart is altered, but it does mean the body is altered.

Strawman, I'm not claiming not changing a foot will not alter the appearance.

I'm arguing that the by-product of the body/brain system - conciousness - remains the same even if parts of the body are replaced.

Please, try to actually show how removing one or two atoms out of the body will effectively alter the end product (conciousness).

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

Like I said, last time I checked this was a debated issue. You're not providing any evidence to support your position just state the conclusion again to be your evidence.

This is in fact a fallacy. It's called Circulus in demonstrando.

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

This is another fallacy (besides being absurd but I'm going to humour you) called fallacy of undistributed middle.

If a person is racist, then suffers this same fantasy amnesia and grows up with a black family, do you think he will be racist if his memory comes back or will he regret "his" past?

This is a fallacy as well called plurium interrogationum, since you're posing a complex question yet demanding a simple answer.

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Strawman, I'm not claiming not changing a foot will not alter the appearance.

I'm arguing that the by-product of the body/brain system - conciousness - remains the same even if parts of the body are replaced.

Please, try to actually show how removing one or two atoms out of the body will effectively alter the end product (conciousness).

You apparently didn't read what I wrote, as I was explaining what I meant, not accusing you of arguing anything, because you apparently didn't understand what I meant. I think you simply were trying to tack fallacies on me because I've done it so easily on you in the past.

Like I said, last time I checked this was a debated issue. You're not providing any evidence to support your position just state the conclusion again to be your evidence.

Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

Also, this is a bit off the point, but two cloned cats will not have the same spots. Do you know WHY? I do, but apparently whether cloned cats have the same spots is a "highly debated issue", as you would probably say.

This is in fact a fallacy. It's called Circulus in demonstrando.

Care to explain? It sure seems to me that how you act is highly influenced by how you grow up, and all you've done is say it's wrong without explaining why, only constantly repeating that "it's a highly debated issue".

This is another fallacy (besides being absurd but I'm going to humour you) called fallacy of undistributed middle.

Again, I see no fallacy. I think you're just... what's the word? Oh, yes, of course... too stupid to even know what you're talking about.

But by all means, go ahead and redeem yourself.

This is a fallacy as well called plurium interrogationum, since you're posing a complex question yet demanding a simple answer.

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

Again, you are grasping for straws. I never demanded a simple answer.

I tried giving you evidence, but all you do is wave it away because it is "highly debated" (debated by no one except you, it seems).

In fact, you haven't even provided evidence yourself that this subject is "highly debated".

 

[ImpyTimpy]

You apparently didn't read what I wrote, as I was explaining what I meant, not accusing you of arguing anything, because you apparently didn't understand what I meant. I think you simply were trying to tack fallacies on me because I've done it so easily on you in the past.
Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

When have you tacked fallacies on me in the past?? Evidence?

And again, you're making fallacies a second.. Hasty generalisation this time.

Enough said.

Also, this is a bit off the point, but two cloned cats will not have the same spots. Do you know WHY? I do, but apparently whether cloned cats have the same spots is a "highly debated issue", as you would probably say.

Strawman, we're not talking cloned cats which are two seperate systems.

Will you provide some actual evidence or are we going to have more words?

Care to explain? It sure seems to me that how you act is highly influenced by how you grow up, and all you've done is say it's wrong without explaining why, only constantly repeating that "it's a highly debated issue".

You're shifting the burden of proof, you made the claim the environment is highly influencial on development and provided a fallacy to justify it, not evidence.

EVIDENCE please.

Again, I see no fallacy. I think you're just... what's the word? Oh, yes, of course... too stupid to even know what you're talking about.

But by all means, go ahead and redeem yourself.

Fallacy of undistributed middle means that you take two points and say they are similar without actually showing how they are similar.

This is precisely what you have done and I simply pointed it out.

Again, you are grasping for straws. I never demanded a simple answer.

You asked whether he will be racist or not.

I tried giving you evidence, but all you do is wave it away because it is "highly debated" (debated by no one except you, it seems).

In fact, you haven't even provided evidence yourself that this subject is "highly debated".

You never provided evidence for your claims. Shifting the burden of proof isn't getting you out of this one.

Will you provide any evidence for your claims? Will you construct a logically valid argument?

Is that crickets I hear chirping?

 

[SquishyDave]

Hi Impy Timpy

We disagreed earlier over the relative nature of evil. I think we can drop that though, because we won't convince each other on that point, but I would like to make the case for environment changing behaviour.

Here is a quote from an article

Researchers in London have shown that cab drivers develop enlarged hippocampuses, the part of the brain that stores spatial memory and holds mental "maps." And others have found that the part of the brain devoted to processing music grows larger in musicians over time -- and does so differently depending on the kind of instrument a person plays. In trumpet players, the neurons that respond to brassy resonances rewire themselves and expand, while the brain region that responds to string sounds expands in string players.

In string players, moreover, the part of the motor cortex that controls the hand that works the fingerboard is enlarged, but not so for the region controlling the hand that does the bowing.

The article is unrelated about how some people have at least twice the underwater visual acuity than enyone thought possible,but it does show how dramatically the brain can be changed by upbringing alone, and even as in the quote, just by what you do every day.

It's not exactly along the same lines, but if children on those islands mentioned in the article can learn to close their pupils 20 percent more than everyone else, they would loose this ability if they had amnesia and then didn't use it for long enough that it left that part of the brain that stores your repetitive task stuff, like driving a car. (can't remember it's name)

This suggests personality can be altered by upbringing too. I don't have any actual links to this topic specifically, but at the very least that article is very interesting and suggestive.

I know I haven't shown evidence for my stance exactly but thanks for your time.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

Hi Impy Timpy
We disagreed earlier over the relative nature of evil. I think we can drop that though, because we won't convince each other on that point, but I would like to make the case for environment changing behaviour.

Here is a quote from an article

The article is unrelated about how some people have at least twice the underwater visual acuity than enyone thought possible,but it does show how dramatically the brain can be changed by upbringing alone, and even as in the quote, just by what you do every day.

It's not exactly along the same lines, but if children on those islands mentioned in the article can learn to close their pupils 20 percent more than everyone else, they would loose this ability if they had amnesia and then didn't use it for long enough that it left that part of the brain that stores your repetitive task stuff, like driving a car. (can't remember it's name)

This suggests personality can be altered by upbringing too. I don't have any actual links to this topic specifically, but at the very least that article is very interesting and suggestive.

I know I haven't shown evidence for my stance exactly but thanks for your time.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

...Your point?

Just because homosexuality may be genetic, doesn't mean a vast, even the majority, of people's personalities are.

I myself am an identical twin, me and my brother has different personalities, with some similarities. Now, how do you explain that?

 

[SquishyDave]

Well that's a good point Impy Timpy, and I agree it is only one of many factors, but I would be inclined to think it has an effect on personality. For example, I would suggest two completely different people are raised identically, and badly. One ends up treating their kids in the same bad way, the other takes it on board and resolves to be better than their upbringing and treats their kids better then they were treated. Same upbringing different results. But you get the same two people and raise them extremely well. They both might become good parents.

Is this scenario so unlikely? We can blame the first guy for not rising above his upbringing when others have, but given the good break would he still be a bad parent? I think he wouldn't.

This scenario shows both our points I think, different upbringing brings a different result to the same person (my point), but same upbringing brings different results to different people (your point, I think). I think that is how the rich tapestry upbringing works (at a very simplistic level) and in the end we seem to coming at the same point from different angles.

What do you think Impy? have I misstated your position? If so let me know.

Sorry to blast the article Dave, but as you pointed out it's not related. I do however agree that environment does play a role in upbringing. However, I can not say upbringing determined personality to a large extent. Take for example gay males who have brothers that are straight. Each is raised in the same house hold yet one of them is gay while the other isn't. This alone seems to suggest that nurture may not be a large deterministic factor, simply one of the many factors determining the personality traits of humans.

 

[c4ts]

Here is the situation...:

A man, who is not insane but nevertheless bloodthirsty and cruel, goes on a killing rampage, murdering thousands. He eventually suffers an accident and is inflicted with amnesia, wiping out his memory.

Time goes on, and he develops as if he never was a crazed killer. But the memories of what he once did come back.

Should he turn himself in to be punished by the law? Would that be the more ethical thing to do? Or is he not responsible?

I have my own answer, however I want to read others' replies first.

Usually amnesia victims are reduced to the mindset of a 3-year-old. He couldn't be held responsible for his actions.