Another Dawkins quote

[udontknowmickey]

He's got it figured out:

Dawkins (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins)

As a side note, if anyone is willing to engage a full Christian apologetic against atheism...

Steve Hays (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_triablogue_archive.html) is working through a series of posts against atheism.

[Phil153]

I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful before you rush to judgement. I think it was a little unfair of OP to link to that site without commenting on the nature of it. Here (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html) is the main page. Everything you see there is going to be provocative and extremely speculative.

Edit: by the way, I'm a little grumpy that OP beat me to introducing that site to SMP. I encourage everybody to read much more than just Dawkins' contribution. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful before you rush to judgement. I think it was a little unfair of OP to link to that site without commenting on the nature of it. Here (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html) is the main page. Everything you see there is going to be provocative and extremely speculative.

Edit: by the way, I'm a little grumpy that OP beat me to introducing that site to SMP. I encourage everybody to read much more than just Dawkins' contribution. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I am normally a fan of Dawkins, but that article was entirely crap. Most crime is not caused by defective brain wiring, unless you think a raccoon that digs through the garbage or a stronger carnivore that takes a kill away a weaker one is defectively "wired."

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]

I am normally a fan of Dawkins, but that article was entirely crap. Most crime is not caused by defective brain wiring, unless you think a raccoon that digs through the garbage or a stronger carnivore that takes a kill away a weaker one is defectively "wired."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the people are considered to be wired defectively in virtue of their anti-social actions and disposition, not necessarily in some biological sense.

If a hungry shark were to eat somebodys kid clearly it would not be due to faulty bilogical wiring, now if some human eats somebodys kid it is pretty clear that they are defective in both senses. When a 25 year old man screws a 16 yr old girl it doesnt mean he is a mutant or something its just means he has a certain defect which causes this kind of behavior.

So perhaps Dawkins would say in virtue of the fact raccoons dump our trash cans out they are defective. Moreover, even if Dawkins has the confusion you claim he does about the way to classify the causes of anti-social behavior, it is not the crux of the argument. All he is saying is that since peoples "crimes" are usually result of forces other than themselves they should be held blameless. Cars have defects which they could not be faulted for. People have defects they could not be faulted for, and according to him these defects directly result in crimes that people should not be faulted for. We should merely look for a way to fix them.

So, if you think his argument is crap because of the issue you mentioned you need to learn to read. The problem you raised is not a problem for his argument, and probably isn't even a mistake, it is merely confusion on your part.

[Lestat]

Does everyone agree with Dawkin's first premise (i.e the primary purpose for punishment being retribution)? I'm not sure I do. I'd like to believe that we lock people up first and foremost because they are a danger to society. The more severe their crime the more dangerous they are, and the more severe the punishment. Of course, I realize this isn't always the case (Martha Stewart?). We also impose severe punishment as a deterrent to other people who might be apt to commit simliar crimes.

[Borodog]

I think Dawkins' very argument contains his answer, at least to the question of executions:

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?

[/ QUOTE ]

His entire thesis is a moot point, given that science is nowhere near to being able to "fix" the "defective unit" that is the child murderer's brain.

Even though I am personally against the death penalty for a spectrum of reasons, none of them is that a murderer doesn't deserve to die.

Clearly a rabid dog is defective. The dog doesn't "deserve" to be killed. He didn't "deserve" to get rabies. He was probably a good boy. But he gets put to sleep. Maybe some day we'll have a cure for rabies. Maybe someday we'll have a cure for murderous instincts and intent. But we don't right now.

Dawkins should stick to explaining evolution and bashing religion in entertaining and thought-provoking ways.

[Borodog]

Furthermore, the implications of government getting to "fix" the minds of those it defines as "criminals," is too frightening a concept to even think about. It's fine if you talk about child-murderers. But what about all the victimless things that government has criminalized, like smoking pot and free trade. Do you get your brain "fixed" for those too?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He's got it figured out:


[/ QUOTE ]

What Dawkins says is perfectly logical, the natural outworking of a materialistic worldview, the end of all morality and justice. If our brains are just the deterministic result of the laws of physics, if evolution made me do it, how can anyone ascribe guilt to anyone?

And of course Dawkins shouldn't be angry at me for being a Christian. He should stop calling me stupid and brainwashed. The laws of physics and evolution made me what I am, I'm not responsible, it's not my fault.

[hmkpoker]

Responsibility is +EV to the querent and you have to be pretty dumb not to realize that. That's why me and the other self-proclaimed determinists aren't out hacking people to bits on PCP. The justice system is (or should be) useful to other members of society as well, i.e. removing dangerous people, etc.

Determinism does not proclude justice.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if you think his argument is crap because of the issue you mentioned you need to learn to read. The problem you raised is not a problem for his argument, and probably isn't even a mistake, it is merely confusion on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

No confusion here, but I will take up your advice on learning how to read.

You know what, I'll respond to this later, you're points seem to be mostly inane.

[KipBond]

I agree with Dawkins. Here is the summary:

[ QUOTE ]
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between punishing a car and punishing a human, is that the former will not change the car, but the latter will change a human. Now, however, the discussion can be had that punishing a human often makes their actions worse, not better.

I do think he is right that most of the time, people seek retribution, without really understanding a truer analysis of what's really going on. But, it often works. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy, whether you "tit" because you are pissed at the other guy and want to pay him back, or because you want to change his behavior to result in an optimal equilibrium for the game.

I think a more enlightened motive for punishment is to correct the person's behavior to maximize happiness (for ourselves and others). Why does a (good) parent punish their kids? Not for retribution, but for correction -- because it is better for everyone if the kid cooperates in order that everyone can be happy.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I am normally a fan of Dawkins, but that article was entirely crap. Most crime is not caused by defective brain wiring, unless you think a raccoon that digs through the garbage or a stronger carnivore that takes a kill away a weaker one is defectively "wired."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is "defective" in that it led to actions that society finds unacceptable. We said his actions were "bad", but Dawkins says that we would be more enlightened to realize that it was because his "wiring" was "bad". In that way, we can let go of any retribution motive for punishment, and focus more on how to fix the real problem.

[Borodog]

Kip, I think one could eaily argue that Tit For Tat predicts that we should be "wired" to want retribution, but also "wired" to forgive. Retribution and forgiveness are not "quaint" or "colloquial" or "unenlightened." They are part of human nature. Dawkins could argue that, like aggression and violence, the lust for retribution is a facet of human nature best fought against, but he makes a poor case.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Kip, I think one could eaily argue that Tit For Tat predicts that we should be "wired" to want retribution, but also "wired" to forgive. Retribution and forgiveness are not "quaint" or "colloquial" or "unenlightened." They are part of human nature. Dawkins could argue that, like aggression and violence, the lust for retribution is a facet of human nature best fought against, but he makes a poor case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he does think we are wired to want retribution -- that's what he means by:

[ QUOTE ]
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "useful fiction" is also wiring. It's a short-cut method to get us to use "tit-for-tat" without understanding the purpose behind it. However, as humans, we can learn more than our DNA provides, and that knowledge can change our actions. Knowing the true reasons for tit-for-tat is a more enlightened understanding than merely wanting retribution because you are pissed off.

[Borodog]

Good points.

[udontknowmickey]

Steve Hays (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/hara-kiri.html) responded to the Dawkins article.

[ QUOTE ]
“Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.”


I posted the Dawkins’ piece without any commentary on my part because I thought it would be more fun, for a change, to let other commenters chew it to pieces. And, indeed, you’ll all done a swell job.


But before the piranhas have totally devoured his bloated remains, I want to have a final bite at the corpse.


One of the stock objections to Christianity is that a Christian must commit “intellectual suicide.” Not only is that a stock objection, but a stock phrase—parroted ad nauseum.


And a number of you have pointed out that, in fact, Dawkins, the doctrinaire atheist, is the one putting a bullet in his brain.


But it’s important to observe that there is a screwy logic to his position. Given his starting-point, his conclusion is inexorable.


If naturalistic evolution is true, then men are simply meat machines. There is no rational, incorporeal soul which is the seat of human personality.


Naturalistic evolution is a strictly physical process which operates on strictly physical organic and inorganic materials. That’s the whole point. We’re a sack of chemicals.


If so, then mental properties must be reducible to material properties.


If so, then consciousness is just an illusion.


It is easy to belittle dualism. Gilbert Ryle famously caricatured dualism as a “ghost in the machine,” while Daniel Dennett, his modern mouthpiece, caricatures dualism as a homunculus piloting the cockpit of the brain—as though there were a miniature person inside the skull looking out the windshield of the eyes. It reminds me of a scene from “Men In Black,” about a little alien using a synthetic body as a spaceship. And Antony Flew’s parable of the invisible gardener is in the very same vein.


Very cute. Very clever. Even if you can’t remember the argument, or never read the argument, the witty illustrations stick with you.


There’s only one problem with all of this. Once you deny the mind, you have nothing left with which to think or argue.


Dawkins speaks of the “useful fiction of intentional agents.” There is no real person behind the eyes—thinking, feeling, and intending. That’s a grand illusion or evolutionary construct. Our selfish genes have tricked us into believing that we are intentional agents.


But Dawkins’ problem is that he must assume dualism in order to mock it. Notice how he objectifies the situation, as if he could stand outside his neural programming and cast a backward glance with serene critical detachment.


Somehow he’s able to put enough distance between his fictitious self and his brain to detect his fictitious self. Somehow he’s privy to the magical tricks of the Blind Watchmaker.


Of course, you’re left to wonder what self there is to detect a fictitious self. Looks like the recessive image of a mirror within a mirror, within a mirror, ad infinitum.


So, in order to make his case for atheism, Dawkins must tacitly assume a God’s-eye view of “a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.”


And the value of this exercise is that the reasoning is reversible. If this is, indeed, an inevitable consequence of his evolutionary starting-point, and if that conduces the Darwinian into an argumentum ad absurdum, then if, contrariwise, our consciousness is, in fact, real, evolution must be false.


If you bash your brains out every time you step on the garden rake of evolution, then it’s time to turn the rake over, facing down.


[/ QUOTE ]

As a side note, the issue I have with those of you claiming that Dawkins should get back to bashing religion rather than spouting off about what he doesn't know, is that the establishment of a materialistic worldview (as Dawkins is trying to do), will have ramifications throughout all of one's views on everything. Dawkins is just one of a few people who are being consistent with his thoughts (in this manner of course, I would argue that foundationally he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that's another post).

If the logical conclusions of a materialistic worldview results in a standard of ethics that is false, then that means the materialisitc worldview is false. We cannot hold a view on ethics that contradicts our view of biology and creation and expect to be reasonable.

Now of course, "I don't like it" isn't a good argument for something being false.

[luckyme]

From Dawkins[ QUOTE ]
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins is referring to Daniel Dennetts "Intentional Stance". It is a useful fiction because it sidesteps reductionism and treats entities, such as humans, as having intent regardless of whether they actually do. Taking the 'intentional stance' resolves a lot of complex interactions into understandable intentional ones that makes good predictions about outcomes.

I understand Dawkins to be saying, 'look, using the intentional stance is useful, but we shouldn't for get it is a fiction in the sense that it's a higher level view and there are more complex, deeper reasons for what we typically account for with the intentional stance.'

with his-
[ QUOTE ]
But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

[/ QUOTE ]

He confesses that he likely not able to leave the intentional stance behind, even knowing that it's a 'less true' way of looking at the world. It's that ingrained. Essentially it's a holistic vis reductionism situation where both levels can be true, along the lines of his 'selfish genes create generous people'.

"Tit-for-tat" retribution is our instinctive response and it serves a general social purpose, but we should now be able to see it as the evolved default reaction and 'get past it'. That doesn't rule out punishment, it questions "why retribution".

I wish Dawkins would have continued because there is still the question of "what is being fixed" and how we'll fix it, if at all. Punishment likely is part of the fixing of some problems "there, you won't want to do that again", and if we take a holistic view then it can also be a general deterrent which is a pre-fix.

I read it as a quick smack on the side of the head to get us beyond reflex positions on this issue.

luckyme

[luckyme]

I stopped reading Steve Hayes when I came to this -

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then mental properties must be reducible to material properties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emergent properties do NOT exist at the levels below. Why do we see this error made so often. It's like expecting to see "the school system" when you walk from the classroom to the principals office.

When I see comments like this all the bells go off about the persons understanding of multi-leveled systems.

luckyme

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
If naturalistic evolution is true, then men are simply meat machines. There is no rational, incorporeal soul which is the seat of human personality.


Naturalistic evolution is a strictly physical process which operates on strictly physical organic and inorganic materials. That’s the whole point. We’re a sack of chemicals.

[/ QUOTE ]

The author fails to understand emergent properties. My computer is nothing more than an arrangement and movement of sub-atomic particles. But, HOW they arranged, and HOW those particles move makes my computer so much more. A thing can be "more" than the sum of its parts -- because the arrangement of the parts and the way the parts interact create something else: specifically, a particular movement of parts.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then mental properties must be reducible to material properties.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying the properties of Microsoft XP must be reducible to the properties of sub-atomic particles. It's wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then consciousness is just an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and no. It's an emergent property. The fact that it's so vivid to us and we think of it as an almost tangible "soul" is an illusion.

[ QUOTE ]
There’s only one problem with all of this. Once you deny the mind, you have nothing left with which to think or argue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "mind" is an emergent property of neural activity.

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins speaks of the “useful fiction of intentional agents.” There is no real person behind the eyes—thinking, feeling, and intending. That’s a grand illusion or evolutionary construct. Our selfish genes have tricked us into believing that we are intentional agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

He misunderstands what Dawkins is saying. The fiction is not the "intentional agent" (well, it can be that too), but in context he means the mental constructs that we create -- specifically the ones of "blame" and "responsibility".

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you’re left to wonder what self there is to detect a fictitious self. Looks like the recessive image of a mirror within a mirror, within a mirror, ad infinitum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that Dawkin's view of responsibility is also a "construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live" -- it just happens to be closer to truth, "more enlightened". And, Dawkin's readily admits that it's hard to hold this more enlightened view: "I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment."

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Kip, I think one could eaily argue that Tit For Tat predicts that we should be "wired" to want retribution, but also "wired" to forgive. Retribution and forgiveness are not "quaint" or "colloquial" or "unenlightened." They are part of human nature. Dawkins could argue that, like aggression and violence, the lust for retribution is a facet of human nature best fought against, but he makes a poor case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we evolve reactions that will usually work out to our genetic advantage. Our large brain and our large complex language-assisted social structure is not a mere correlation.

Perhaps he doesn't make a case for or against the lust as such, but to have it at least recognized as that. Maybe I'm cutting him too much slack to cover his choice of topic in a short article for the "Dangerous Ideas" series. It obviously is a dangerous idea, but he is on firm qround in questioning both the way we see and how we handle 'blame and responsibility'.

Take a deliberately 'dangerous' format and give it to a 'dangerous' communicator and voila ;-)

luckyme

[morphball]

How many people here have ever contemplated murder, stealing, or committing other crimes. If people are honest, then it should approximate 100% So are you all defectively "wired"?

Let me just add, that this Dawkins garbage reflects the stupid mentality of our time, i.e. reinforcing external loci of control. An external locus of control is simply placing the blame for things that we are culpable of on other factors. For example, a child who fails a test and thinks, it's not my fault the teacher hates me and purposely made the test hard has an external locus of control. The child will be more successful when he says, I should have studied and I will next time.

This happens everyday with crime. It's not my fault I committed murder because my mommy and daddy neglected me. You see what I mean. It is your fault, and not your poor excuse of a parent unless they were holding a gun to your head. It's not my fault I am a serial killer because I was sexually abused.

With the advent of psychiatry and psychology we getting even more excuses. It's not my fault I steal because I have these urges (i.e. the same urges the raccoon digging through the trash has). Now Dawkins, is arguing the same crap with less detail, but it's still crap, mind you.

The difference between a human and a car, the human's ability to control itself and the human's awareness of its own existence. Because we evolved from animals, or because we are tempted by splitfoot, we all have instinctual animal urges. It's normal to have them and its not normal to be free of them. Even Jesus had them, right? So just because we have urges to steal or be violent does not make us defectively "wired." (The urge to be violent serves an important biological purpose, BTW, even for the more heinous forms of violence, such as rape.) Dawkins should know this, and that's why his writing in this article is the crappiest of crap.

Of course we control our instincts, don't we? Maybe what Dawkins is saying is that the people who can't control their instincts have "defectively wired" instinct repression systems. What prevents one person from doing something that another does? Usually it's the result conscious decision after some type of risk/reward analysis. Some people don't think they will get caught,i.e. low risk, or some people feel the reward is so high, the risk is justified, i.e., my friends won't like me or I hate him so bad I can take the heat.

It is only when a person does not perform this risk/reward analysis should we begin to say, alright, they are not culpable. But these cases are few and far between, although every criminal who is caught would love to use it.

Finally, allow me to add that retribution/punishment is a great reason to punish criminals, IMHO, but that's enough writing for now.

[hmkpoker]

So how did you do in your psych 101 class?

[morphball]

you talking to me, are you asking seriously?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, allow me to add that retribution/punishment is a great reason to punish criminals, IMHO,

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed Dawkins was claiming retribution was not a 'reason' it was an innate reaction. The discussion would be meant to start there not end, but that's what opinions are for, I 'spose.

luckyme

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we evolved from animals, ... we all have instinctual animal urges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that... we still are animals.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course we control our instincts, don't we? Maybe what Dawkins is saying is that the people who can't control their instincts have "defectively wired" instinct repression systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man will always act based on his strongest inclination. He is, after all, a machine. "Controlling your insticts" is also a behavior that is a result of physical processes occuring in your brain. The only way you can behave differently, is if you are different. "Wiring" is just a term Dawkins is using to denote a different arrangement and workings that make you, you. If you disagree with him, then you must think there is some external "you" that can control your body and is not affected by the physical makeup of it. If you are a Christian, or otherwise believe in a "soul"/"spirit", then that makes sense. I've seen no evidence of a "soul"/"spirit", so I don't believe it exists.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
then you must think there is some external "you" that can control your body and is not affected by the physical makeup of it. If you are a Christian, or otherwise believe in a "soul"/"spirit", then that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not in this context though. Our 'soul' presumably doesn't pull our strings at random, it has characteristics and some decision mechanism of it's own ( or what does it do, flip a quantum coin?). It also would be subject to Dawkins query about the nature of responsibility and the concept of 'intent'. It just moves the jobs offshore where they're subject to less oversight.

luckyme

[morphball]

Kipbond - I agree that we are animals. I am not a soul believing kind of guy, my other posts should be ample evidence of that.

That said, I am not sure what you mean in your second paragraph at all. I wasn't driving at an external force, although and not to get freudian, say instincts come from the ID, the ability to control those instincts rests in the ego, and the ability to disguish when the instincts are suppressed and when they are acted on lies in the superego. (Check that out hmbpoker). So wouldn't the superego be an external force to the Id, the Ego, or both and still rest within yourself?

And maybe, in my opinion, that's what separates us from the other animals, that our brains are developed enough to possess a "superego".

Finally to everyone in the thread, I do believe that some crime is caused by defective wiring. But I just think that because we have a "superego" or whatever causes our ability to control our instincts, we should not be over-ready to excuse a criminal unless we know that he absolutely could not control himself. Not everything in life is hard, sometimes bad children just need to be spanked.

[hmkpoker]

I would, but I fear it's just going to boil down into the usual free will v. determinism argument.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Kipbond - I agree that we are animals. I am not a soul believing kind of guy, my other posts should be ample evidence of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think so, but it sounds like it in this thread. If by 'superego' you mean some force that is not subject to the natural laws, then that's no different than a "soul". We are all subject to the inner workings of our brain -- in fact, we are the inner workings of our brain.


[ QUOTE ]
Not everything in life is hard, sometimes bad children just need to be spanked.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if spanking the child will correct their "wiring" -- otherwise, it's like beating a car.

[Bork]

You really haven't given any reason to doubt Dawkins deterministic claims, what you said amounted to that you dont like people passing resposibilty. I don't think I like it either. From dawkin's standpoint people have little to no responsibility for their actions. This is where you would have to attack if you hope to defeat him.

[hmkpoker]

It's not that there's no "responsibility," it's that responsibility is a flawed concept. Logically it is useful to be able to assign one specific cause as responsible, but in reality it doesn't work that way. That DOESN'T mean that we can go around raping people, it just means that correction should be a more central focus than retribution...and Kipbond seems to have something of a game theory argument against that as well /images/graemlins/smile.gif