[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <Jos.Laycock at OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK>:

>  Platt:
> But can we agree that what someone thinks about art, business or 
> > politics is not
> > dependent on inorganic or biological patterns? In other 
> > words, no tinkering 
> > with brain chemistry can turn a socialist into a conservative?  
> 
> No sorry, we can't agree on that one, memories, thoughts, and beliefs,
> permeate all static levels thus they are dependent on all static levels, its
> true that in the brain there is a great deal of redundancy and so patterns
> are very stable, addition of one neurotransmitter (or artificial analogue)
> over a short timeframe may affect the function of a particular region or
> cell type but it has no profound efect as the pattern is preserved
> throughout a whole range of other brain machinery/chemistry.
> Long term exposure to drugs has been shown to affect personality however,
> especially "dirty" drugs that include many different active compounds.
> Traumatic brain injuries also frequently result in pesonality shifts.
> To effect the kind of specific changes you refer to above would require a
> highly sophisticated nano scale targeted drug administration pattern way
> beyond what modern medicine is capable of, but that's not to say it's
> impossible.

Well, maybe you're right. I do notice that those who imbibe in hallucinatory
drugs tend to be liberals. :-) As for as things being impossible, I suppose
nothing we can conceive of is impossible. But as far as I know, the connection
between brain chemistry and who we vote for is tenuous at best.

> Platt on animals:
> "since all their choices
> > are governed by biological instincts"
> 
> You state this as a fact to support the assertion that animals have no free
> will, but I'm sure you can see that its circular.
> I can equally well say that animals have free will because they undertake
> many actions outside of those brought about by biological urges.

Can you suggest some examples?

> The animal question, will not be resolved, they are certainly limited in
> their ability to explain their motives to either of us so there seems little
> point discussing. My experience with various species is that animals can be
> highly sentient and display a range of traits that others regard as solely
> the preserve of humans. You have a diffent view and thats fine, but both
> arguments are self fulfilling, to me its a question better resolved by
> obsevation of life than thought experiment. Afterall no test can really
> demonstrate that another human is not an simply a complex automaton (perhaps
> we all are).

Have you heard of the Turing test?

Platt


 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/