K

kingjames1:

No, I don't particularly like it. My liking of it and it's factual basis are orthogonal.

Why does determinism make revenge misdirected. Revenge within limits is a drive that would definitely have served to eliminate anti-social elements from tight-knit social groups - aiding in the survival of those groups.

OK, another biblical inconsistency.

No, behavior can be changed with positive reinforcement, brainwashing, chemicals, surgery, and I'm sure a host of other things.

Rehabilitation doesn't presuppose the ability to make morally significant choices - it only presupposes that drastic behavioral changes are possible.

OK, God doesn't show Himself equally to all. The majority of humanity has never experienced the Christian God.

That may be, but I believe the Bible even calls it a "lake of fire." I will restrict my comment to say that Christians who believe that Hell is a place of suffering have no concept of justice.

No, but species with a drive to have justice for others would have a significant survival advantage in that they would be able to form strong social groups. I'm not arguing about the survivability of the individual, but the survivability of the species.

I take this to mean that God's position somehow makes it ok for Him to take the victims of the Nazis from their gas chambers and do what He will with them. I realize you don't believe that Hell is a place of suffering, so the comment doesn't apply as strongly to you. But that is still a strange form of justice.

My love for my wife and children is intense beyond description. But the fact that I believe I am programmed to love them doesn't make it any less real than if I were tapped in to some cosmic love source.

Let me put it this way. I think we would both agree that there is no objective deliciousness out there that determines what tastes good and what doesn't. We have tastes for foods that provide the nourishment we need (eg. we have a sweet tooth probably because we no longer have the ability to manufacture vitamin C). Does the fact that the taste for food is a purely biological function eliminate the deeply human experience of enjoying a delicious meal?

I thought psychology in general was aimed at finding the causes of different human behaviors. Behavior that results from causes sounds perfectly compatible with determinism to me.

You are rejecting determinism because of feelings - not actual observation. I may feel lucky and that I have a decent shot at winning the lottery on a particular day. That doesn't change my actual odds.

By the way, I'm not a full-blown determinist. I believe that the brain acts in a deterministic fashion (inputs + brain state = output). I think the jury is still out on the determinism of the universe. Unless someone successfully finds some hidden variables, I think it's prudent to assume that quantum mechanical events are truly noncausal.

No, I have no absolute proof. There is a significant amount of evidence though. Peoples' personalities have been drastically altered through chemicals, brain surgery, brain damage and disease. There are also experiments with conditioning (positive and negative) and brain washing that would seem to support the assertion.

I don't think free will means that you can will to do literally anything. I do think it means that your brain states are under "your" control and not simply a function of the current inputs on the present brain state.

I thought we were talking about sciences related to conciousness and human behavior. If you want to define quantum mechanical events as exercises in free will because they are non-causal (to the best of our knowledge at this point), that's ok. But I don't think it is a very useful definition.

The only complexity theory I'm familiar with is in the complexity of algorithms. I'll look into it.

However, it still doesn't seem to be damning to my views. I never claimed that we could have any hope of determining the exact output of a brain to an arbitrary precision - only that the brain state is simply a function of the inputs and the current state.

I've never argued that the brain wasn't an incredibly complex network of neurons. I wouldn't think of it.

Agreed. This is still perfectly compatible with determinism.
No, I think Penrose is a crank (at least in this field).

I would not be surprised if it could be expressed in an algorithm that could be processed by a Turing Machine. However, it could easily end up being a problem that a Turing Machine couldn't solve in a finite amount of time.

I actually even attended one at Berkeley once.

kingjames1

Response to Primal:

There are a few things that are evidently confused in your understanding of the purpose of my summary of cultural relativism. I chose it because it is the dominant view in intellegentsia. It is also the dominant view I have encountered in my personal interactions. I did not chose it (or social darwinism) as a straw man. Where you have drawn strawman implications are of your own doing. BTW, my only comment about social darwinists in this section was that such an individual would not find the charge of being animalistic offensive...it was a facetious comment, though half-true. You seemed to have read that comment back into my evaluations of cultural relativism.

Is it that difficult to understand that in dealing with cultural relativism specifically, I can draw relevant conclusions for other forms of ethical relativism? The rejection of a reduction of ethical categories to social constructs for reasons of destroying their culturally presumed transcendence (consider the ethics of Plato or Aristotle, or the Stoics, or Augustine, or Aquinas, or even Kant for that matter) has obvious implications for evolutionary ethics as well, to take one example. This is not the same as rejecting Christianity as cruel since the Koran contains cruel injunctions, and the Koran and the Bible have similarities -- as you suggested. This indeed is sloppy thinking. But it is also sloppy to confuse this with my arguments.

But I can see from your second reply that there will be no convincing you otherwise where you have judged me of "double-think." So I will simply challenge you to a simple, narrow discussion of your position (evolutionary ethics or biological morality, or whatever you refered to). Surely your sophisticated evolutionary approach should be no match for a "fundamentalist," "lazy," doofus such as you have labeled me to be.

BTW, all critiques come from within a worldview, but there is an obvious distinction between negative critique and advancing a position. So you are right to say that I critique relativism from a Christian perspective, but wrong to assume that I am thereby advancing Christian objectivism. If I am, it is only indirectly so, and inevitably so, as it would be if you were to critique Christianity from your perspective.

A couple of things...

You wrote:

All this trouble over the term: social darwinist! As I said, I will use the term "evolutionary ethics" and avoid "social darwinism" from now on. The reason for the qualification here, is that if we employed the term "social darwinism" to cover any position that holds the theory of evolution as normative in ethics, this includes individuals who, strictly speaking, reject (neo)darwinism (i.e. those who hold to the theory of punctuated equilibria). But the point is no longer relevant since we're using "evolutionary ethics."

One (or two) last thing(s), I do want to respond to the following:

"More equovocation, you are confusing the term "arbitrary" as in decided on for no solid reason with arbitrary= random. BTW evolution is not just chance. This ignores the fact that arbitrary in the second sense makes morality no less equal,illegitemate, randomly distributed, constructed etc. Which are all hallmarks of ethical relativism."

This distinction is interesting. Where do you find it in the dictionary? Is a random process a "solid reason"? You are right to say that evolution isn't simply chance in the sense that it is more than chance mutations -- it is also environmental pressures, whereby certain mutations are favored. But where did such environmental conditions spring: solid reason or chance? Unless you hold to some sort of teleological cosmology, you must conclude that even the conditions that suppress and favor genetic mutations are based on "no solid reason." Hence, evolution is ultimately an arbitrary process, contingent solely upon randomly produced materials and environments. Or do you believe the big bang (as it happened) was logically necessary?

Secondly, I still find your statement about group-selection being self-interested incoherent. The only thing that can be called selfish in this process in the genome -- but a gene can be 'selfish' only in a poetic sense.

Perhaps you're confusing poetry (and other such emotion-laden stuff) with sound reason?

J.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Response to Primal:

I'm sorry, I couldn't help responding to more of your objections.


No, relative. Situational truths are rooted in absolute values (e.g. love ala Fletcher) which find various expression in various contexts. Either it is good for me to care about my fellow species, or it is good for me to look out for number one above all else (irrespective of the situation), depending on my genetic code. Perhaps it is possible to find an example of a species who is sometimes self-sacrificing and sometimes 'selfish', depending on the circumstances (e.g. humans), but this does not do away with the fact that some species are never self-sacrificing w/respect to the group. In other words, this does not change the fact that self-sacrifice is a species-relative value, not merely situational.


Exactly...and there are some critiques of pragmatism that would apply to Christianity (I imagine that there are, at any rate). You have made the claim repeatedly, but you have yet to show how I have drawn conclusions concerning one worldview, and illegitimately applied them to another. So, as they say, either put up or shut up.


What are you talking about? Do you think that I have tried to hide my Christianity here? Apparently you have read nothing else of mine on this thread. What you mean by "fundamentialist" is another thing altogether; as far as I can tell, it means little more than "sonuvahbitch" on this forum. But I was not, strictly speaking, advancing a Christian ontology or meta-ethic -- only via negativa, as it were. And this, as I've said, is unavoidable in any debate.

Finally, I am under no obligation to save your soul or convert you. How could I? To assert this is to presume an enormous, God-like power.

Your gross caricatures of Christianity are surely an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

J.

kingjames1

Response to K

So you argue that revenge is not misdirected, in the right context? Does this mean that you hold that the justice system is a semi-controlled environment in which revenge takes place? Is our sense of justice then simply an instinct for revenge, dressed up in the language of "order" and "righteousness"?


Why is this an inconsistency? Do you believe that because it is alright for the government (per the social contract) to punish criminals (a sort of 'communal act of revenge'), then it is alright for individuals to seek justice/revenge for themselves, vigilante style?

...and typical psychotherapy, which often employs none of these techniques. I.e. there is no physiological alteration evident in most therapeutic techniques.


You apparently didn't read Romans 1:18ff...


But your concept of justice as 'civilized' revenge (including, based on your comment above, the extermination of certain anti-social elements) is an adequate concept? Do prisoners with life-sentances not suffer for their entire lives? Do the 'exterminated social elements' suffer? Is suffering your issue? Why should suffering per se be wrong at all?

Fair enough. But why ought the species as such survive? (if I could, I would stress the word "ought")

Yes...this is the prerogative of the Almighty: to do with us what He will. However, it cannot be forgotten in saying this that in all that he does he is right, good, just, and merciful.

Good example. I agree that taste is relative. Afterall, some insects seem especially fond of dung. However, my enjoyment of food has significant dissimilarities with my enjoyment of my spouse (and with people in general). I do not enjoy her only because she "does me good," though she does. Moreover, I sacrifice for her, not for the good of my species as a whole, but because I love her. I do not doubt that my self-sacrificial love (as faulty as it may be) has incidental benefit to the race as a whole, but that certainly isn't the reason I do it. In other words, according to your system, I am under the delusion that I do it out of love (what is love?) for her, not for the preservation of the species. The selfish-gene has 'tricked' me into behavior that preserves it.

Sure, psychology looks for 'causes' for neuroses or behavioral disorders, but these causes are not understood as strictly determinitve. They are factors, no doubt, but they do not guarentee certain behavioral responses.

</strong>

Of course. My rejection of determinism does not result from some feeling that washes over me all of a sudden, but from my entire experience as a person.

And this is consistent with a limited freedom, one delimited by our physicality, without reducing our personalities to mere brain structure and input.

"your" control... From your perspective, what is the "you", the conscious center of the human person? A conglomeration of brain states?

This is related. The book I was thinking of is entitled "Complexity: An Emerging Science on the Edge of Chaos and Order" Something like that... here's the website on amazon: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671872346/qid=1039037081/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5017966-7208159" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671872346/qid=1039037081/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-5017966-7208159 </a>

I might buy this, depending on how one understands the function of brain states. This in and of itself is not necessarily deterministic, not if the current state includes in some way a 'free will' or the self as morally responsible. In such a case, my current brain state is both shaped by physiology and environment, and directed by a self-conscious center. But I am open to changing my mind(!) on this stuff. I will be interested to see where research takes us in 30 years.

Ah yes, the old Goedel problem of undecidable propositions would be a case in point! If the brain is a computer, it is not a classical one. For we can decide that certain propositions are simply undecidable in a finite amount of time, and give up! But how can a system be fully deterministic and yet not be subject to the inherent limitations of arithemetic systems? If the human brain is unable to be modeled mathematically (as a whole, not in parts), can we ever know what the 'physics' (so to speak) of it are? I don't what the full implications of Goedel on AI entail...

Really, who spoke?

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

Norge

Response to K:

The problem, it seems to me, is that your paradigm cannot account for a number of things. First, you write:

It being “morality.” Now, there are two problems here. The first is that it appears you have created “morality” to explain the kinds of behaviors we exhibit. In other words, we act morally because it is to our benefit and benefits our social grouping. (There is of course a problem with the idea of “group.” What does that mean when it’s at home?) Now, when we look at that statement, what we see is that morality is simply to be assessed on the basis of its ability to ensure the survivability of our social grouping. There is obviously a problem with this.

First, this doesn’t describe morality at all. On this account, if a person protects his social grouping well, he is a moral person. But this can’t be the case, because there have been many people, who have done just this and who are morally repugnant. Ie. Hitler.(He is the epitome of the person protecting his social group, Germany and in particular Aryans within Germany). In addition, if protecting one’s group is the one and only criteria for morality, then that should lead to certain social policies that are morally corrupt. We should get rid of disabled people, for starters, because they’re a burden. So are old people. In fact, if it is praiseworthy to protect your group, then anything, however immoral, becomes moral by virtue of my acting for my grouping. Oh, and by the way, when I do this, you can’t really criticize me the first time I do it. Why? Because “I am determined to do it by my genes.”
I haven’t received my input of moral outrage yet from others that you describe later.

Now, at this point, you might say that he (Hitler) shouldn’t have acted thus, because it wasn’t in the interests of an even larger grouping, the peaceful coexistence of Europe, but that is simply pushing the problem farther out. Once you do that, you have to abandon that argument that we act for the local grouping. You have to go back and forth like a yo-yo. Small group: family, no: locality, no: country. No, maybe not, back to family. This is incoherent.

There is a second problem and it has to do with two mutually exclusive statements that you made that cannot be reconciled. It is my contention that there is an “oughtness” to morality. We sense a moral compunction to act in a given way, in my view based on a God-given conscience. We can address that particular view (mine) another time. For now, though, let’s look at your view. You try to explain our moral behavior in terms of what it is. It is determined by our genes, by our environment. We are “programmed by our environment.” In fact, there are multiple stimuli that program our behavior but ultimately we are simply machines that act on stimuli and conditioning. Fine. (In fact, I will concede some agreement with you here. I think a lot of our environment does condition us. No question. But not completely. We are not completely free but we are not completely in chains either).

But then you go on to state that there is no reason why a person should not object to the actions of another. Why? Well, at first I thought that you were going to root your justification in the idea of “survival of the fittest.” But on further reflection, looking at your posts, I realise that you don't even get that far. This is what you state, in responding to my post on child sacrifice:


What this means is that when you say that you object to someone killing children, all you are really saying is: “hey, that can’t be benefiting the survival of the fittest, your social grouping etc.” But if you think that’s what we’re saying when we view such a thing, then I may have to conclude that you are unreachable. It is simply counterintuitive to state that what we mean by “torturing babies is wrong” or “killing 6 million Jews is wrong” is simply the same as “hey, you are going against the idea of survival here.” If you can’t see this, then I can’t help you.

But you have a further problem, because having said that we can criticize others on this basis, you then write the following:



But you write elsewhere the following:


If we “have no choice,” then how can you state “in hopes of changing that deterministic behavior.” I’m programmed and that’s it, right? And if I hear your criticism and ignore it, then really I can’t be held responsible, because my actions are completely determined. I’m sure you’ve met the objection before that determinism destroys personal responsibility. For determinists, this objection is unanswerable.

And perhaps this is where I should stop, because it should be clear to the vast majority of readers now that determinism is a hopeless cause. It simply doesn’t accord with logical arguments and it certainly doesn’t accord with what we see in the world. When I push over your children and shout at them, you know perfectly well, when you object “don’t do that. It’s wrong,” you’re not saying “hey, you’re damaging the ability of our group to survive.” You know that. Further, if I do it again and reply “Hey, buddy, I’m determined. I couldn’t have done otherwise,” that you are bound to agree with me on the basis of your arguments, but your arguments are screaming “this doesn’t make sense!”

Time to abandon determinism, K.

K

kingjames1:

Bingo. Although I do believe our justice system contains some flawed elements because of what we think we know about justice while ignoring the actual pragmatic reasons for our drive for justice.

No, I was referring to the 'vengeance is Mine' and 'do not judge' contradictions to a system where humans judge others.

It is still a method that uses inputs to the brain to try and affect a change in brain mechanics.

No, I didn't. But no matter what the Bible says, I know that there are people who have never even heard of Jesus or the Bible.

You brought up the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis as a cry for justice that goes beyond any human drive. I simply asked if you felt that same need for justice when faced with a God who causes the suffering of many of those same Nazi victims. But then again, you have already claimed that your version of Hell does not a place of great suffering as it is for many other Christians. So this issue isn't a huge sticking point.

That's the crux of the issue. There is no "ought" that says that species should survive. It just does because it is better equipped to.

Your version of justice if different than mine if you believe that a tyrant can do what he will with his subjects simply because of his position. And simply calling Him right, good, just, and merciful doesn't make it so if it isn't followed by actions demonstrating these traits (ie. elimination of needless suffering, etc.) However, I feel I've sidetracked the discussion a little by bringing the Christian God into it. I'll try to focus on the determinism unless you want to start a new thread.

That pretty much sums it up - except for the anthropomorphic gene reference. Creatures that had feelings of love would act on that impulse, but would unknowingly be gaining a survival advantage (for the species, not the individual).

This may sound like partial determinism / partial free will to you. But to me it sounds like determinism without a full understanding of all of the causes. Since psychology deals with behavioral outputs based on stimulus inputs, I'd certainly say it doesn't undermine the position of the determinist.

Yes, but your argument still seems to fall along the lines of, "but it doesn't feel like my choices are determined." My whole life experience has told me that it doesn't feel like I'm hurtling through space at high speed. I am.

But you are forced to admit a limit on our behavior based on our brain structures. Why is it so difficult to assume that all our behaviors are so derived? I think it goes back to the 'it doesn't feel like that to me' defense.

I quoted "your" because I am assuming that you picture "you" to be some non-physical soul. To me it is a fairly continuous progression of brain/body states.

My reservations stem more from the continuous nature of the actions in the human brain. I do believe we will be able to create self aware systems that could be may or may not be able to be modelled with a Turing Machine. I just am concerned about the 'arbitrary precision' caveat.

John Searle and Lotfi Zadeh (even though this obviously isn't his area of expertise) among others.

K

Norge:

After this much discussion, you haven't grasped even the very basics of determinism. It may be my fault for not explaining it more clearly.

You seem to be stuck in a few areas and I'll try my best to explain further.

1. I don't believe there is an objective right and wrong.

Your points about my morality not being able to condemn certain actions as wrong are meaningless. I'm not trying to set up a morality whereby actions can be judged as right or wrong. Actions simply are actions and I'm providing an explanation for why those actions happen. I don't say that actions that try to preserve the close social group are "good". I only say that species with a predisposition to perform those actions gained a survival advantage that allowed them to prosper. The idea of "good" and "bad" only exist in our minds and they exist there because of the evolutionary advantage they provided our ancestors.

2. If someone's actions are determined, you don't believe they should still be held accountable for those actions.

This is something you are injecting to the discussion that I never claimed. I've listed many practical reasons for holding people accountable for their actions despite the determinism. Species with individuals who had the drive to hold others accountable for antisocial behavior had a distinct survival advantage over those that didn't. It helped maintain close-knit groups.

I would change a burned out light bulb. I wouldn't leave it in it's socket just because it's burning out was determined by its structure and the amount of current it had seen.

3. You also seem to think that determinism means that peoples' actions are not affected by the actions of others around them.

Determinism is not predestination. The determinism I'm putting forth is simply that a person's behavior is based only on the stimuli acting on their brain whose structure is determined by genetics and the sum of their previous experiences. My drive to hold someone accountable for an action I find disgusting causes me to provide them with another input (negative reinforcement from me) which may prevent them from performing that act.

It's not time for me to give up determinism. Certainly not until you've convinced me that you at least understand it. kingjames1 and I disagree, but I do think he/she at least grasps the main points of my position.

Norge

K,

This is a disappointing reply for one reason. You haven’t engaged at all with the points that I made. Not one, apparently. That is disappointing.

You wrote:

I haven’t even addressed this issue once. In fact, I did quite the reverse. I did my best to characterize what you said about the issue by quoting you repeatedly. For example, you write in your latest post:

I don't say that actions that try to preserve the close social group are "good". I only say that species with a predisposition to perform those actions gained a survival advantage that allowed them to prosper.

That’s exactly what I am responding to!

You wrote,

Er, no. What I did write was that if a person’s actions are determined, then there is no justification for holding someone accountable. The two are very different indeed. The devil is in the minutiae of the argument here. It’s important that you don’t misunderstand me.

This last one is a mystery to me. You wrote:

I haven’t a clue where you’re getting this from. You’ll have to provide a quote from my post to establish that I believe this. I don’t. Of course people are affected by those around them. That’s not the issue with determinism, it’s the fact that it can’t be defended as a realistic account of what morality is. It cannot account for the “oughtness” of morality. It cannot account for the scenarios I wrote about at the end of my post. I would really appreciate it if you would engage with what I wrote specifically. That way, I would be able to know if you can refute my arguments and I can actually counter yours.

Thanks.

Primal

james you are so full of shit I can smell you from here.

You deny that you are arguing for Christian perspective, then admit you are a Christian which is why you will not accept evolutionary ethics.

Woes me! I guess a poor "lost soul" like myself just can't accept divine doublespeak james.

james I likewise am not going to show you how a criticism of pragmatism doesn't necessarily entail a criticism of Christianity: I already did that via an example. Just because you lack reading comprehension skills does not mean I'm going to draw you a picture and then email it to you. Which is probably all that will work by it seems.

The fact is you may placing both under a common rubric, perhaps they even share features in common: however your crticisms only apply to one or the other in most cases. And you treat them as if they apply to both.

And how the hell can you come up with the idea tha situational morality=absolute morality. Ever hear of a contradiction in terms james?

It simply baffles the mind how you are willing to spend so much time and go to such great lengths to prove to everyone on this board how much of a moronic freaking idiot you really are.

Well you can stop james because most of us here are already convined. Further demonstration will not be necessary. I doubt you are going to save any souls here from the dark lord underground in his lake of fire. imo you have probably just read too many "Left Behind" books james and are just trying to defend a viewpoint built on fantasy with a very poor and simplistic philosophy that even a person taking an introcudtory course or aware of basic logic can see through.

Stop thinking that you are going to magically justify some two-thousand year old fairy tail and come to grips with reality. That is the best advice I can give.

K

Norge:

Very well. Here is a point by point response.

It is not morality, but the behaviors that we often classify as moral or immoral. It's a small but hugely important distinction.

I haven't created "morality". I've only tried to explain human behavior in terms of a deterministic brain that was genetically honed through an evolutionary process.

No. We act as we do because we are genetically and environmentally forced to do so. Some of the behaviors that are not concerned solely with our individual survival make sense when examined through the survival benefit created by social interaction. Many of these behaviors we (humans in general, not me in particular) classify as moral or immoral.

No. Morality is not to be assessed with determinism. Morality is meaningless except as a general group name for certain behaviors.

Wrong again. A group of people composed of individuals who treat each other in ways that strengthen social bonds and promote group cohesiveness are more likely to ensure the survival of their members than those that don't. Some of the behaviors that work toward promoting these ends are sometimes referred to as "moral".

This objection is meaningless. I have never proposed a system for classifying the actions of Hitler or anyone else as moral or immoral. I only proposed a way to explain behavior in terms of a deterministic brain. This is why I pointed out that I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong - just behaviors I find objectionable and others that I do not. You, I, and the vast majority of others find Hitler's actions disgusting and want to ensure that they are never repeated. That's it.

I don't need to repeat why this makes no sense do I?

This is filled with moral judgements and words such as "praisworthy" and "virtue". I hope I've pointed out by now why these make no sense when viewed in the light of determinism as a whole. They are only words like "delicious" or "smelly" which describe subjective evaluations.

Read your quote here again and then see if you can understand why I claimed that you appear to believe that determined behavior can't be criticized. You pretty much spell it out right there.

No, I don't say anything like that. All I say is that I find Hitler's actions repugnant and that, given the chance, I would do my best to prevent similar acts in the future.

I never specified anything about the group size. I only gave an evolutionary explanation for human social behaviors.

However, since you brought it up, this is one of the areas I find very interesting. Clearly the majority of the evolution of social animals was at the small group / family level. Only recently (in evolutionary terms) has humanity reached a point where our social groups include a huge majority of people we don't even know. I believe that is the cause of many of the "grey areas" in "morality".
Is war an acceptable method for ensuring national priorities? Is it OK to keep the money when a corporation makes a financial mistake in your favor? There are a million of them.

Note again that I'm not saying these questions can be evaluated as truly right or wrong. I'm only interested in how our deterministic evolved brains will react now that out communities are much more global in nature. But, this stuff all belongs in another discussion, so I won't dwell on it any more.

Because by doing so we provide the person with additional inputs that that may bring their behavior more in line with what we (as individuals not a global "we") find acceptable.

Again, I never said anything about it being wrong because it goes agains survival of the species. I said that I find it disgusting. I also tried to point out that if a species was composed of individuals that didn't find it disgusting, that species wouldn't be around very long.

I want to be very clear on this. I AM NOT EVALUATING ACTIONS AS GOOD OR BAD / RIGHT OR WRONG. I am only trying to provide an explanation for behavior.

You mentioned two mutually exclusive statements and then never provided them. I'll wait for those.

I find the behavior absolutely disgusting and sickening. What more do you want. My aversion to it is every bit is strong as yours - I just don't need some big guy in the sky to tell me that it's heinous. Just as I don't need Him to tell me that I like the taste of sushi and cheeseburgers.

I thought we were past this. The behavior is determined by the current state (which is a result of the genetics and the sum of past experiences) AND THE INPUTS. I never said it was pre-ordained. By changing one of the inputs to a deterministic system, we can change the output. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.

If I've provided my son with the threat of punishment for hitting his baby sister, he now has an additional input to process. He is still bound to the output of his brain, but now his brain will process the threat an it will (hopefully) change the output.

Tell me again how I'm putting words in your mouth by claiming that you say that determinism means people can't be held responsible for their actions.

Again for the millionth time - holding people responsible for their determined behavior provides an input to their determined brains that can affect future behavior.

Instead of destroying personal responsibility, determinism enhances it. Why hold anyone responsible if doing so will not affect their future behavior?

Your misrepresented and misunderstood version of it perhaps, but not the real thing.

This section is just filled with all of the misrepresentations that you claimed I was pulling out of thin air when I responded to the post as a whole.

Again, not before you show that you understand it and can provide decent argument against it (not just an argument against what you think it is).