Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain

On 5 June, 12:43, Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[ There is no such thing as evil, as there is no such thing as good.> There is only acceptable and unacceptable, truth and falsehood.

Logic still comes back to axioms, and people choose axioms that serve
their perceived interests.]

I do not only depend on logic (which you now seem to be hung up on), I
just expect it to be always operational.

I am an empiricist..

There will still be assumptions in there somewhere.


[No, empirical and semi-empirical.
You've shown no empirical evidence that paedophilia is beneficial for
society in the long term. You merely suppose it will by extrapolating
from select pieces of evidence.]

Not select at all, all that exists (TMK).

What I *infer* is, presently, the best working hypothesis.

It is for paedophiles! But not necessarily for anyone else.


[The truth always outs (when it can).
You can have truth, and still have no support. That tends to happen
when "the truth" reveals people's interests to be diametrically
opposed.]

Truth needs no support, once realised.

I was thinking more along the lines of this scenario: you lock two
blokes up in an empty room, and give them one cake between them to
sustain them. The cake contains sufficient nourishment to support only
one life. If they share it, they'll both die in due course. Now on
entering the room the blokes don't know this, and so they agree to
share the cake. Now, do you really think it will necessarily be to the
benefit of both individuals for the truth to be established?



[That is not 'The Truth', it is the present dogma.
You'll find throughout history that is exactly what has happened. Look
at the "epicycle" explanation of the Heavens - people were saying for
a long time that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but it
challenged the prevailing ideology, and so the truth was ignored (and
indeed suppressed).]

Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up.

Again, that is not necessarily true. Many societies in the past have
collapsed, and the aggregate knowledge of those societies has been
lost. I believe the use of concrete is an example of knowledge that
was discovered and then lost for centuries when Roman society
collapsed.


[Of course, a small number of sex offenders/violent schizophrenics do> cause, proven serious harm.

I think by definition these people tend to be harmful.]

By what definition?

Schizophrenia does not increase risk of violent crimehttp://www.physorg.com/news162047519.html

I didn't say schizophrenics tended to be violent. You talked of
'violent schizophrenics' who presumably are, by definition, violent.


[All the reports point to the opposite. Abduction does not negate
"free> choice", in fact, it often does not.

You miss the point. If the child had been asked "do you want to go and
live with this stranger and never see your parents again?", I dare say
she'd have said no.]

You have no idea, do you know much about her mother?

I don't to be honest. It was an example off the top of my head.
However if you're going to go on and say how poor Kampusch's home life
was, then Priklopil may well have been the soft option. Still, I think
that would say more about Kampusch's parents, than it would about
Priklopil.


You also have no idea what was said.

As I say, I'm willing to suppose what she would have said.


[Of course, having been forced to do exactly that,]

Forced?

[she found it wasn't so bad after all. But that's just exactly what I
said, which is that people can be made to like anything.]

Especially when it is harmless, fun and exciting.

Evidently some children do enjoy the process. As I've said, you can
get children to like virtually anything.




[When did you accept the Chair of Post-modernism at the University of> La La Land? ;)

It's untenable to say that language has any objective definition.]

Of course it does, see figure 4.2

Language development from birth to three

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XX-f4AmsxJQC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq...

That is how language works. i.e an object which is animated and is an
animal and is .... etc etc is Napoleon Bonaparte.

I haven't actually got enough time to study that link. However we're
talking about what language is, not how children learn it. And indeed
I may well disagree with the approach taken.


[As I
say, I'm not really up on the behavioural aspect of language, so I'm
not really in a position to make any emphatic arguments on the
subject.]

Well I hope Fig 4.2 assists, as a start.

[You do know how language works, do you not (hierarchical meaning and> all that)?

No, I'm not familiar with it, although I can tell you I would reject
any explanation of language that tries to explain it outside of being
a human behaviour.]

See above, as a start.

I have no idea why you think your last comment is an issue, as we
talking about human neuroscience, here, which guides (controls?) all
our behaviour.

I'm glad to see there's some common ground. To be honest that's why I
like talking to you - even if I do patently disagree on certain
issues. The bottom line is that you've just got to be careful not to
become reductionist about the matter. Humans are systems, but not
closed systems.


[One concrete way to prove you incorrect, of course, would be to> compare Napoleon Bonaparte's DNA to Nigel Oldfield's DNA; job done.

Such is the power of science.
By that logic, identical twins are one and the same individual]

No, because their DNA starts to differ, as soon as the zygote is
formed.

Identical twins do not have identical DNA, they have very similar DNA
and it become more dissimilar as every second passes.

The Claim: Identical Twins Have Identical DNAhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

Again, a straw man (and a rubbish one ;) ), as I am not a twin of
Napoleon Bonaparte.

Still, the point I'm making is that if you define Napoleon as as
individual possessing a certain DNA profile, then presumably you are
not Napoleon. But if people define Napoleon some other way, then that
definition could quite possibly encompass you as well as the 'real'
Napoleon.


[See
how difficult it is to define what you mean by Napoleon?]

No I cannot see at all, and nor should you. Logic is not everything.

I never said logic was everything. I'm saying language does not have
an explicit logical definition, and it is clear there is not a 100%
correlation in meaning between two speakers of the same language.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... There is only acceptable and unacceptable, truth and falsehood. ... saying that the status quo always remains and must always be accepted. ... If enough people described you as Napoleon Bonaparte, ... It's untenable to say that language has any objective definition. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... proof) that I approach the truth, ... I regularly find language is ... I am Napoleon, ... If enough people described you as Napoleon Bonaparte, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... You can have truth, ... Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up. ... The point I'm making is that a language is defined however the ... Identical twins do not have identical DNA, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Those are specifications for two points in a 2D array of naturals, ... I'm just saying it boils down to quantity (including truth values), language, and operators. ... Remember, I included the language of expression, and the operators allowed in the language, in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: How child abuse and neglect damage the brain
    ... [Only ever for a 'short' time, until society catches up. ... I didn't say schizophrenics tended to be violent. ... talking about what language is, ... the point I'm making is that if you define Napoleon as as ...
    (uk.legal)