Blame and gratitude are illogical concepts
Debate Rounds (3)
Your position in this debate is consistent with the behaviorist theory of personality (i. e. that human thought processes are shaped exclusively by external causes) and from this you deduce that gratitude or blame are illogical.
I will assume for this debate that logical is intended as a synonym for reasonable or sensible.
I posit that your explanation for human actions is not complete: if all that matters is input (or situation) we could not predict how a person will behave unless we knew all the external factors at play, and yet people tend to act in consistent ways (that are usually described by adjectives given to the person: selfish, generous, introvert, etc.).
This is what is known as the Person-Situation debate (1).
The most common position these days in psychology is that both sides are right: the behavior of a person is guided by personal traits and situation (or external input) (2) (3).
I'll add that in your theory there is no space for free will and personal responsibility: what is the use of prisons then, if a crime is just the inevitable output of impersonal circumstances? And why do people score differently on tests, if they followed the same lessons?
As for your contention, that behavior is the effect solely of external factors (and reinforcement or lack of the same), I find it, as before, not complete. To clarify: I agree that the brain is an input-output machine, but I disagree on the source of inputs; you say it's only external, I say that it's both internal and external.
I posit that if your position were true then:
A) no innate motives would exist, as something innate doesn't need previous experience;
B) human language, and especially the process of learning a language, would be unexplainable in scientific terms.
The existence of innate motives was postulated in 1959 (and has since replaced the behaviorist concept of drives) in order to explain some behaviors that occur without external stimulation, such as exploration, play,etc. (1). More than 1.000 articles have been written on the subject since, and their existence is not generally in doubt.
To make examples in the animal kingdom: rhesus monkeys solve puzzles even if there is no reward associated (2) and zebra finches sing even if raised in isolation (3). I think that shows that the premise that all behavior is due to external cues is false.
What about human language? to cite Noam Chomsky:
"As far as acquisition of language is concerned, it seems clear that reinforcement, casual observation, and natural inquisitiveness (coupled with a strong tendency to imitate) are important factors, as is the remarkable capacity of the child to generalize, hypothesize, and "process information" in a variety of very special and apparently highly complex ways which we cannot yet describe or begin to understand, and which may be largely innate, or may develop through some sort of learning or through maturation of the nervous system. The manner in which such factors operate and interact in language acquisition is completely unknown. It is clear that what is necessary in such a case is research, not dogmatic and perfectly arbitrary claims, based on analogies to that small part of the experimental literature in which one happens to be interested." (4)
And a stringent definition of what is an input and what qualifies as reinforcement in the matter of learning a language was never achieved, making the study of languages difficult at least under your worldview.
(this is a review of Skinner's book "Verbal Behavior", in which Skinner tried to push the point you're making, it's quite long and technical so don't feel obliged to read all of it)
while I'm glad that you consider the possibility of hard-wired instincts as an alternative source of inputs, I think that only the second example I brought was a clear cut instinctive response (the finch singing without learning how to). I don't think that we could say that rhesus monkeys are hard-wired to solve puzzles (puzzle is intended here as the physical object, not the abstract concept).
And this brings me to the meat of my argument: the monkeys solved the puzzles without external stimulation to guide them, so why did they do that? My answer is because they chose to, guided by their curiosity.
They were not forced to do it by the circumstances, unless you think that given a puzzle and a bored monkey there is only one possible solution that will happen all of the time.
The same can be said of the human being: "genetics and chance" is a good approximation of what happens during the development of the whole organism, but the more we study of the brain the more we realize it's really complex. Nobody has ever identified a gene that is single handedly responsible for a behavior in humans.
Now, as an aside, I think that the human mind is an emergent property of our prefrontal cortex, and that whenever we make a choice we potentiate determinate clusters of synapses and depotentiate others, and that personality is just the sum of this. Note that LTP (long term potentiation) is a phenomenon linked to memory that happens thanks to genetics but, as far as we know, is the same for all clinically sane people.
You've been most courteous but I don't think you ever tried to prove what you said, aside for saying it was so. Since you were making a positive assertion, I believe you failed to meet your burden of proof. In other words I posit that claiming that humans are not responsible for their behavior because they have no control on the processing of their brains is not warranted by evidence.
However, the debate is over ad we'll see what other people think.
I repeat that it was a pleasure, have a good day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: A long, technical argument on the nature of choice and personality. But, as Con notes, Pro didn't really fulfill the BoP of the position. While both sides raised interesting points, Pro failed to sufficiently support the motion. Arguments to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.