With a Jury of Scientists No Man Would be Found Guilty of Murder - Proving Intent

MikeL

A lot of the discussions we have, have to do with proving intent.
Why do we have to invoke a god?
Why do we have to invoke sentience?

Both of these questions are asking for proof of intent - at least to answer them you would need to show intent.

Here's the problem:
The butcher picks up a pistol, levels it at the baker, and shoots him.

Was there intent?
In science parallels, most people like to argue there was no intent. The nerve impulses caused the arm to raise and pull the trigger. It was an unlucky coincidence that the baker was shot. And so, the butcher would be acquitted of shooting the baker every time.

It is a very defensible position because we can all agree that the nerves lifted the arm and pulled the trigger.
We find it difficult to prove intent.
We also realize through our own innate knowledge of self that the intent to shoot the baker was deliberate, not accidental.

This is why science will never discover the underlying truths. In immediately jumping straight past the man and into the micro they lose sight of what is true, substituting it for what is provable to all.

It is the "I didn't do it, it just fell over" logic of a child.

If we can figure out a recipe for proving intent in science, we may be able to apply it our topics.

Law would seem like a good place to start, but it assumes the initial sentience of the defendent.
Nonetheless, we can extrapolate these rules:
1. Intent need only prove the act and not the outcome of the act [1].
2. The outcome was forseen [2]
3. Is Circumstantial [2]
4. They choose to bring about a direct result (direct intent) [3]
5. Direct intent is done for the outcome's sake or to willfully cause a secondary outcome. [5]
6. Can a success/failure model be applied (Duffs Rule for Direct Intent) [8]
7. Aim and purpose is examined [7]
8. They cause a secondary result as a result of a primary goal (indirect intent) [4] [9]
9. They know it was probably going to happen [9]

To me, these are pretty poor guides. Can we do better?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the extracts

[1] Criminal intent can be either general intent or specific intent. Specific intent, require that the person actually intend to commit the crime. General intent only require proof that the person intended to commit the act, not the crime.

[2] “A court or Jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence… shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances”

The Distinction between a person acting with intention and acting recklessly

[3] If a person acts with the intention to commit a crime they do so with the choice to bring about a result.
For example if a person sets out with a weapon determined to physically injure their neighbour they would have the intention to being about the hurt of their neighbour.

[4] Whereas with recklessness, if a person acts recklessly they have a choice to take an unjustified risk that the result may occur.
For example if a person sets fire to a pile of newspapers with the only intention of burning the newspaper however the newspapers where next to a wheelie bin, the person would be acting recklessly as there is an unjustified risk that the wheelie bin may catch on fire.

The distinction between Direct Intention and Oblique Intention

Once it can be established that a person has the intention to commit a crime the courts then need to figure out whether their intention is direct or oblique. Depending on what type of intention a defendant may have will depend on the sentence attached to the offence.

[5] Direct intention occurs where you act in order to bring about a result for its own sake or a person acts in order to bring about a result as a means to something else.

[6] Oblique intention is where a person acts with the intention that the circumstances of their actions are virtually certain.

[7] Direct Intention
When trying to prove direct intention the prosecution will look at the aim and the purpose of the defendants intention.

[8] There has been a long established test that helps the legal system establish direct intention, this is called Duff’s rule of thumb.

Duffs Rule of Thumb
This test consists of the success/ failure reasoning. Basically the prosecution will ask if a person would regard themselves as having failed if the result that did occur had not happened.

[9] Oblique intention
The jury will be directed to find someone as having oblique intention if they believe that the defendant knew the result was a virtual certainty and chose to act in the way they did regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MikeL

Science could explain how the universe started by outlining all the conditions that would be required at the start and then working systematically forward to the conception of life or earth or whatever goal they have in mind. The problem with this theory though, is they are playing the part of God, by setting the conditions and then triggering the cascade, even if only in theory.

We can deduce that all models on the formation the universe are not scientically sound if they do not include a reference to God, as the model itself was created by somebody.

To more deeply understand the complexity of the problem, and suggest why explanations are akin to explaining google maps to infants, let's re-examine the statement, "I didn't do it, it just fell."

The child has a very defensible position. We could argue that there was no reason for it to fall and that it hadn't fallen before and that cups don't just fall. Nonetheless, nobody can argue with the fact that the cup has fallen.

In fact anyone could examine the spill of milk on the ground and prove that indeed the milk has spilt from the cup because the cup tipped over, without needing to invoke a knock to explain it all. In fact you could probably explain the state of the milk in the cup up to a nanosecond before it was knocked over.

Still, if pushed on the need for a knock, the child may say that there was no need for a knock because by looking at the fracture of the crack in the cup, science tell us it fell from the table, there was no mysterious knock of the cup, it was gravity. Why suggest the cup was knocked when clearly gravity pulled the cup down. And we could regress backward like this, never proving intentionality.

Yet, the parent knows the child knocked the cup over. None of the evidence offered refutes the knocking over of the cup, only that to explain the spilling of the milk and the falling of the cup, a knock is not required. The child or scientists will then admit there are limits to current knowledge beyond a certain point, for the moment. Clearly even when the next layers are revealed, a knock will not cause the cup to fall.

We could also, as parents, argue that in our experience cups don't fall and that we have knocked cups over before and this is what happens. We could repeat this experiment and demonstrate. This would constitute verifiable evidence and may satisfy many scientists and children alike. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually prove that what happened in this very specific occasion of the spilt milk is what we showed in our experiments. Maybe it was something else.

The other problem in the main though is in the case of the universe and sentience we can't create verifiable experiments. We don't actually know ourselves.

Nonetheless we can look at the entire scene, place the child in the scene and understand that child knocked the cup over. Information about the milk or the cup provides no more evidence.

In a way we can do this because we understand the mind of the child, rather than looking from the outside. This is similar to something I started watching on Bergson. Maybe a solution lies in there somewhere.

MikeL

I think the key to proving the equality of the theories of sentience and god etc may be through the scrutiny of science itself, and looking for incongruities in in methodology.

What comes immediately to mind is abstract reasoning. Science uses abstract reasoning to suggest A came from B. By itself though, even if repeatedly verifiable, it does not prove in every instance that A came from B. It can only prove it happens in the tests, and then generalise the findings.

Furthermore saying that A came from B does not explain C, which happened shortly after B happened. Another series of tests can show that C can emerge if B happens. Together, using abstract reasoning and testing, scientists compile the crime scene (I can't but help feel that I've heard this before). They put all the pieces together, but then refuse to allow abstract reasoning to tie it together with the man that entered the room.

They do not allow abstract reasoning to tie it all together because they do not have a man that fits the bill who can walk into the room and begin the cascade of events to create the crime scene. They do not have a God to test against.

This lack of items by which they can conduct tests is a weakness in science, and prohibts the abstract reasoning they use to get as far as they do from taking the next most obvious unifying step. They close their eyes and say case closed, I understand how all the pieces fell over except the first one, and that's good enough.

Just look at the complexity and inter-relationships in science, how widely they are understood and how dogedly scientists refuse to look up and see the picture.

I just watched Star Wars: Rogue One and jotted down this short dialogue:
[Saw] You can stand to see the imperial flag reign across the galaxy?
[Jyn] It's not a problem if you don't look up.

I thought that was good. Hurry up and comment, before this become my personal journal.

Rich

Forensic scientists are often called upon to explain intent on a manner that it is generally understood. For example, was the weapon used the one that killed the victim. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that someone is innocent because Determinism made them do it.

Determinism and materialism is an accepted fable within society. Scientists get a bye on it for the same reason the Church is allowed its prerogatives on its Biblical stories, i.e. people need faith and hope. In the case of the Church, hope lies in the hereafter. In science, hope lies in the cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. Science plays it to the hilt, constantly offering hope with just a few $hundred billion more in research. And because people's hope depends on a constant faith that all this will come to pass, science gets a bye on silly stuff like Determinism. In actuality no one cares about Determinism or takes it b seriously, not even those who are the leading exponents of it.

Science is no longer about the search for knowledge or wisdom (whatever that may mean), it is about marketing hope.

BlueBanana

Science does not claim that there's no intent, nor does it claim there is. It only proves that the butcher did shoot the baker, and describes in detail how it happened, regardless of whether there was intent or not.

Rich

↪BlueBanana

Psychiatrists are called upon all the time to testify as to "state of mind". I've never heard a scientist called to testify that "there is no mind" and therefore no intent. Let's face it, no one really believes the scientific story of no-mind, but it's not like anyone even cares. The only thing they care about is the miraculous cure for all cancer. Science peddles hope.

BlueBanana

↪Rich

There is no story of no-mind. It's either believed that mind exsts but is caused by chemicals in our brain, or that while mind can't be explained by those, the functioning of the rest of our bodies and physical world can.

MikeL

↪BlueBanana

The difference would be that science could never link a deliberate intent between the firing of the bullet and the death of the baker. Scientific approach would say it was a coincidence- just like it says about mutant genes causing evolution, or the relationships between trees and insects etc. The lack of understanding of intentionality is blinding scientists to the real truth and limiting their capacity. I'm trying to help science here. :)

Streetlight

Was there intent?

In science parallels, most people like to argue there was no intent. The nerve impulses caused the arm to raise and pull the trigger. It was an unlucky coincidence that the baker was shot. And so, the butcher would be acquitted of shooting the baker every time. — MikeL

Perhaps you should consult the scientific literature before putting words in it's proverbial mouth. There are most certainly scientific approaches to intention, and the stuff in the OP is largely a narrow, almost entirely fake caricature based, it seems, in no existing reality. Here is, for instance, Alicia Jurrero speaking precisely about intentionality and the ways in which it can be approached scientifically - without, by the way, doing pretty much anything you accuse 'science' of doing:

"Behavior constitutes [intentional] action (a wink, as opposed to a blink) when the brain's self-organized dynamics, as characterized by consciousness and meaning, originate, regulate, and constrain skeleto-muscular processes such that the resulting behavior "satisfies the meaningful content" embodied in the complex dynamics from which it issued. ... The global dynamics of self-organizing complex adaptive processes constrain top-down their components (motor processes in the case of behavior). ... An intention's constraints would be embodied in the meta-stable dynamics that characterize the intention's neurophysiological organization." (Juarero, Dynamics in Action).

It could only be out of sheer ignorance that one could say, with a straight face, that "in science... most people like to argue there was no intent".

Rich

There is no story of no-mind. — BlueBanana

Determinists believe it is simply an illusion, that is it has no purpose, ability, or intent. Everything is already baked in and fated by some mysteries Laws of Nature. There is literally no such thing as a mind taking some action, and certainly no such thing as the ability to make a choice (by definition).

Suppose someone who has great faith in science suddenly discovers that all this stuff about no-mind is half-baked, does it shake one's faith in science? How does an atheist react when one of the central tenets of biological science appears to be nonsense? How is their faith in science affected?

MikeL

↪StreetlightX

This is a good quote StreetlightX. It's good to see that science is trying to address there shortfalls. However, saying that the action arose in the mind and commanded lower processes to perform the action only demonstrates that the behaviour of shooting the gun was traced back through the nerve impulses to the brain or the mind. It doesn't suggest that the intent was to shoot the baker.

BlueBanana

↪Rich

So you believe that scientific approach is the same thing as hard determinism?

BlueBanana

The difference would be that science could never link a deliberate intent between the firing of the bullet and the death of the baker. — MikeL

That could is the key word. Would, but could not. That doesn't mean they're claiming the opposite. And that's only natural sciences, psychology (for example) does make that link.

Rich

So you believe that scientific approach is the same thing as hard determinism? — BlueBanana

Biological sciences are pretty much premised on this. Quantum physics is rather neutral, only acknowledging an "observer", but beyond this doesn't challenge biological science as professional courtesy and not to step on any funding toes. Astronomical sciences enjoy the idea that the Big Bang (God) gave birth to everything (including those mysterious Natural Laws that guide everything), as it is a great marketing pitch.

So what you have is a schizophrenic situation where no one really believes the story but everyone pretends as to not offend the Emperor (money). As someone viewing the whole thing from the audience, it is pretty remarkable, but not astonishing. Nothing astonishes me anymore. People will do anything for money.

MikeL

↪BlueBanana

Would not, could not, should not, did not. I'll grant that psychology likes to jump into that stuff, just like philosophers do. So in that regard my definition of science may be a little loose. I'm talking about the harder sciences. Good point though. Continue to hammer away Blue Banana.

Streetlight

However, saying that the action arose in the mind and commanded lower processes to perform the action only demonstrates that the behaviour of shooting the gun was traced back through the nerve impulses to the brain or the mind. It doesn't suggest that the intent was to shoot the baker. — MikeL

No. Sticking with Jurerro as our exemplar, she is explicit about this: any intention is ultimately governed by a control loop that runs circuitously from body to environment and cannot simply be 'traced back to the brain' in a unidirectional manner. She refers to this as an intentional control loop that is 'threaded through the environment':

"Dynamical systems theory tells us that because they are embedded in history as well as in a structured environment, people are not independent, isolated atoms just plunked into a completely alien environment that affects them through mechanical forces. ... By means of second-order context-dependencies established by persistent interaction with the environment, agents effectively import the environment into their internal dynamics by recalibrating these to incoming signals. Over time, that is, both phylogenetically and developmentally, people establish interdependencies between the environment and their internal dynamics such that the former becomes part of their external structure: their boundary conditions. Context-sensitive constraints established by positive feedback weave both the environment and history into the agent's cognitive and cognative states, thereby achieving the embeddedness in space and time that characterizes those complex systems. The way adaptive systems function therefore strongly suggests that, as dynamical structures, intentions "ain't just in the head" either.

[...] It is nonsense to claim that we end at the contours of our body, or that our individual concepts and intentions exist independently of our experience and surroundings. ... This embeddedness in time and space allows us to act quickly and efficiently—and intelligently and meaningfully—without requiring that higher levels of self-consciousness be involved at all times in the details that execute conscious, meaningful orders".

Again, this is the science that you seem so eager to claim to somehow not exist.

Rich

↪MikeL

Psychiatry is considered a branch of biological sciences, drugs and all.

MikeL

↪Rich

Yeah, that one snuck up on me. I was down the other end of the pool.

MikeL

↪StreetlightX

Another good answer. I was talking about the universe and evolution, which does not permit sentience into its framework of thinking and you're talking about the actual crime, through the eyes of psychology, the study of whatever the hell sentience and consciousness might be. You've taken a very strong position on the high ground behind me. I opened the can, so let's see what's inside.

The baker and the butcher are both contextualised inside a larger constraint of the environment, wherein the actions of the butcher can be observed and understood. The action of the baker caused the butcher to pick up the gun and shoot him.

The author attempts to equate intentionality to deterministic logic in order to explain the actions of the baker. They do this by suggesting environmental constraint is causing the action rather than an innate process arising instrinsically from within the butcher (it's just a loop).

In this sense intentionality is nothing more than causality, and is devoid of sentient action.

Using this logic in a court of law, the butcher would be no more responsible for the shooting of the baker than the baker is. He is a victim of circumstance.

Streetlight

They do this by suggesting environmental constraint is causing the action... — MikeL

Nope, false again:

"But to repeat, the environment does not function as a trigger the way behaviorism would have it. The agent's own dynamics, albeit continually reset and recalibrated through contextual constraints established as a result of interactions with that environment, partition the space of alternatives and thereby structure and automatically cull the agent's options. ... The agent's intentional organization ... is the set of semantic constraints whose control loop, once again, threads partly through other dynamics and attractors, as well as through the agent's environment and past."

Seriously, study the things you're attempting to talk about. As it stands this entire thread, including your responses, remain a mixture of ignorance and projection, if not projection because of ignorance. In any case whether or not one agrees with the specifics of Jurrero's position is largely beside the point, which is that the caricature of science presented in the OP is awful. The scientific study of intention is far richer, more interesting, and far less anaemic than what is presented in it.

Rich

↪StreetlightX

Scientific study of agency is a gobblygook designed to take all positions, depending upon what feels right at the time and shower its explanations with words upon words so no one notices the sleight of hand just as a magician shuffles cards.

Let's start with sentence one. When was behaviorism jettisoned from science?

"Behaviorism (also called behavioral psychology) refers to a psychological approach which emphasizes scientific and objective methods of investigation.

Sentence 2: That is the objective scientific definition of agent? What does resetting and recalibrating.

More to come but let's get started with these two sentences.

Ciceronianus

Fortunately a real jury of scientists would be bound by jury instructions providing them with a definition of "intent" for legal purposes which, if they would deign to follow them, would probably lead them to make a finding. The law, you see, is its own realm.

MikeL

↪StreetlightX

Hi StreetlightX, thanks for your response. I will respond at leisure more tomorrow, for now though it is early morning and I just popped in to see if there were any other comments.

There is just one little irony I will point out for now, when you say "study the things you're attempting to talk about," and then say "The scientific study of intention is far richer [sic] than what is presented here" you might want to take a leaf from your own book.

My contention is that a lack of applied 'intention' to the problems of physics such as the universe and evolution is stopping them from understanding a deeper truth. The OP actually asks for ideas on how we might approach it, which you have provided. I didn't say that psychology doesn't study intentionality. I admire your passion, but take off your psyche goggles.

Streetlight

Nothing of what I have written or cited has anything to do with psychology. The field drawn upon is dynamic systems theory, which is indeed worth a look at if you're interested in these questions. Again, the sciences are brimming with 'ideas on how to approach intentionality', if you'd care to look. As it stands, it seems entirely obvious that you've not done even the most cursory of research. Not with entirely uninformed statements like this, which is what I was objecting to:

In science parallels, most people like to argue there was no intent. The nerve impulses caused the arm to raise and pull the trigger. It was an unlucky coincidence that the baker was shot. And so, the butcher would be acquitted of shooting the baker every time. — MikeL

Rich

The field drawn upon is dynamic systems theory, — StreetlightX

Nothing special. Same old, same old. Says nothing but it does sound really technical.

"One of the key properties of dynamical systems is that they are determin-
istic in the sense that the present state uniquely determines the states at all future times
(though dynamical systems can exhibit complex behavior which, in practice, can be difficult
to predict, e.g., via chaotic dynamics)."

Hanover

Surely we all understand the difference between an intentional act and an accidental act regardless of whether it can be successfully argued there is no important metaphysical distinction between the two. That is, even if acts we believe arise from intent are no different than those that arise randomly, that would not make it impossible for a jury of scientists to convict a murderer. They would simply have to decipher whether the act was of that type of act that is categorized as intentional. The metaphysical distinction between certain types of acts would not be for the jury's consideration.

I'd also point out the bigger problem is that if you claim the actor is incapable of intentionally murdering, then you are also claiming the jury is incapable of intentional conduct as well. This would mean that their verdict may well be to convict despite their absolute recognition that the murderer acted unintentionally. They would decide that way because they too are not guided by meaningful intentionality and they just decided the way they were forced to, just like our poor murderer.

Rich

I'd also point out the bigger problem is that if you claim the actor is incapable of intentionally murdering, then you are also claiming the jury is incapable of intentional conduct as well. This would mean that their verdict may well be to convict despite their absolute recognition that the murderer acted unintentionally. They would decide that way because they too are not guided by meaningful intentionality and they just decided the way they were forced to, just like our poor murderer. — Hanover

Such a scenario would be satisfactory for towns where racism is rampant. A group of racists kill someone. Our scientists come in as expert witnesses and claim, quite scientifically and to the satisfaction of all Determinists and Natural Selection cheerleaders, that it was all fated by Natural Laws, and then the jury of peers acquits because they also claim, with full support of experts scientific testimony, that they had no choice, the acquittal verdict was fated.

Such would be our world if anyone actually believed in the Little Fable of Determinism. In fact it would be a great story line for the Twilight Zone. Can you imagine a world where people actually took determinism seriously? Pretty much Dark Ages stuff only Determinism has replaced the hand of God.

Determinism, for all intents and purposes, is a philosophical parlor game. But then, where does that leave materialism, the heart of biological sciences? What a goofy mess.

MikeL

↪StreetlightX

StreetlightX,

Nothing of what I have written or cited has anything to do with psychology. The field drawn upon is dynamic systems theory, which is indeed worth a look at if you're interested in these questions. — StreetlightX

As it stands, it seems entirely obvious that you've not done even the most cursory of research. Not with entirely uninformed statements like this, which is what I was objecting to: — StreetlightX

Let me start by saying that Dynamic Systems Theory is at the heart of developmental psychology. Perhaps the cursory examinations of the facts you suggest I undertake should be undertaken first by yourself, so that you are not the one found to be making the uninformed statements you object to so much, especially if you intend to try and wield them like a weapon against somebody.

I have also explained to you on at least three separate occasions now that the intent of the op is to discuss the lack of intentionality when dealing with subjects such as the universe or evolution. Perhaps my initial premise was vague on that point, but that you fail to grasp this point after being told so repeatedly is a little tedious.

I do not have the luxury of spending hour upon hour researching in fine detail all the current thinkers of our modern and ancient times. I learn through the active exchange of ideas and I enjoy that. If you can best me in argument I take my hat off to you and I concede it, like I have on this site many times.

You are right that the article header is provocative, and it is intended to be so. I wanted to challenge assumptions and I wanted disagreement. I will always try to take the most extreme position that I think I can justify and let people try and attack it. I want them to attack it, and by doing so to challenge my own thinking so I can find the flaws in my logic. I hope that in doing so I may also challenge the thinking of others, and together we all grow in the understanding of a fundamental truth, whatever that may be.

That pyschology is also considered a science did escape me on this occasion and you had every right to bring it up with me in relation to the OP. I did admit immediately you had made a good point and my definition of science was too loose. You then went on to try and debate me using that same pyschology I just admitted I hadn't considered and for every effort you made I think I did an adequate job of finding a logic that still supported the position of the OP nonetheless. I enjoyed our first two exchanges and it gave some perspective on how I might tackle the idea of intentionality with ideas like God or evolution when viewing through the eyes of science.

Unfortunately StreetlightX you whine. And your whining only got louder the more your logic began to fail you. Rather than debating the ideas with me, which I was enjoying, you chose to name call. It is like setting up a debate entitled "God is real" and you standing up as first speaker with the argument "No, he's not. You're a liar. Do your research."

If you are not happy with the premise of my OP, then by all means say so, once. If you are still not happy, do not try and wreck my OP by bursting into insult. Go to the moderator and make your case. If the moderator so suggests I will make any ammendment they ask. The other option is, you can simply bugger off.

Streetlight

I have also explained to you on at least three separate occasions now that the intent of the op is to discuss the lack of intentionality when dealing with subjects such as the universe or evolution. — MikeL

Dude, the entire OP was a discussion of intentionality with respect to an imagined court case. The very words 'evolution' and 'universe' quite literally do not appear, even once, in the body of the text. So yeah, I'm whining about the fact that you've changed goal posts after the fact - guilty as changed. Apologies for following the letter of your posts.

MikeL

Yes, you are right. I should have been clearer and will attempt to be clearer in the future. Thanks for your input.

With a Jury of Scientists No Man Would be Found Guilty of Murder - Proving Intent

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions