It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leading edge Neuroscience suggests predisposition to crime/mental illness - Shooter studying himself

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evildead
reply to post by AussieAmandaC
 

Years of personal terror does not justify taking others out. He should've just killed himself.
If it was my daughter who was senslessly murdered by him I'd want to end his life myself.

Wouldn't you if it had been your daughter?

As far as his soul, that's up to God.

If you rob someone of their life why should you have the pleasure of life?

Eye for an eye.



No it does not, and yes he probably should have instead but it's clear he was fighting 'something'.
To kill you would have to see enemy, wouldn't you? He didn't do it like a serial killer (all diabolically sneaky like), he did it in plain sight, one off hit. To him they were enemies, (maybe) it's only going to be speculation until he gives an account of himself or the experts give us their expert opinion.

God forbid if it did happen to me I would very much hope that I could still retain my humanity.

eye for an eye my arse, two wrongs still don't make a right, doesn't matter how it's spun.

And by your reasoning all governments of the world should be dead no?

I think what is more important to remember is, this kind of thing seems to happen to young men, why?
Martin Bryant, Columbine I'm sure there's more, why does this 'sickness' seem to attack the men?

I am not intending sexism with those questions either....




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
This is BS. I also believe in change and self-development.
One word for you: neuroplasticity of the brain - google it, science says we can change behavior and that the brain changes with it



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


By this article, wouldn't whether you believe in the potential of self development or have doomed yourself to an endless pit of self defeatism be predetermined? There is some wiring, but I want to believe that we have free will and the ability to make choices in life.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


I think that culture is where we get our morals and language, etc., from. The brain is meant to be a blank slate that culture is imprinted on. This should be easy to prove by placing babies from different cultures into ones they do not come from.

Will a baby growing up in Japan but born to American parents speak English as a first language because it is in his genes? No! In the same sense, he will not have American culture burnt into his genes, either, but will learn the culture of the land where he grows up.

That's just the way culture works. It has nothing to do with genetics. It does evolve, though.
edit on 24-7-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I found the article rather fascinating.

From the beginning when the news broke, and I heard he studied Nueroscience, I was intrigued. It was mentioned he had dropped out of the PhD course to take Psychology. Psych 101 is also a prereq for college, to begin with.

The first thing that I considered was that he knew something was wrong with himself, and he was trying to figure out what, and to resolve a way to fix it.

I thought long and hard on that, until days later, when I saw him in court.

For me, some things were not adding up. Not in a conspiratorial sense, but in a logical sense.

If he was intelligent enough to understand that something may be mentally wrong with himself that was enough to drive him to seek out Psychology courses, then most certainly, he would also have the drive to reach out for help.

Shyness or not, the two seemed to go hand in hand, especially if he realized he was having irrational homicidal tendencies *and* that this concerned him. Reasoning that, if he was concerned enough to understand this was wrong, and to seek courses to fix himself, then he was able to understand he should reach out for help. *Especially* since he was a camp counsellor. Meaning, he was able to comprehend the idea of giving and recieving help.

Then, when I saw him in court, I completely changed my mind. I had begun changing my mind prior to that, as the more I heard about him, the more I considered that things did not match up. Upon seeing him in court, I became convinced that the reason he took the psychology courses was because he did have the homicidal thoughts and he did have a plan. It is my opinion he *wanted* to carry it out, much in the way some people think and consider suicide a long time before they actually foment and commit to an actual plan.

He took the courses to learn how to be, and act insane. He took them as a foray into mental illness as a shield from his own emotions that were telling him not to, as well as a plan for a defense. To learn how to become psychotic, much in the way we have seen serial killer movies where the main character has to "become the killer" to catch them. This is what I believe happened here.

I think the situations in his life came to such a point that he buried himself in what he learned as a protectant from emotional and rational thought, used drugs to help numb himself, and carried out that plan. Whatever it was that was the trigger, we may never know, but something pushed him to move. Could have been something as simple as someone didn't say "hello" back when he said "hello" to them one day. Could be he didn't get an item in a game he was playing. Could be a girl.

Remember, we *all* have have had irrational thoughts at times. There is a fine line between sane and insane. The difference in any one of us is one who will act, and one who will not. There is a switch in the brain and he found out how to turn it on and off. Instead of suicide, he considered his plan, and figured, "Why not?", and decided that he could use his education in Psychology to act his defense out, as well. To him, it's a perfect plan.

What you saw in court, my friends, was the switch coming back on, and his realization of what he had done sinking in, one horrible flash of memory at a time. There was one moment in the video, where without even needing the sound, his eyes widened, and a look of total horror overcame his face. He was reliving a moment he cannot forget. He was trying to not show anything, but that one moment snuck out, and it was unmistakeable, at least to me.

He may well have taken the foray into insanity, but by the same token, he knew what he was doing was wrong, thereby negating the entire insanity defense. Knowing the difference between right and wrong.

This is, of course, all my opinion. FWIW.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
You've got a good thread, but I don't agree with it. There is data on both sides of the nature vs nurture argument that each support their cause. How a child is raised is extremely important to their future; it's not just their genetics. Yes, one's genetics determine everything about them, but a child must receive and experience a healthy, loving and safe atmosphere in order to develop properly and healthily. Each are equally important. Instead of nature vs nurture, the real expression should be nature & nurture working together.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
He may well have taken the foray into insanity, but by the same token, he knew what he was doing was wrong, thereby negating the entire insanity defense. Knowing the difference between right and wrong.


When I saw him yesterday, I couldn't help but think that he was just acting, to establish some perception that he was wigged out. It would be interesting to see how he acts when he doesn't think that the camera is on him, but one thing that I find most telling is the reports that he is "not cooperating" with police. If he was psychotic, he'd probably gleefully tell them what he did, how and why.

"Cooperating" is a relative term, I suppose, and if it just means that he's catatonic, as he appeared to be in court yesterday, that's one thing, but it seems odd that he'd be ultra aggressive on Friday morning, and reclusive later.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That was because his father got there and told him to STFU for his own good. Up till then, he was blabbing about everything, including his lovely gifts at his apartment.

I can promise his daddy had, and has some control over him, probably did spank him. That is why dad went and mom stayed home. He most certainly wore the pants in the family.

You could tell dad was pissed when the media caught up to him at the airport. He was talking till daddy got there, then he clammed up and started demanding a lawyer. Not too hard to put two and two together.

ETA: And I agree, he was acting to a degree, except for that one moment that I spoke of. I think that was real.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.


You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will


I don't understand. How does my reply come even close to implying free will? If people don't have it in them to WANT to do anything, this takes all control out of their hands.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Watching the news doesn't help you "know" or understand the world. In fact -- I gave up TV altogether at the age of 38. Do you know what I did in place of TV? I started pursuing degrees in philosophy and physics.

TV news is 100% corporate propaganda. There is nothing worth knowing in "the news."


The news is irrelevant. It's the 'WANT' part I'm getting at. Just take ATS for example. I come here to pick up bits of info or to hash out a theory of mine. What ultimately happens is I learn something. It is in my nature to be curious, to ask questions. A LOT of people don't have this curiosity.

You are pursuing philosophy while millions of people are pursuing Three Stooges marathons. You are expanding your mind with physics while millions of others keep their minds in neutral by watching the boob tube and boozing it up.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.


You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will


I don't understand. How does my reply come even close to implying free will? If people don't have it in them to WANT to do anything, this takes all control out of their hands.


"The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to."

Wanting or not wanting something implies an available choice, and your tone indicates some dismissal of those that don't want to improve themselves.

But it's not their fault... it's not like they don't want to improve themselves... the chemicals in their brain just don't want to



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Would you say dying his hair orange was part of this insanity ploy? I just wonder if there is something deeper here and making himself look like the Riddler when the Mainstream media is portraying him as the Joker could a be a clue? Or is he just messing with people?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj


Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to.


So true, good post jigger.

The problem is, most people are happy with the way they are, or at least comfortable.
Lack motivation, clear goals, etc.

The only thing that really drives me personally, day to day, is the desire to improve myself and to improve my outlook and knowledge. Also, I like sharing it with others.

Many people believe that some people are dumb and some are smart, I disagree. Some want to know, others don't care. It's really boils down to that most of the time.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Surely, you've been around people that are 50 years old and can barely read? How about those between 20 and 40 that have no idea what's going on in the world because they don't pick up a newspaper or watch the news? The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to. If they don't want to, then can you see how your belief is only good for you and in no way represents the rest of mankind.


You seem to be labouring under the misconception that you have free will. "Leading edge" neuroscience says that there is no such thing. Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will


I don't understand. How does my reply come even close to implying free will? If people don't have it in them to WANT to do anything, this takes all control out of their hands.


"The only way someone can improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, is they have to WANT to."

Wanting or not wanting something implies an available choice, and your tone indicates some dismissal of those that don't want to improve themselves.

But it's not their fault... it's not like they don't want to improve themselves... the chemicals in their brain just don't want to


Did you not read this part?

but I've seen kids where I could tell by the look on their faces that they just don't have it in them to strive.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
As usual with psychiatric disease it is all about being in the wrong place or right place at the right or wrong time.

If he had flipped in the UK all the cinema audience would have been splattered with would have been ice-creams.

Choose your environment well.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It's more than them being poisoned by toxins that leads to these predicaments.

We have constant heavy conditioning and subliminal messaging that is giving the children the wrong impressions about everything. Sex, money, people, politics, death. You name it, they are being misled by simplistic depictions and inferences in the media.

Anyone can go to Youtube and type in Subliminal Messages and search for videos. There are tons of collections out there to look over. Some suck, some are a lot better, mixed bag. You will have to weed through some of them to find a really good presentation.

These advertisers write SEX all the time in their propaganda, and it's hidden in plain sight, but if you are looking for it you will find it is highly commonplace. Does sex sell? Or rather, does sex help them gain control over our $$$ and our minds??
edit on 24-7-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by KillerQueen
 


OMG

Seriously ?

There is no excuse for this guy. Always excuses when they look a certain way.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Sometimes I think there is no answer but the choices they make and the things they feed their selves
to act out in such ways. I think a lot of people who tend to get on the wrong side of the spectrum of things.
Some psychologists need psychologists etc etc..



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
There's a serious problem with advocating any kind of determinist position, which has an interesting parallel to what we speculate Mr. Holmes may have been up to.

Any argument for determinism contains within itself the idea that said argument is useless, pointless, and ironic. How can you attempt to convince me, through rational discourse, that I do not make rational decisions? If indeed we are doomed agents of fate, why waste your breath discussing it? You can never alter my inherent programming.

Absent free will, Mr. Bernays and his co-conspirators in social engineering are not shadowy figures, merely high-velocity particles. They didn't "discover" how to create ripples of energy through the social fabric, but simply expressed a form or idea that had always existed.

It has been suggested that Holmes was attempting to self-analyze his way out of madness. Only, self-analysis is a route into madness. Attempting to repair a broken instrument with the same broken instrument is about as useful as trying to measure a measuring device with itself. You end up in a feedback loop.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by KillerQueen
 
This is dangerous reasoning. I'm a huge believer in self development. Constantly striving to improve physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. If you believe this then you've doomed yourself, there is in essence no room for growth which is just non sense. This is just the classic nature vs. nurture argument. Just my opinion.



You're not fully grasping the article, because you're looking at it with an all-or-nothing attitude. Who we become is based upon our DNA and then experiences shift us one way or another.

Here's an example - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

If you put 100 people in the exact same traumatic situation, this is how it will play out for the DNA marker for PTSD and those that develop the neurological disorder.

Approximately 40% of the individuals will have the DNA markers to develop PTSD, but only 5% - 10% will actually develop PTSD because their childhood experiences made those markers vulnerable to PTSD.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join