And lo On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:20:21 -0000, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom>  
did spake thusly:

> nemesis wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>>> http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html
>>>
>>> An interesting take on the matter. Shall we reopen the age old  
>>> discussion?
>>  I for one welcome our new environmental-chemical overlords.  It's a  
>> relief to be
>> freed from all responsibility for my acts.  Now excuse me as I need to  
>> steal
>> some beer from the local store...  and they may sue and threaten my  
>> conscious
>> mind, but will never get to my true unconscious self!  mwahahaha
>
> Not having free will doesn't necessarily equate to freedom from  
> responsibility for your acts (and therefore being able to do 'whatever  
> you want')...as the cumulative result of your upbringing and  
> environment, the actions that you end up taking are, if not  
> predetermined, highly probable.  You *choose* to not rob the store *as a  
> result* of the knowledge that doing so will incur punishment.  
> Alternately, you weigh benefits and detriments, and if the benefits win,  
> you end up robbing the store after all--but the decision to do so was  
> entirely a result of existing criteria.  Ergo, not free will.

Ah but if you accept that we're simply rationalising actions already  
determined by our unconscious the chemical reactions that make you want to  
rob the store were countered/blocked by chemical reactions that stopped  
you. In the  case of those who did rob the store said counter-reactions  
simply weren't strong enough and whose fault is that?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message