Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.

yeah, but the guy suggests a reformulation of the law system to take into
account lack of free will.  I can see cleptomaniacs crossing fingers... XD

Post a reply to this message