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.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.lukesurl.com/comics/2010-02-24-determinism.png

excellent CYOA spoof! XD

Post a reply to this message

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

On 7-3-2010 4:07, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.lukesurl.com/comics/2010-02-24-determinism.png
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

With pages 57-71 for those that science does not always give black and 
white answers?

Post a reply to this message

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

> 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?

It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something should be 
done to ensure that in the future that person has strong enough counter 
reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that person pay some money 
or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:39:59 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> 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?
>
> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something should  
> be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong enough  
> counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that person  
> pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.

But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)

-- 
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

Phil Cook v2 a écrit :
> And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:39:59 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
> spake thusly:
> 
>>> 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?
>>
>> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something
>> should be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong
>> enough counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that
>> person pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.
> 
> But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)
> 
But there is no free will on the judge either, and it's a normal
application of the system on the robber: the system is punishing itself,
that just the way it is. There is not enough counter-reaction in the
judge to not apply the letter of the law.

Post a reply to this message

>> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something should 
>> be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong enough 
>> counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that person 
>> pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.
>
> But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)

Oh come on, you're speaking like these are real people with feelings and 
free will, not simple machines that are just carrying out chemical reactions 
:-)  The person's brain has a fault, it can be fixed by taking it to a jail 
for a while until it's reprogrammed itself sufficiently.  Just like you take 
your PC to a shop when it's misbehaving :-D

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:10:09 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>>> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something  
>>> should be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong  
>>> enough counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that  
>>> person pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.
>>
>> But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)
>
> Oh come on, you're speaking like these are real people with feelings and  
> free will, not simple machines that are just carrying out chemical  
> reactions :-)  The person's brain has a fault, it can be fixed by taking  
> it to a jail for a while until it's reprogrammed itself sufficiently.   
> Just like you take your PC to a shop when it's misbehaving :-D

'Hmm seems you have a error in your personality matrix'
'But I feel fine Dave'

-- 
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