On 5/11/2012 11:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

    > And why did you murder your wife? the judge asked.

If I had a reason I killed my wife and the judge thought that reason indicated I was unlikely to do something like that again (I killed her because she was chasing me with a bloody ax)

So was that coercing you to run or kill her?  or could you have just chosen to 
be axed?

then the judge should set me free; if the reason I killed her indicates I would be a menace to society in the future (I killed her because I didn't like the twinkle in her eye) then the judge should not set me free.

Even if the judge thinks you are unlikely to kill anyone else he will still punish you as an example. But if, for example, you killed her because someone credibly threatened to kill you and your children if you didn't, the judge would consider that a mitigating instance of coercion.

If I killed her for no reason whatsoever then I'm a extremely dangerous ticking time bomb and a few hundred amps of electricity passing through my body would improve me immeasurably in just a few minutes.

    > You did acknowledge that between computable and non computable there are
    intermediates, but there are intermediate between computable and random, 
and between
    self-determinism and self-indeterminism.

Yes, and the technical term for the idea that events are neither random nor deterministic is "gibberish", although some experts prefer the word "bullshit".

> Coercion involves the free will, or responsibility, of other agents.

Cannot comment, don't know what  ASCII string "free will" means.

Are you equally ignorant of the meaning of "responsibility"?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to