On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I explains why people think, "I could have done otherwise." > Regardless of what they think the irrefutable fact remains that they did NOT do otherwise, and they did not do otherwise for a reason or they did not. > They could, due to random events in their brain/environment, but causal > efficacy of those random events (e.g. choosing Everest vs Matterhorn) is > narrowly constrained by who they are. > That's basically what I said, you are what you are for a reason, your genes; in this particular case the risk taking gene. So wanting to climb a mountain was deterministic, but picking one mountain over another was random. The "free will" noise does not enter the picture. > So even though their choice is 'random' it still may satisfy the > social/legal concept of their responsibility. > I think people are ALWAYS responsible for their actions unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the the circumstances of the crime were so unusual that he's very unlikely to repeat it or serve as a deterrent for others. As for the law, it says some people are responsible and some are not with no rhyme or reason for putting some people in one group and some in another, after going through a astronomically complex process the end result is that the law chooses at random who to punish. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.