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

> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to