On Saturday, March 9, 2013 6:30:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
>
> >> They are not powerless to stop them since if someone yells, "Hey, 
> stop!" 
> >> they may stop. This is the case even though the process is still 
> >> deterministic or probabilistic. 
> > 
> > 
> > In a deterministic universe, a person who is determined to steal a car 
> will 
> > steal it regardless of whether someone yells at them. If someone yelling 
> at 
> > the thief creates an opportunity for the them to exercise free will over 
> > their own actions, then it is not a deterministic universe. You can yell 
> at 
> > a stone rolling down a hill as much as you want and there will be no 
> change 
> > in where the stone rolls. 
>
> In a deterministic universe it is determined whether the thief will 
> stop if someone yells at him. However, neither the person yelling nor 
> the thief knows for sure whether he will stop or not. 


What difference would it make to them if neither the person yelling nor the 
thief can control whether or not they are yelling or stealing? I don't know 
whether or not a puddle in the gutter will dry out or not overnight, but 
why would that generate some sort of interest to me?
 

> Furthermore, it 
> is not possible to know for sure if the thief will stop or not even 
> with a perfect model of his brain, due to the nature of classical 
> chaotic systems. 
>

It doesn't matter because in a deterministic universe it would be 
impossible to care whether the thief would stop or not.


> >> A court would not let you off if you got an expert witness in to say 
> that 
> >> you were not responsible for your crime due to the way your brain 
> works. 
> >> This is not because the judge does not believe the expert witness, it 
> is 
> >> because brain physics is not relevant to the question of responsibility 
> for 
> >> a crime. 
> > 
> > 
> > When a suspect pleads insanity, they are saying precisely that the brain 
> > physics is relevant to the question of responsibility for a crime. An 
> expert 
> > witness who can establish that you have a tumor in an area of your brain 
> > which is associated with impulse control will have a very good chance of 
> > convincing a judge that brain physics is indeed relevant. 
>
> Mentally ill people don't have different brain *physics*.


Splitting hairs. Using English words in a nonsense order may technically be 
*English* but it is still a language problem.
 

> If the brain 
> is deterministic in a well person it is deterministic in a mentally 
> ill person as well. The difference is that the mentally ill person may 
> not be able to (deterministically) respond to certain situations in 
> the way a well person will (deterministically) respond to them. Judges 
> are usually quite intelligent people and I expect that most of them 
> are aware that everything in the world must be either determined or 
> random, but they still make their judgements despite this. 
>

No judge could make any judgment against a person if they really believed 
that everything must be determined or random. That would mean that their 
judgments would also be deterministic or random, so that they would not be 
a judge at all, but rather a pawn of "inevitable and necessary consequences 
of antecedent states of affairs."

Judgment is impossible under determinism.

Craig


>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to