On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
In the normal use of the word "control" a deterministic system can
control things. For example, an automatic pilot can control the plane.
>> 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.
It's not impossible to care. I could care if I have the winning
lottery ticket if I know it has been drawn but not yet revealed.
>> > 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.
Not at all, the fundamental physics may be the same but in one case a
person can assess the situation and change his behaviour while in the
other case he can't. The automatic pilot is broken.
>> 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.
In that case judges are deluded about making judgements - but it
doesn't deter them.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.