This is pretty close to my personal view, rigsy. I've always found the treatment of accountability in law truly intriguing, and thought stimulating.
On Aug 6, 2:22 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree that we possess or always have free will at our disposal- > even the civil laws make distinctions. We are forced onto many paths > and decisions- softly or harshly. > > On Aug 5, 2:04 pm, Allan Heretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You lays have free will no matter how you seeing it created. It is the > > consequences of those choices that can be a bitch, > > Allan > > > On 4 aug. 2011, at 17:48, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There are a number of approaches to this question, Jo; but essentially > > > and in summary (and i do a great injustice to a very powerful > > > philosophical school), the deterministic tradition suggests that since > > > we''re fundamentally bounded chemical systems immersed in a "sea" of > > > ever more elaborate chemical processes, regulated by immutable > > > (replicable and predictive) physical laws, and nothing else (which > > > takes you back to the mind/brain question), our actions are no more > > > than expressions of these chemical processes, constrained at an > > > aggregate level by universal physical laws. When we think we make > > > decisions based on choice, it is the mind "stroking" itself since, in > > > terms of "proximate" action, we know that our decisions are preceeded > > > in time by a neuro-electrcal "footprint" (interesting work by Benjamin > > > Libet, presented in his book "Mind Time"); and in terms of more > > > deliberative action, we are pretty certain to make the same decisions > > > over and over again given the same set of variables, since our > > > cognition is hard wired, and its operations are governed by the self > > > same chemical processes and physical laws. Hence the question: do we > > > have free will? and if we do, how much free will do we have? > > > > On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I don't understand how some can say we don't have free will. You can > > >> choose to do anything you want at any given time. How is that not free > > >> will? > > > >> On Aug 2, 12:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> "We have access to a technology that would have looked like sorcery in > > >>> Descartes's day: the ability to peer inside someone's head and read > > >>> their thoughts. Unfortunately, that doesn't take us any nearer to > > >>> knowing whether they are sentient. "Even if you measure brainwaves, > > >>> you can never know exactly what experience they represent," says > > >>> psychologist Bruce Hood at the University of Bristol, UK. If > > >>> anything, brain scanning has undermined Descartes's maxim. You, too, > > >>> might be a zombie. "I happen to be one myself," says Stanford > > >>> University philosopher Paul Skokowski. "And so, even if you don't > > >>> realise it, are you." Skokowski's assertion is based on the belief, > > >>> particularly common among neuroscientists who study brain scans, that > > >>> we do not have free will. There is no ghost in the machine; our > > >>> actions are driven by brain states that lie entirely beyond our > > >>> control. "I think, therefore I am" might be an illusion. > > >>> So, it may well be that you live in a computer simulation in which you > > >>> are the only self-aware creature. I could well be a zombie and so > > >>> could you. Have an interesting day." (from a recent New Scientist) > > > >>> We range over debates in free will and what it is to be human. So far > > >>> we haven't established free will or even that we are not merely > > >>> avatars in 'something else's game'. > > > >>> I wonder whether there are advantages in considering ourselves as > > >>> creatures limited by programming and also capable of it?- Hide quoted > > >>> text - > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
