Hi Ian, On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve I checked out the 2011 Eagleman book, on-line Google books and > Amazon text, and a number of reviews. > > Seems to include many references I've read or recognize ... > > Is your case simply that even consciousness and conscious will are > largely the products of subsconscious patterns. > (That's a given, I've said several times - the reason I prefer > Dennett's free-wont.) > And that "we" - the conscious we doing the deciding - are also > products of all those patterns .... etc. Meme machine and all that ? > > The conscious / intentional action part may be only .0001% of the > activity, but it's still a crucial part of our mental activity - one > that makes a difference to the kind of responsibility we have for > actions.
Steve: I agree. Note that responsibility is linked to intentions but if we (even just for the sake of argument) hold those intentions as products of unconscious processes outside of one's control, then there is no link to free will. Ian: > Is there a part of Eagleman (or your own argument) that explains why > this conscious intentional part should not be treated any differently > to unintended parts ? Steve: They _should_ be treated differently because it makes a difference as far as what treatments are likely to work. It is a matter of modifiability of behavior rather than whether or not one has control on some deep level. It also is a matter of to what extent a behavior is characteristic of the sorts of behaviors someone is likely to exhibit in the future. Eagleman proposes such a forward-looking approach to punishment and rehabilitation over retributive approach which doesn't make sense once we drop the notion of free will (or even just recognize that if we have it, it is very small). Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
