JGC9 <jgcasey at hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d0be33b_1 at news.iprimus.com.au...
> extract from John H comments below:
> > > ... why evolution went to so much trouble to create an
> > > 'information processing' device that then deceives its
> > > 'owner' as to what is really going on!
>> Because the 'information processing' device _is_ the 'owner'.
>> It is not a question of deception but of function.
>> If it 'chooses' to do something and 'finds it can' then it has
> 'free will'. The idea that 'free will' would have to mean
> 'without a cause' is something doesn't make sense.
Can you explain your thoughts on this a bit more?
>> extract from "DJ" comments below:
> > > If our society was to truly embrace determinism anybody
> > > could go and kill whoever they liked without fear of legal
> > > retribution
>> Why? If someone is accepted as crazy in the current legal sense
> it doesn't mean we will allow them to act in an anti social way.
No argument there.
> Indeed I believe acceptance that we have no uncaused behaviours
> will change the way we deal with anti social behaviours to a more
> pragmatic and effective manner.
Like... not executing them?
> Our punishment systems now
> only aggravate the situation. They are counter productive because
> they are based a false belief we have 'free will'.
My way of thinking is that if somebody is considering a murder and he knows
that he will be able to use the "determinism" excuse to avoid execution (or
a long jail term), he will be more likely to perform the murder. Our
society hasn't embraced determinism because it would lead to disaster.
DJ
