(October 3, 2013 at 10:30 am)bennyboy Wrote: If it's a deterministic choice, then it really has only one possible outcome, so I would say the idea that there's a choice at all is an illusion-- I'd just call it data processing. If you want to make the assertion that it seems to you there are no real choices, but only data processing, then that position will make sense to me. But it's much harder to get morally outraged when "data processor Bob Smith" inevitably (even though it's unpredictable or surprising) kills someone.
If you recall your post on artificial neural networks, choices are made in the context of data processing as well. The fact that those choices are determined by certain preset weights does not change the fact that those are, in fact, choices. The only difference between the ANN and a human is that a human can set the weights for his own NN whereas the ANN cannot - for now.
Your idea here seems to be that the only "real choice" possible would be the one where there is no determining cause. Which means a true choice must necessarily be random and arbitrary. But attaching moral culpability to something random and arbitrary seems nonsensical to me. I find it much easier to be morally outraged at "data processor Bob Smith" than at "random event Bob Smith".
(October 3, 2013 at 10:30 am)bennyboy Wrote: And here's something on a slightly different note. What if a murderer is surprised that he has murdered someone? What if after stabbing someone 10 times, his expression suddenly changes, he drops the knife, looks around confused, and says, "I. . . I. . . what just. . . happened?" In this case, the processing of the brain leads to the murder, but the conscious agent may have had no chance to mediate the behavior. Does the conscious agent have to take responsibility for unconscious mechanisms over which it has no control?
That would depend on a number of factors. As a matter of course, the conscious agent - which is a form of brain processing - is in control of the other processes requiring directed motion. So, assuming the perpetrator here is not lying, his condition would be an anomaly and his responsibility would be determined by the cause of that anomaly.
If he specifically induced the dissociative state with the purpose of establishing a defense for committing a murder, then he'd be held responsible for the crime. Murder 1 all the way through.
If he induced the state by intake of drugs or alcohol, while having no prior intention to commit the crime, its partial responsibility - manslaughter.
If he suffered from some kind of breakdown, then his responsibility would be determined by the cause of the breakdown.
If he suffers from a medical condition - like somnambulism - then his responsibility is even less and would depend upon his prior knowledge of the condition.
Typically, in the last two cases, punishment is not called for - however treatment is. And if he had prior knowledge of his condition or a reasonable expectation of breakdown, then the choice of not seeking treatment would increase his culpability.
