Conscious control an illusion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How and why do you judge Hitler anyway? Your concept of free will did not include conscious control if you remember.
Why should someone be judged based on whether or not they have conscious control? We are not judging the consciousness but the person as a whole and how he works and who has control is not really relevant.
Why do you talk as if you = your ...[text shortened]... exactly the same way as we judge each other, but only if we first decide to give it 'rights'.

Why should someone be judged based on whether or not they have conscious control? - whitey

I'm surprised you ask , it happens in courts all over the world surely?

People are judged on the basis of whether they have any ability to avoid the course of action they take. Someone with torrette's syndrome is not judged in the same way for swearing profanities in public.

If someone spikes your drink and you crash your car you are not in conscious control of what happened. You may also have heard of diminished responsibility?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why should someone be judged based on whether or not they have conscious control? - whitey

I'm surprised you ask , it happens in courts all over the world surely?

People are judged on the basis of whether they have any ability to avoid the course of action they take. Someone with torrette's syndrome is not judged in the same way for swearing prof ...[text shortened]... t in conscious control of what happened. You may also have heard of diminished responsibility?

We have had this discussion before and you showed remarkably little understanding of the justice system.
Judgments in courts are not based on whether or not you have conscious control. They are based on:
1. What or who did have control.
2. What is the likely future behavior of the perpetrator.
3. What is the best remedy to reduce the probability of a repeat occurrence.

The reason why people who did not intentionally commit a crime are judged differently is because the likelihood of a repeat occurrence is reduced. Note that certain crimes such as crimes of passion etc are given similar diminished sentences even though there is still conscious control.

Originally posted by Penguin
A good point well made. It is quite possible that I was fully conscious and consciously in control of my actions but that the conscious awareness was not stored in my memory. Under the circumstances, maybe storage of experience took a back seat and when, a second later, I looked backed for the memory of the experience, there was none there. Memory is well kn cious decisions that can also be consciously analysed after the event.

--- Penguin.

I’d be interested in hearing more on the readiness potential, too. I don’t have the precise language of the cognitive sciences, but Robert Ornstein once defined consciousness as “being aware that you are aware.” He also pointed out that that secondary step was neurologically “slower”, and that quite often we act on our awareness before we become conscious of having done so. (Scottishinnz presented a good example of this recently in terms of karate and mushin.) I don’t recall whether or not Ornstein brought memory functions into it, but even in terms of the amount of time it takes for the brain to form a visual representation in the cortex from sensory stimuli, it would seem that we are always consciously living, at it were, fractions of a second in the past...

None of this is to say that we cannot reason to conclusions and decisions. Ornstein’s point was just that it takes time to do so. In situations such as the one you describe, that time is not there. It may be that your reactive abilities were tied into instinctive survival-response functions (to echo BdN: whatever instinctive means).

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have had this discussion before and you showed remarkably little understanding of the justice system.
Judgments in courts are not based on whether or not you have conscious control. They are based on:
1. What or who did have control.
2. What is the likely future behavior of the perpetrator.
3. What is the best remedy to reduce the probability of a ...[text shortened]... passion etc are given similar diminished sentences even though there is still conscious control.

You are just plain wrong. In ALL crimes that require intent, the failure to prove intent or mens rea results in an acquittal, not a diminished sentence. And this has to do with principles of moral blameworthiness, not the likelihood of repeat offenses.

EDIT: Some type of intent is a necessary element in virtually all crimes. You need to bone up on your criminal law; here's a useful link regarding intent in the CL http://law.jrank.org/pages/5863/Criminal-Law-Intent.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are just plain wrong. In ALL crimes that require intent, the failure to prove intent or mens rea results in an acquittal, not a diminished sentence. And this has to do with principles of moral blameworthiness, not the likelihood of repeat offenses.

I may be wrong. However, dont you think that it is entirely possible that the purpose behind the laws still has as much to do with the likelihood of repetition as it does with "moral blameworthiness"?
Do you not agree that sentencing (punishment) bears me out in that the focus is almost always on:
1. Reduce the chance of repeat offense.
2. Discourage other perpetrators.
We do not sentence based on "moral blameworthiness".
Notice also that many acts which many people consider highly immoral, are nevertheless not criminal.

Part of criminal law has to do with our desire for revenge but that too is merely an evolved attribute that has evolved specifically so that we will try to discourage repeat undesirable behavior.

Note also that there are crimes which do not require intent and they are still punishable despite the lack intent.

Originally posted by Penguin
Driving in to work a couple of days ago, I came up on a junction where I had right of way but because of the traffic situation (crawling), I normally let someone across if they are waiting.

I saw the car that was approaching the junction and waved him across. I saw the van that was stopping to wait for someone else to let him through so I pulled out after ...[text shortened]... ecision and my consciousness simply becomes aware of it.

What say you guys?

--- Penguin.

There's an entire book arguing in favor of this position, on empirical as well as philosophical grounds

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/conscwil.htm

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have had this discussion before and you showed remarkably little understanding of the justice system.
Judgments in courts are not based on whether or not you have conscious control. They are based on:
1. What or who did have control.
2. What is the likely future behavior of the perpetrator.
3. What is the best remedy to reduce the probability of a ...[text shortened]... passion etc are given similar diminished sentences even though there is still conscious control.

So you haven't heard of diminished responsibility then?

Conscious control implies that one is also responsible since if you have no conscious control then there was nothing you could have done to stop the event.

I have not said that the other factors you mention play no part in a justice system simply that the cause of the crime (a conscious choice or an unavoidable event) is taken into account. You admitted this is point 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have had this discussion before and you showed remarkably little understanding of the justice system.
Judgments in courts are not based on whether or not you have conscious control. They are based on:
1. What or who did have control.
2. What is the likely future behavior of the perpetrator.
3. What is the best remedy to reduce the probability of a ...[text shortened]... passion etc are given similar diminished sentences even though there is still conscious control.

So you haven't heard of diminished responsibility then?

Conscious control implies that one is also responsible since if you have no conscious control then there was nothing you could have done to stop the event.

I have not said that the other factors you mention play no part in a justice system simply that the cause of the crime (a conscious choice or an unavoidable event) is taken into account. You admitted this is point 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I may be wrong. However, dont you think that it is entirely possible that the purpose behind the laws still has as much to do with the likelihood of repetition as it does with "moral blameworthiness"?
Do you not agree that sentencing (punishment) bears me out in that the focus is almost always on:
1. Reduce the chance of repeat offense.
2. Discourage o ...[text shortened]... re crimes which do not require intent and they are still punishable despite the lack intent.

I don't have a lot of time today and would like to respond more fully, but there are several reasons for punishment and retribution or "justice" is just as much of a reason as specific and general deterrence. Also, criminal laws lacking intent i.e. strict liability crimes are of recent vintage and are in general regulatory items not serious crimes.

I don't agree with your assertion that the criminal law's focus is mostly on stopping the repeating of undesirable behavior (I'd say it's mostly about discouraging the behavior in the first place) but that's all I have time for today.