From: avl0@cine88.cineca.it
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: brains in a vat
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:56:53 +0100
Organization: CINECA, Italian Interuniversity comp. centre

In article <1992Dec4.102110.715@cine88.c ineca.it>,
I wrote:
>> My point can be summarize as follow:
>> human == mechanism => no free-will => no responsibility => anything permitted
>> => no society possible (jungle's law) => no humans (just animals) =>
>> conflict with premises => aburd premises => humans != mechanism

In article <1992Dec4.231540.25906@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Geddis@CS.Stanford.Edu writes:
> I think this argument breaks down in the "no free-will => ... => anything"
> part.  Just because we're deterministic machines, that doesn't prevent us
> from realizing we'd be happier machines if we imposed some societal rules.
> You don't need free-will (and that associated version of responsibility) to
> have laws and punishment make sense.
> [...]

In article <1992Dec04.233434.145575@Cookie.secapl.com>
frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes
> And, as any number of people have pointed out any number of times, no free
> will (in the sense of free will which is inconsistent with human ==
> mechanism) *does not* imply no responsibility.
>
> Responsibility is a social construct which seeks to impose sanctions on
> those persons who break the society's rules.  It works because those people
> are (by and large) rational, self-interested entities; thus (1) able to
> understand that their actions will have certain consequences, (2) prefer not
> to accept those consequences, and (3) able to choose actions which do not
> have those consequences.  Nothing in any this requires that people be able
> to act non-deterministically.  Indeed, assuming society properly understands
> the motivations of its constituents, it works *better* if the people *are*
> deterministic (and perfectly rational), since then they will *always* follow
> the rules.

This is clearly a key point.
Does social rules come from a rational understanding
of waht is better for individual survival? Or they imply other principia?
Just and legal are synonyms?
Are there any reader of this newsgroup with grounding in philosophy of rights?
Meanwhile here's my guess.

Materialistically Society makes sense only if it can give more survival to
individuals BUT is "just survival" the best goal a man can imagine for
him self? In a pure materialistic view the answer must be YES: *MY*
physical survival is the importantest goal of my actions.

On this ground you can build only a society where Power over the other is
the best result one can achieve. Nothing to do with Justice (does not exist)
only Opportunity (... makes the thief >:-) ) and Convenience make sense.
"After me the deluge"! I'll grab the best that I can from the world.
"Mors tua vita mea". Your life makes sense for me only if I can get a material
adventage.
Why to love children? Just breed some of them to get help when you'll be old!
Why to be in love of someone? Just make sex, breed some children, and
save some money.

Without a Justice laws are merely a mean of weak people for limiting the
stronger's power. And the illusion remains until the stronger find some
convenience or opportunity.
Luckily, as Chesterton said, "no materialist really behaves as materialist".
Unlickily more and more people are conveinced that they are just matter and
really begin to behave as I described above.

I have no solutions, BUT materialism, for sure, IS NOT a solution. Stating that we
have no other solutions is the same as stating, in a world of blind man, that
stars can not exist. "Non dum matura est nolo acerbam sumere"!
-- 
"To be or not to be,  /// Marco Voli    [voli@cineca.it]     | ph.+39-51-598411
 that is the         /// Supercomputing Group                | FAX+39-51-594872
 problem"           /// CINECA  Interuniversitary Computing Centre
 Billy the kidder  /// via Magnanelli 6/3 - 40033 Casalecchio (BO) ITALY