[ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment.

[John K Clark]

"Vladimir Nesov" <robotact at mail.ru>

> How do you decide that blood is unimportant?

I can conceive of an entity that has no blood that nevertheless acts in ways
that are very interesting, about as interesting as my tiny brain can imagine
actually. I can not conceive of an entity that lacked emotion doing anything
approaching that level of interest, or was deserving of the grand name
"intelligence"; in fact, to my mind such a thing approaches a logical
contradiction. Ok, maybe my inability to imagine such a thing is a function
of my tiny brain, but I don't think so.

> Absence of immediately  experienceable evidence' argument invoked
> so far doesn't help with this problem; so why should it help with
> decision about importance of emotions?

I don't know what you're talking about; there is experimental evidence in
this matter. The results are just now coming in of a 4 billion year long
experiment and the results support my views not yours. You response is
typical of those who's pet theory is not supported by evidence; it's just
one experiment, Nature could have made a mistake, the experiment needs
to be repeated before we know for sure. Do we really have to wait another
4 billion years before we can talk again?

 John K Clark