Scientists and philosophers like to think
that they're very sober, rational people who
are above the need to advertise.
And yet, if you look closely you'll see that
they often go to great lengths to come up
with a vivid memorable term, a label for their
theory or a name for it that will stick in
people's head.
In other words, they're trying to develop
a brand name or advertising or trademark for
their view.
And we should recognize that's a good thing
to do if you're going to run an example or
if you're gonna run an argument -- try to
make it as easy as possible for the audience
or the reader to keep track of the elements.
Don't call them A, B, C, D and E. Call them
Bill and Arthur and Freddie and so forth.
But, of course, that can backfire on you,
too.
Or it can be misused.
One of my favorite bad thought experiments
-- bad intuition pumps is one in a very influential
paper by Greene and Cohen published in the
Proceedings of the Royal Society on what neuroscience
tells us about free will.
And this is The Boys from Brazil.
And in this thought experiment we're to imagine
-- it's inspired by the hokey science fiction
film The Boys from Brazil about some evil
doctors who clone Hitler and they're trying
to make Hitler clones.
But in this telling they create a human being
who's been designed by their evil intentions
to live a life of crime -- to do evil things.
But just as rational as anybody else, he's
very much controlled.
He's sort of a designed psychopath.
And they call him Mr. Puppet.
And they describe Mr. Puppet and Mr. Puppet
goes out and commits a crime.
And they appeal to the readers to conclude
that Mr. Puppet isn't really responsible for
his evil deeds.
He shouldn't be punished certainly.
He's just the victim of his circumstances.
And then, bless them, they say, "Now Daniel
Dennett might object that this is just an
intuition pump and that we shouldn't take
it seriously."
Yes.
It's not that it's an intuition pump.
Intuition pumps can be good.
It's a bad intuition pump.
And they said -- they just having noticed
-- having imagined that I might be critical
of their intuition pump they go ahead and
do it anyway.
So let me now turn the knobs on this intuition
pump and we'll see what we can make of it.
First they say the fact that this person was
created by evil scientists with evil intent
-- that's irrelevant to the example really.
All right, so let's get rid of it.
Turn that knob and so -- an indifferent environment
produces a human being who, they say, by design
is set out on a sort of antisocial trajectory.
Well, but we can get rid of that by design,
too, because if it's an indifferent environment
then there's no intent on this.
So now we've got this indifferent environment
happens to produce an individual who, with
high probability, will engage in some criminal
activities, let's say.
Okay.
And then they imagine that he kills somebody
in a drug bust or something, you know, in
a drug deal gone bad.
Well, that's inessential so we're gonna change
the crime.
We're gonna make it he killed somebody who
has witnessed some embezzlement that he's
done.
It shouldn't make any difference.
If you thought that the Mr. Puppet in the
first instance wasn't responsible and shouldn't
be held responsible, this shouldn't change
it.
Now I want to change just one more thing.
They keep talking about Mr. Puppet.
Okay, that's a nice vivid name but it's just
a name.
Shouldn't make any difference -- I'm gonna
change it.
Let's call Mr. Puppet, oh, Captain Autonomy.
Okay, so now Captain Autonomy is caused by
an indifferent environment to enter on a trajectory
where it becomes likely that he's going to
commit some antisocial behavior.
And now the question is whether he should
be held responsible.
Well, I think Captain Autonomy?
Why shouldn't he be held responsible?
Let me flush it out a little bit more.
Let's suppose that Captain Autonomy is a Harvard
graduate who goes to work at Lehman Brothers
and sees a clever way of embezzling a few
million dollars and has pulled off his white
collar crime when he discovered a person who
is about to expose him and he lures him to
the edge of the balcony in the high rise and
pushes him off and he falls to his death.
Now that's my case.
Now are we so clear that Captain Autonomy
is not responsible for his deed?
It seems to me that I drained the example
of most of the umph that provided the intuitions.
I'm not saying that my retelling of it shows
that he is responsible.
I'm just pointing out that those details which
presumably are ad lib and they shouldn't make
a difference -- they make a huge difference
into how we think about this person and whether
or not to hold him responsible.
