Does "as few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life" mean...?

What Is !°Belief!

And yet our beliefs can be represented and expressed as discrete statements.
Imagine hearing any one of the following assertions from a trusted friend:
1. The CDC just announced that cell phones really do cause brain cancer.
2. My brother won $100,000 in Las Vegas over the weekend.
3. Your car is being towed.
We trade in such representations of the world all the time. The acceptance of such statements as true (or likely to be true) is the mechanism by which we acquire most of our knowledge about the world. While it would not make any sense to search for structures in the brain that correspond to specific sentences, we may be able to understand the brain states that allow us to accept such sentences as true. When someone says "Your car is being towed," it is your acceptance of this statement as true that sends you racing out the door. "Belief", therefore, can be thought of as a process taking place in the present; it is the act of grasping, not the thing grasped.

Thank you Dale

Quote:

Thank you Dale

You're welcome Ori though I evidently wrong

Otherwise I don't get a clear pic either. Let's hope we get a response or two from someone deeper than at least I

Does "as few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life" mean "because few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life like belief does"?
...

... "Belief", therefore, can be thought of as a process taking place in the present; it is the act of grasping, not the thing grasped.

oristarA wrote:

... "Belief", therefore, can be thought of as a process taking place in the present; it is the act of grasping, not the thing grasped.

Failed to get a clear of picture of "it is the act of grasping, not the thing grasped".
Does it mean "it is the act of grasping (something for your benefit), not the thing (that is grasped by something external - well, I don't know how the explain this)"?

The question of free will is no mere curio of philosophy seminars. The belief in free will underwrites both the religious notion of "sin" and our enduring commitment to retributive justice.
The Supreme Court has called free will a "universal and persistent"
foundation for our system of law, distinct from "a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system" (United States v. Grayson, 1978).Any scientific developments that threatened our notion of free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.

Yes. A deterministic view of human behavior does not make the individual accountable for his/her actions. Punitive sentences would be illogical if that view were adopted. Instead, sentences would focus on therapeutic behavior modification instead.

A deterministic view of human behavior does not make the individual accountable for his/her actions. Punitive sentences would be illogical if that view were adopted. Instead, sentences would focus on therapeutic behavior modification instead.

What does it really mean to take responsibility for an action? For instance, yesterday I went to the market; as it turns out, I was fully clothed, did not steal anything, and did not buy anchovies. To say that I was responsible for my behavior is simply to say that what I did was sufficiently in keeping with my thoughts, intentions, beliefs, and desires to be considered an extension of them. If, on the other hand, I had found myself standing in the market naked, intent upon stealing as many tins of anchovies as I could
carry, this behavior would be totally out of character; I would feel that I was not in my right mind, or that I was otherwise not responsible for my actions. Judgments of responsibility, therefore, depend upon the overall complexion of one's mind, not on themetaphysics of mental cause and effect.

While viewing human beings as forces of nature does not prevent us from thinking in terms of moral responsibility, it does call the logic of retribution into question. Clearly, we need to build prisons for people who are intent upon harming others. But if we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons The men and women on death row have some combination of bad for them as well.genes, bad parents, bad ideas, and bad luck-which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for? No human being stands as author to his own genes or his upbringing, and yet we have every reason to believe that these factors determine his character throughout life. Our system of justice should reflect our understanding that each of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself.

I agree with you. "factors" would have been better than "quantities" there. The text seems fragmented and odd, though. Is the author a native English speaker?

...for them as well.genes, bad parents, bad ideas, and...

oristarA wrote:

...for them as well.genes, bad parents, bad ideas, and...

That part. It may be just a typo.

But if we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons [...] The men and women on death row have some combination of bad for them as [well.genes,] bad parents, bad ideas, and bad luck-which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for?