On 2 Sep, 18:03, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Flammarion wrote:
> > On 2 Sep, 03:10, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nyman<david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I think his exploration of
> >>> the constraints on our actions in "Freedom Evolves" is pretty much on
> >>> the money.
> >> So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't read it. But I
> >> have read some of his articles and seen him debate and give
> >> interviews. So that sounds like Dennett alright - rearranging deck
> >> chairs, redefining words, whatever it takes.
> >> From the wikipedia article on "Freedom Evolves":
> >> "In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing
> >> why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term."
> >> So, as I said, you can't read quote of Dennett and accept it at face
> >> value, because Dennett doesn't restrict himself to traditional
> >> definitions of terms. You have to interpret Dennett's quotes within
> >> the context of his web of alternate, non-traditional "compatibilist"
> >> word definitions.
> >> Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with
> >> free will (which it isn't),
> > actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing
> I think Dennett's point is that compatibilist free-will has all the
> chracteristics of free-will that people usually think are important -
> it's "all the free-will worth having".
I'm not convinced by that either
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at