On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging
> >>>> causal
> >>>> laws, how can it have justified true beliefs (a.k.a. knowledge)
> >>>> either?
>
> >>>> If the entity's beliefs are the result of some more fundamental
> >>>> underlying process, then those beliefs aren't held for reasons of
> >>>> logic or rationality.
>
> >>> That doesn't follow.
>
> >> It follows by definition.
>
> >> 1. IF a universe governed by causal laws -
>
> >> 2. THEN everything that occurs within that universe is a result of
> >> those laws acting on the universe's state. Every change of state
> >> happens according to some law.
>
> >> 3. The entity's holding of some belief occurs within that universe.
>
> >> 4. Therefore the entity's holding of some belief (whether rational
> >> *or* irrational) is a result of causal laws acting on the entity's
> >> state, and nothing else.
>
> >> What else could account for the entity's holding of some particular
> >> belief?
>
> >> "Logical" and "rational" are adjectives. You're confusing
> >> descriptive
> >> labels with causal forces.
>
> > Your argument still doesn't work. You re tacitly assuming that
> > being the result of causal laws is exclusive of being the result
> > of logic/.reason. But that is , to say the least, not obvioius.
> > OTOH, it *is* obvious that being the result of causal
> > laws is exclusive of being freely chosen.
>
> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
It is obvious that if there is strict causal determinism, the will is
not
free from strict causal determinism.
> Either you throw the notion of person, or you ask for a 'magical'
> notion of person.
Or there is not strict causal determinism
> Free will is the free choice between 2+2=4,and 2+2=5.
A FW that could choose anything that is not logically impossible
would be physically miraculous.
A FW that was constrained always to be strictly logical would not
be all that free.
> Yes. It might even be statistically justified, but if it applies to
> reality, double checking is not enough to convince of truth, there is
> a need of an infinite-checking which can be justified for first person
> only. But science, reason, public demonstrations don't need that
> infinite checking, and your answer goes through (if I get it correctly).
I think I followed that...no amount of checking
suffices for certainty, but any finite amount is unmiraculous
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
