On Nov 16, 5:50 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 Nov 2010, at 20:24, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote: > > >>> On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen <[email protected]> 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. > > It is not obvious for me (and the many compatibilists).
as stated, it's tautologous > Some people can premeditate crime, and this independently of the fact > that some genius in psychology, or God, could have predict their act. If there choices are predicable because of determinism, they are not free from determinism. > >> Either you throw the notion of person, or you ask for a 'magical' > >> notion of person. > > > Or there is not strict causal determinism > > I don't see how low level indeterminacy (of any sort) could help in > bringing free-will. I can >On the contrary free-will is a form of partial > (from the point of view of the actor) self-determination. and if the self is atomic, and if its self-determination is tertium datur that is neither determinism nor indetermism, it is impossilbe if the self is complex, its self-determination could be a regulated form of low-level indeterminism > >> 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. > > This depends on the level of description. > The consistency of Peano Arithmetic with lies (Bf) is already a > theorem of Peano Arithmetic, and there are infinities of modal logics > given different sense to logical, so "strictly logical" has not so > much meaning to me. Logic is classical logic + an infinities of non > classical logics. Classical logic + arithmetic entails the existence > of many illogical things, even weird dreams if you assume mechanism. > Free will is the high level cognitive facility which makes possible > for a person to choose a way to satisfy herself in the knowledge/ > belief of many alternative ways. It usually asks for (more) freedom. > > Bruno > > > > > > >> 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 [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > > . > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
