Your questions add nothing to the current duscussion and my time is
limited. Please revise your wrong concept of positivism. It is almost thw
opposite of what you think
El 10/08/2012 20:05, "meekerdb" <meeke...@verizon.net> escribió:
> On 8/10/2012 7:23 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> The modern positivist conception of free will has no
>> scientific meaning. But all modern rephasings of old philosophy are
> Or appear so because they make clear the deficiencies of the old
> Positivist philosophy pass everithing down to what-we-know-by-science
>> of the physical level,
> That's not correct. Postivist philosophy was that we only know what we
> directly experience and scientific theories are just ways of predicting new
> experiences from old experiences. Things not directly experienced, like
> atoms, were merely fictions used for prediction.
> that is the only kind of substance that they
>> admit. this "what-we-know-by-science" makes positivism a moving ground, a
>> of dictatorial cartesian blindness which states the kind of questions
>> one is permitted at a certain time to ask or not.
>> Classical conceptions of free will were concerned with the
>> option ot thinking and acting morally or not, that is to have the
>> capability to
>> deliberate about the god or bad that a certain act implies for oneself
> One deliberates about consequences and means, but how does one deliberate
> about what one wants? Do you deliberate about whether pleasure or pain is
> and for others, and to act for god or for bad with this knowledge.
>> Roughly speaking, Men
>> have such faculties unless in slavery. Animals do not.
> My dog doesn't think about what's good or bad for himself? I doubt that.
> The interesting
>> parts are in the details of these statements. An yes, they are
>> questions that can be expressed in more "scientific" terms. This can
>> be seen in the evolutionary study of moral and law under multilevel
>> selection theory:
>> which gives a positivistic support for moral, and a precise,
>> materialistic notion of good and bad. And thus suddenly these three
>> concepts must be sanctioned as legitimate objects of study by the
>> positivistic dictators, without being burnt alive to social death, out
>> of the peer-reviewed scientific magazines, where sacred words of
>> Modernity resides.
>> We are witnessing this "devolution" since slowly all the old
>> philosophical and theological concepts will recover their legitimacy,
>> and all their old problems will stand as problems here and now. For
>> example, we will discover that what we call Mind is nothing but the
>> old concepts of Soul and Spirit.
> After stripping "soul" of it's immortality and acausal relation to physics.
>> Concerning the degraded positivistic notion of free will, I said
>> before that under an extended notion of evolution it is nor possible
>> to ascertain if either the matter evolved the mind or if the mind
>> selected the matter. So it could be said that the degraded question is
>> meaningless and of course, non interesting.
> But the question of their relationship is still interesting.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at