Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-10, 14:05:31
Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!
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
> degraded.
Or appear so because they make clear the deficiencies of the old
philosophy.
> 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 kind
> 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 good?
> 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:
>
>
https://www.google.es/search?q=multilevel+selection&sugexp=chrome,mod=11&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
> 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.
Brent
--
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
.
--
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
.
