Greetings Ham, I didn't mean to be rude, and reply without a greeting. I am too preoccupied with a difficult task. Your questions are always welcome.
Marsha On May 1, 2011, at 3:23 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > On May 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > >> Hi Marsha (Steve quoted) -- >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation, >>> in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern? >> >> [Steve]: >>> Yes, causation is understood as a stable pattern of preference, >>> B routinely values precondition A. Further, B literally IS a set >>> of such preferences. >> >> [Marsha, on 5/1]: >>> I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, >>> they do not inherently exist. >> >> Whoa! Hold on there, Marsha. You have a valid point that deserves a better >> answer than Steve provided. The causation argument is superficial at best, >> besides which cause-and-effect is only man's way of interpreting events as >> sequential in time. As a consequence, you have been led to the depressing >> conclusion that preference is deterministic. > > Marsha: > Been a long time since I read Hume, but there still doesn't seem to be > anything found to represent 'cause.' Causal explanation is based on stable, > predictable patterns. There is no "autonomous homoculus' to have the > "depressing conclusion that preference is deterministic." The laws of nature > are also useful static patterns of value, explanatorily useful patterns. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
