Steve said to dmb:
... Neither an autonomous agent nor a causal chain is posited as a fundamental
premise.
As a pragmatism, the question also gets dissolved when you consider the
question, what would I choose in this particular situation if I thought I did
not have a choice versus if I thought that I do have a choice? A difference has
to make a difference, but there is no difference here.
dmb says:
Yea, if free will and determinism are taken as two mutually exclusive world
formulas and neither of them can win the day on the basis of reason or
evidence, then the difference comes down to the consequences of adopting one or
the other. In that case, it's hard for me to imagine why anyone would choose
determinism. I guess for some people it feels safe and cozy. James was so
depressed over the idea that it might be true that he very nearly killed
himself. I'm not suicidal over the notion but I can definitely relate to
James's reaction.
If we move the issue to radical empiricism, I think we can simply say that
freedom and limits are both known in experience. These are both real elements
in experience, not mutually exclusive visions of the world. Experience also
gives us random events, flukes, freak accidents and unbelievable luck. I see no
reason why any of these terms should be used to characterize everything to the
exclusion of the other terms.
Is there freedom or are events determined? Yep, absolutely. That's exactly how
it happens every single day.
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
