Hi Craig, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:01 PM, <craig...@comcast.net> wrote: > [Harris] >> the concept of free will is a non- > starter, both philosophically and > scientifically.> thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort > >simply spring > into view—and move us, > or fail to > move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective > point of view, > perfectly inscrutable.
Craig: > Suppose I find a wallet with ID. I might keep it. That in the past I > returned it to its owner, does > not show I have free will, for those were different > circumstances. But as I deliberate, I feel guilty & decide to return the > wallet. Then I rationalize: the owner was careless, why should I do them any > favors? > These thoughts are not inscrutable. Steve: The thoughts are not inscrutible. You aren't reading carefully. What Harris says is inscrutible from a subjective point of view are the REASONS we have such thoughts to begin with. Why do we have these thoughts, moods, desires, intentions, etc. and not others? Craig: > More importantly, there is no reason to suppose > that my decision is fore-ordained before I > go thru the actual deliberation. Steve: I wouldn't use the term fore-ordained. There is no one who knows the future. Best, Steve 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