----- Original Message ----
From: david buchanan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 3:38:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
dmb said to Dan:
....Determinism is the claim that our actions are caused by forces beyond our
control. It's a claim about the causes of our actions, not the predictability
of
the consequences of our actions. In the former, our actions are the effects of
causes while in the latter our actions are the causes of effects. See what I
mean?
Dan replied:
Yes, I think so. But I am not sure that that is what I am getting at. If B
values precondition A, then our actions are determined by preconditions and not
by a chain of causality. Our actions are the effect of preconditions, not
choices, and those preconditions are beyond our control. But that doesn't
preclude moral responsibility for our actions if our actions are seen as a
(beginning) response to Quality. Right?
dmb says:.
With each level the patterns of preference become increasingly less persistent
and more varied. By the time we get the question of free will, we're talking
about a person's capacity to express preferences. The biological, social and
intellectual levels are even less law-like, less determined, and this is where
it makes sense to talk about human freedom and responsibility.
We don't say subatomic particles have moral responsibility, of course. But in
Pirsig's very broad notion of morality, even the molecules that hold a chair
together are seen as a moral order. The MOQ paints everything as part of a
moral
order from the ground up. And the reformulation of 'A causes B' is meant to
extend the capacity to respond to Quality all the way down. In the MOQ's
reformulation, B was not an inevitable, mechanical effect of A. Instead, it's
about what B values, what B prefers.
To B or not to B? That is the equation. (Bad pun)
What concerns me is simply put. Determinism is a moral nightmare. It precludes
moral responsibility and denies freedom altogether. I'm fairly certain that Sam
Harris and Steve are wildly at odds with the MOQ and with pragmatism on this
one. If I tried to express Steve's determinism in MOQ terms, this view would
say
that we are a complex forest of evolved static patterns (so far, so good) and
static patterns both proceed from and follow natural laws. Unlike the MOQ, this
view does not replace causality with patterns of preference and it does not
include the most vital ingredient: Dynamic Quality. What we have in Steve's
determinism is simply a return to amoral, scientific objectivity, where nothing
is right or wrong. It just functions like machinery.
Ron;
Well no, I see what Steve is driving at...... and yes ..in effect you are
saying
the same thing within differing context....... and yes duh..
but and I say this with frequent spa ces to cannote hes
tation in a art ful fo rm.............I see the caution from both points
of view..
I tend towards DmB because Dave has put in the time. Personally I think dave is
a twit....but... with that caveot.....
He does present his claims well and he takes the time to explain himself in as
many applicable quotes as makes his point clear and yes he does
make a better rhetorical arguement....
yet
Steve is steadfast
Which means he has a conviction
Steves no Dummy
I suggest to Steve that the arguement is a good one..and to take the time to
accurately articulate it..
without the ker smackity-smack ameri-street shit talk
..
There is some thing here if we are all steadfast to dig at it
and yes feeling are going to get hurt
..
not all pain is gain
but hears to hope...
cheers all
Love Ron
--------------------
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
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
