On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:50 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > I'm sorry but it must be you who doesn't have a strong enough grasp on the > ancient free will/determinism debate ... SOM free will/determinism is not > about the presence or absence of choice. Of course we make choices. The SOM > free will/determinism question is about the _basis_ of choice. It is to ask > whether choices are objective or subjective. > > dmb says: > Like I said, we simply cannot have an intelligent conversation on this topic > unless and until you learn to use the terms properly. Until then your > statements will continue to be nonsensical and so talking to you is quite > pointless. At this point, the conversation has devolved to such a state that > your position can be defeated by simply quoting a dictionary. Pirsig's > description of the classic dilemma agrees with Seigfried, James, me, the > Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the dictionary. And all of us > disagree with you.
Steve: I don't disagree with Pirsig or the dictionary as far as the "classic dilemma." I disagree with how YOU think this dilemma could possibly still come up in the MOQ while Pirsig specifically says this dilemma does not come up in the MOQ! dmb quotes the dictionary: > determinism |diˈtərməˌnizəm|noun Philosophy the doctrine that all events, > including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the > will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human > beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their > actions. Steve: Yeah, I understand and accept this definition of determinism as well as deny the truth of determinism. Have you read it or did you just cut and paste it assuming it supported your case? How could any MOQer fail to see that the issue of "causes external to the will" versus internal willing is a classic SOM platypus that the MOQ dissolves? This dilemma is no dilemma for the MOQ. The MOQ obviously denies the underlying premise that is presupposed in this dilemma and therefore can't endorse either horn. I am truly baffled how you could see the definition you quoted above, which describes the issue as about external (objective) versus internal (subjective) explanations for behavior, as somehow supporting your case that this issue applies to the MOQ. If you can't see that then all I can conclude is that you are fairly clueless about the MOQ. dmb: > Why do I have to overwhelm you with textual evidence on a point that can be > settled by simply knowing what the terms mean? I shouldn't have to explain > this to anyone and yet you remain unmoved by a mountain of evidence. > > I'm done with this. You're impossibly thick and I'm wasting my time. Steve: Yeah, that must be it. I'm just too dumb and not worthy of your time. In the future I hope you'll keep that in mind. 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
