Dan said to Steve:
.., I tend to agree with you that there is no need to equate morality and
causality. I addressed this to dmb but he didn't respond, at least not that I
noticed.
dmb says:
I don't know if anyone equated morality and causality. I've been saying the
traditional version of determinism is predicated on the extension of causality
into the area of human action and thereby PRECLUDES morality. This is how
determinism is framed in every source I've checked, including Pirsig
description of the classic dilemma. In this standard framing, freedom and
morality go out the window, rules out morality and freedom, which is the
opposite of equating morality and causality.
That, I keep saying, is WHY Pirsig REPLACES causality with patterns of
preference, because that switch denies the central premise of scientific
determinism. It takes the law-like mechanical obedience out of the picture even
at the "physical" level and even less so for evolved creatures like us. This
switch introduces choice even among the most predictable and regular patterns
we know of and the range of freedom only increases from there.
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
