On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:35 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
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
