Dmb,
I asked you these question previously, but I'll try again. Marsha: Three questions: Have you dropped the words 'free-will' and 'determinism'? If you are using new words please define them clearly? Please clearly explain the reformulation as you understand? If you are not using 'free-will' and 'determinism' as defined in the dictionary, than you must agree that I was correct to neither accept 'free-will' and 'determinism', nor reject 'free-will' and 'determinism'. They are irrelevant within the MoQ. Of course, you are about to explain the new words to use and new understanding. I look forward to your explanations. Marsha On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:53 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Steve said: > ...Sure, but the free will question is about HOW choices are made. > > > John replied: > Is it? I thought it was *whether* choice was made or even possible. Whether > it's possible to choose, to freely decide. ...I believe individuality is > itself a choice, and thus we don't make choices, choices make us. And yes, I > think that is the exact opposite of determinism. I guess I have no real bone > to pick with you. It's that Sam Harris guy I find ridiculous. ... > > dmb says: > > Yes, of course the question of free will is about whether or not we have any > free will. Knowing something about HOW choices are made can inform your > opinion as to whether we are determined or free, but that certainly is the > question. This seems to be just of one of several ways in which Steve has > confused that question. > > One of the biggest problem in this months-long thread is that Steve keeps > trying to make Sam Harris's determinism compatible with the MOQ's > reformulation and the result is not pretty. Take a look at these lines from > Harris's blog and then tell me if you don't think he's a classic SOM > determinist. > > Sam writes, "...You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. The > problem, however, is that this point of view cannot be reconciled with what > we know about the human brain. All of our behavior can be traced to > biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always > suggested that free will is an illusion. > ...The truth seems inescapable: I, as the subject of my experience, cannot > know what I will next think or do until a thought or intention arises; and > thoughts and intentions are caused by physical events and mental stirrings of > which I am not aware. Of course, many scientists and philosophers realized > long before the advent of experimental neuroscience that free will could not > be squared with an understanding of the physical world. > ...If the laws of nature do not strike most of us as incompatible with free > will, it is because we have not imagined how human action would appear if all > cause-and-effect relationships were understood. ...we cannot help but let > our notions of freedom and responsibility travel up the puppet’s strings to > the hand that controls them. ...Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, > willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific > behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world." > > That's enough. You get the idea.... > > > > > > > > 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
