dmb said:
... One of the biggest problems 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.
Steve:
That's just another of your attempts to misrepresent my position rather than
engaging in honest intellectual discussion.
dmb says:
Dishonest? Misrepresent your views? I'm fairly certain that this whole free
will debated began when you posted Sam Harris quotes on the issue. His name and
those quotes slowly faded into the background but you've maintained the basic
ideas. Anyway, you can quibble about the details if you like, but there is
nothing dishonest about the idea that you're mixing Sam and the MOQ on this
issue. Anyone who doubts it can check the archives.
Steve continued:
What I have said countless times at this point is that the MOQ denies both
horns of the traditional SOM free will/determinism dilemma (a position which it
appears you have finally come around to), and...
dmb says:
Come around to denying both horns, to deny both free will and determinism? No,
I don't get that. I've tried several times to explain why I think that notion
is logically impossible. Doesn't Pirsig say we are free to some extent and
determined to some extent? That's not denying both horns. That's more like a
partial affirmation of both horns, a new form of compatibilism.
Steve continued:
...since Sam Harris never uses the words dynamic and static quality (or even
ever talks about metaphysics except for his footnote favoring realism over
pragmatism in TEOF), I am confident that his his view is completely
INcompatible with the the MOQ's reformulation of the problem.
dmb says:
Well, okay, But you are the one who brought him into it and you have been
denying free will, just as he does. I know, you say you deny determinism too.
But that's what I do not get. If you deny free will, then by definition you are
a determinist. If you then deny determinism too, then you are simply
incoherent. Call me a dick if you like, but this is a real criticism and you
have not answered it, as far as I can tell.
Steve said:
And WTF? Sam Harris was one of your heroes not very long ago. You loved his
book. You called him a rockstar. Why are you hating on him all the sudden?
dmb says:
I don't hate Sam. But this neurological determinism of his is new to me and I
think it's just awful. Patricia Churchland, of all people, has criticized him
for crude reductionism. She was harsh. And they're pretty good friends! She
says she wishes he had waited a couple years to write that book. Anyway, by
mixing the MOQ with Sam's views I think you've come up with a kind of value
determinism and I'm criticizing you for it. I think it's ...not pretty.
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
