Steve, As said before this was a response to your assertion that free will does not exist. the context of those quotes are distinctly in line with that, and if I had the time, I'd dig up all your quotes denying that free will exists to support this.
From: Steven Peterson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Compatiblism > Ron: > As per my reasons above, it seems to me that you are the one taking the > incompatabilist position. Dave has posted many, many quotes supporting > the view that determinism is a requirement for free will, in fact also asserts > that free will is a requirement for determinism. The charge holds little > water. For example... dmb said: "You are such an unbelievable hack. If you want to assert freedom, you have to deny determinism. Determinism says you are not responsible for your actions precisely because they were not determined by you, because you were not free to do otherwise. All you questions and objections are predicated on your inability to grasp the basic meaning of concepts in dispute. You equate opposed terms and then wonder why it doesn't add up. Of course it's not going to make any sense if you do that. One cannot reason or think intelligently unless and until you get that straight. Get a dictionary. Take some reading lessons. Until you get ahold of these concepts, talking to you is utterly futile." dmb said: You're asking how the denial of determinism is helpful in making room for free will?!? Are you really that lost? Do you really not understand that determinism leaves no room for freedom, that it denies any such freedom? After all this time, apparently, you're still confused about all the basic concepts involved in this issue. Your thickness is just incredible. It's unbelievable. dmb says: Wow. You are totally lost. Again, determinism says we have no choice, that our acts are determined by mechanical laws and therefore they are not chosen. In order for there to be choices, there first has to be undetermined alternative possibilities. To assert freedom, you have to deny determinism. If your act is determined by your choice, then you aren't just being pushed around by mechanical laws, which can be conceived as external if you're a causal determinist or internal if you're a neurological determinist. Either way, you are denying that our acts are the result of choice. If you say that our actions are determined or decided by choice, then you are denying determinism. You might have reasons for making that choice, but reasons are not "causes" in the sense of law-like cause and effect. You're also equating "determined by choice" with "determinism", which totally denies that we can make choices. Once again, you have equated positions that are opposite from each other. 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
