On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:57 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Mark quoted Marsha: > > And here are the questions that dmb evaded: So, dmb, is your argument that > William James says free-will is real, therefore it is Real? Or is it that > William James and a dozen philosophers and scientists say free-will > (two-stage model) is real, therefore it i s Real? What is your argument? > Have you presented any argument at all? No? Are you folding? > > > dmb says: > Evaded the question? Only if "evasion" means a refusal to answer the same > question over and over again. Apparently, if a person doesn't constantly > repeat himself, he is being "evasive". But seriously, I already answered this > objection, despite its conspicuously snarky and insincere nature. On the > 21st, I said.... > > Marsha said to dmb: >> So, dmb, is your argument that William James says free-will is real, >> therefore it is Real? Or is it that William James and a dozen philosophers >> and scientists say free-will (two-stage model) is real, therefore it i s >> Real? What is your argument? Have you presented any argument at all? No? Are >> you folding? > > dmb replied: > My claim is that Steve is misreading James. The quotes provide evidence for > that claim. Steve says that James's indeterminism is a kind of determinism > but the evidence shows that James's indeterminism is meant to oppose > determinism. The quotes provide evidence that Steve is misusing these terms > and that he has misunderstood the meaning of James's essay. He brought it up, > by the way, not realizing that this essay does not support his position at > all. Quite the opposite.
Marsha: Yes, and I thought that your claim was that the James' quote was supporting your position on the significance of 'free-will', and the argument for the significance is what I was questioning and you were evading. So, dmb, is your argument for the significance of free-will that William James says free-will is real, therefore it is Real? Or is it that William James and a dozen philosophers and scientists say free-will (two-stage model) is real, therefore it i s Real? What is your argument? Have you presented any argument at all? No? Are you folding? On Sep 20, 2011, at 5:08 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > It remained for William James, Peirce's close friend, to assert that CHANCE > CAN PROVIDE unpredictable alternatives from which THE WILL CAN CHOOSE or > determine one alternative. James was the first thinker to enunciate clearly a > two-stage decision process, with CHANCE in a present time of random > alternatives, LEADING TO A CHOICE which selects one alternative and > transforms an equivocal ambiguous future into an unalterable determined past. > There are undetermined alternatives followed by adequately determined > choices."The stronghold of the determinist argument is the antipathy to the > idea of chance...This notion of alternative possibility, this admission that > any one of several things may come to pass is, after all, only a roundabout > name for CHANCE...What is meant by saying that my CHOICE of which way to walk > home after the lecture is ambiguous and matter of chance?...It means that > both Divinity Avenue and Oxford Street are called but only one, and that one > either one, shall be CHOSEN." (James, The Dilemma of Determinism, in The Will > to Believe, 1897, p.155) > > > We find that William James was the first of a dozen philosophers and > scientists who have proposed a two-stage model for free will and creativity. > The first stage involves chance that generates alternative possibilities for > action. The second stage is an adequately determined choice by the will. > First chance, then choice. First "free," then "will." > > > > JAMESIAN FREE WILL, THE TWO-STAGE MODEL OF WILLIAM JAMES > __________________________________________________________________BOB > DOYLEABSTRACT Research into two-stage models of “free will” – first “free” > random generation of alternativepossibilities, followed by “willed” > adequately determined decisions consistent with character, values, and > desires – suggests that William James was in 1884 the first of a dozen > philosophers and scientists to propose such a two-stage model for free will. > We review the later work to establish James’s priority.By limiting chance to > the generation of alternative possibilities, James was the first to overcome > the standard two-part argument against free will, i.e., that the will is > either determined or random. James gave it elements of both, to establish > freedom but preserve responsibility. We show that James was influenced by > Darwin’s model of natural selection, as were most recent thinkers with a > two-stage model.In view of James’s famous decision to make his first act of > freedom a choice to believe that his will is free, it is most fitting to > celebrate James’s priority in the free will debates by naming the two-stage > model – first chance, then choice -“Jamesian” free will. > ___ 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
