The good thing about that exchange dmb & Steve, is that it's on topic. Causation.
Ian On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 5:43 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Steve said: > I watched all those videos this morning. ...Bob Doyle sure seems to think > he's got this problem licked. He seems more evangelist than philosopher at > times. > > dmb says: > I watched Bob Doyle's lecture on Jamesian free will too and it's hard to > imagine what could be more helpful to this long-running debate. He's a > thinker in transition, moving from science to philosophy, and he's talking > to the William James Society at Harvard. I think your insulting, dismissive > attitude toward him is pretty darn despicable. I'm certainly not surprised > that you remain baffled and unmoved, Steve, but his lecture should have > clarified all the major the points for you. It was a coherent overview of > the present state of the debate and he made it quite clear that Dennett's > compatibilism, which represents the majority view, is different from James's > "comprehensive compatibilism". > > In part 4, interestingly, Doyle uses the same Poincare quote that Pirsig > uses in ZAMM. Sympatico! > > In part 5, interestingly, Doyle presents Martin Heisenberg's thinking on > the "free will" exhibited by bacteria, which was obviously parallel to > Pirsig's description of the amoeba's response in ZAMM. Sympatico! > > In part 6, interestingly, Doyle points out that free will is necessary for > creativity and for the possibility of being the author of your own life. > This not only supports the what I've been saying about free will, but also > the issue of creative intelligence in the amateur philosopher. > > Listening to that lecture gave me a spooky feeling, as if he had been > watching this endless debate and had decided to step in to help me out. It's > like he was talking directly to you, Steve, even going so far as to put the > thinkers you've been quoting in context so that you could see who is on > which side. I mean, if this doesn't do the trick, then what could? > > > Steve said: > The question I have about his two-stage model where first comes chance them > comes choice is this: after indeterminism offers possibilities HOW does one > make a decision among them? Isn't that the original question still sitting > there in the back of the lecture hall? We can still look into what goes into > making a choice and ask whether those factors are freely chosen or not (if > we want to) and so on and so on. We are back to square one. Aren't we? Why > would his model prevent us from looking for and finding causal explanations > for choices? > > dmb says: > Well, yes, you are back to square one but that has nothing to do with James > or Doyle. I don't think that your question makes any sense. If you're > looking for causal explanations for choices, you're right back in the SOM > soup. You're assuming the essential premise of causal determinism and then > looking for an explanation of choice that would deny the possibility of > choice. Maybe you have a sensible question in your mind, but until you learn > to use the terms properly nobody is going to be able to see what that > question is. As it stands, however, your questions are ridiculous nonsense. > There is no answer to that. > > > > Steve said: > ...Why should this "I" be regarded as the final cause for the given act? It > seems to me that we can always seek causal explanations on higher or lower > levels of description. We can explain the choice as the desire of an > individual and still ask, where do these desires come from? We can explain > choices in terms of the function of a brain in response to casual laws or > random quantum indeterminacy affecting neurons and lots of other ways... > > > dmb says: > The same confused nonsense is on display here too, Steve. You're using the > terms "cause", "final cause", "causal laws" and the like as if there were > all interchangible when in fact they can be and often are used as opposites > - especially on this topic. If I claim that I am the cause of my actions, > for example, then I am claiming to have free will and I am claiming > responsibility for those actions. If I say my actions are the result of > causal laws, then I am denying free will and denying my responsibility. Your > questions only show that you have no idea what you're talking about, Steve, > that you're fundamentally confused about the terms and completely oblivious > to what's at stake here. > > > If Doyle doesn't help you, I honestly don't see how anything could. > > > > > 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
