Hi Matthew, Denis and Group:
Matthew, thanks for clarifying what you mean by free will.
You wrote:
I don�t think anyone would argue that human actions aren�t determined by
human will. That is, ultimately human beings take actions they wish to take.
In my book, to say I act as I wish means I have free will. You say my
choices are determined by my predispositions and experiences. Fine.
Seems to me all you�re saying is that my free will is determined by my
existence as a human being. I�ll grant you that. At least you agree that �man
makes choices independent of the atoms of his body.� (Lila, Chap.12) � the
quintessential free will position.
You continued:
However, the question still remains what determines human will. Actually,
the first question is whether or not it is determined at all. I think the answer
is obviously yes, because if something isn�t determined, then it HAS to be
random, and I don�t think this is a viable position. Now this doesn�t give us
the ability to predict future actions. Things are still based on probabilities, as
quantum theory dictates and Pirsig recognizes, but these are still
determined by Quality (predispositions and experiences in the case of
humans) and aren�t just random.
I agree that the creative power that science attributes to randomness is a
cop out due to ignorance. But the big question in a deterministic, cause and
effect chain going all the back to quantum probabilities determined by
Quality is: �What determined Quality?� Logic and reason inevitably lead to
infinite regress. A strict determinist always ends up in a universe sitting on
the back of the proverbial turtle with turtles all the way down.
You wrote:
Whether or not there is free will is completely independent of what you or I
may think about it. I would argue that there is no free will, but this doesn�t
make it so. Truth is not relative to my beliefs or anyone else�s.
Seems to me you�ve argued in favor of free will, but so be it. But when you
say, �Truth is not relative to my beliefs or anyone else�s� is that a true
statement? Or is it just what you think is true about truth? I�m interested in
what you see as the distinction between truth and belief in truth, and what
your standards for determining truth (or belief in truth) are.
Denis wrote:
It is all a question of belief, after all. We don�t give �true� answers so in the
largest sense there isn�t and �either�or� in a metaphysical sense. But inside
a system of beliefs, if logical consistency is an accepted part of it (as in the
MOQ) there can exist incompatible propositions. So once such a proposition
has been determined to be the best, either by any individual or by a group,
the logically opposed must be rejected as �bad,� or the MOQ is preaching for
cultural relativism (which might be summarily described as a �yeah,
whatever�� position.)
This appears to be similar to Matthew�s version of truth, and to me it seems
to come close to saying truth is mere opinion. But, I could be wrong. Denis,
would you care to comment on Matthew�s version, and vice versa? Are we
stuck with the self-contradictory statement: �It�s true we can never know
what�s really true�?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
