On 02 Sep 2009, at 19:35, 1Z wrote:
> Yablo on Quine <...>
> Yablo argues that each aspect of Quine's critique is flawed. Firstly,
> one does not need to hold that rules making up a linguistic framework
> are analytic in order to be able to understand the need for a
> framework in order to
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and
> extensive literature.
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
I was aware of these facts. But a good SEP article nonetheless, thanks!
--~--~-~--~-
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Flammarion wrote:
>> Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with
>> free will (which it isn't),
>
> actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing
Asking whether free will is compatible with determinism is like asking
whether un
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except
for missing the crux:
You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering
philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about "who is
stating what" (very few lines) which may increase
On 3 Sep, 09:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/9/3 Flammarion :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Sep, 01:26, David Nyman wrote:
> >> 2009/9/2 Flammarion :
>
> >> >> and is thus not any particular physical
> >> >> object. A specific physical implementation is a token of that
> >> >> computational type, and
5 matches
Mail list logo
