On 19 Nov 2010, at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/19/2010 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 06:10, Rex Allen wrote:
In this case, if we had sufficient mental capacity there would no
need
to think in terms of trees or forests - we could think exclusively
in
terms
On Nov 18, 5:10 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:38 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:27 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If logic and reason reduce to causal laws, then ultimately causal laws
alone explain the result.
On 11/19/2010 6:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 06:10, Rex Allen wrote:
In this case, if we had sufficient mental capacity there would no need
to think in terms of trees or forests - we could think exclusively in
terms quarks, electrons, photons, and whatnot. Thinking in
On Nov 16, 5:50 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Nov 2010, at 20:24, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53
On 17 Nov 2010, at 12:27, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:50 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Nov 2010, at 20:24, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:38 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:27 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If logic and reason reduce to causal laws, then ultimately causal laws
alone explain the result.
If causal explanation and rational explanation
are categoreally
On Nov 16, 3:27 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Logical and rational are adjectives. You're confusing descriptive
labels with causal forces.
Your argument still doesn't work. You re tacitly assuming that
being the result of causal laws is exclusive of being the result
On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
Compatibilism is false. Unless you do something sneaky like change
the meaning of the term free will to make
On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
It follows by definition.
1. IF a universe governed by causal laws -
2. THEN everything that occurs within that universe is a result of
those laws acting on the
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?
Compatibilism is false. Unless you do something sneaky like change
the meaning of the term free will to make it true.
Which is like changing the definition
On 11 Nov 2010, at 02:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
snip
Put succinctly, if we have knowledge we must accept beliefs only
because we understand them to be true; but if determinism is correct,
then we automatically accept whatever beliefs that our constituent
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging causal
laws, how can it have justified
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
If you are a determinist then all beliefs are causally
connected to facts (facts about your brain, perception, the world...). If
the facts and the belief are congruent and they are causally connected then
they are
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Nov 2010, at 02:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Bryan Caplan:
Put succinctly, if we have knowledge we must accept beliefs only
because we understand them to be true; but if
On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging
On 14 Nov 2010, at 22:17, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 11 Nov 2010, at 02:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Bryan Caplan:
Put succinctly, if we have knowledge we must accept beliefs only
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Nov 2010, at 22:17, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We have good reason to believe that our brains are not so bad dynamical
mirror of the most probable
On 11/11/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Once you give up free choice, you're left with skepticism.
Bryan Caplan had an interesting comment on this:
Now it is a fact that
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging causal
laws, how can it have justified true beliefs (a.k.a. knowledge)
either?
If the entity's beliefs
On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allenrexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging causal
laws, how can it have justified true beliefs
On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
if laws were contingent, they would change so frequently, so
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
[RA]
If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging causal
laws, how can it have justified true beliefs (a.k.a. knowledge)
either?
[SPK]
I am not sure of what you mean by unchanging causal
Dear Rex,
-Original Message-
From: Rex Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
if laws were contingent, they would change so frequently, so
frenetically, that we would never be able to grasp anything
whatsoever, because
25 matches
Mail list logo
