Re: Compatibilism

2010-11-19 Thread 1Z
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote: > > >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false? > > >> Compatibilis

Re: Compatibilism

2010-11-19 Thread 1Z
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Rex, > > > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source) > > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it > > the matter that causes thought

Re: Compatibilism

2010-11-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false? Compatibilism is false.

Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity

2010-11-19 Thread 1Z
On Nov 18, 5:10 am, Rex Allen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:38 AM, 1Z wrote: > > On Nov 16, 3:27 am, Rex Allen wrote: > > >> If logic and reason reduce to causal laws, then ultimately causal laws > >> alone explain the result. > > > If causal explanation and rational explanation > > are

Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity

2010-11-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Nov 2010, at 06:10, Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:38 AM, 1Z wrote: On Nov 16, 3:27 am, Rex Allen 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 d

Re: Compatibilism

2010-11-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Nov 2010, at 13:36, 1Z wrote: We don't invoke thought and reason to explain the abilities and behavior of chess playing computers Sometimes we do...see Dennett;s "intentional stance" key point, I agree. I would say we always do that. No one will explain why a chess playing computer

Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity

2010-11-19 Thread Brent Meeker
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 term