Hi Alberto G. Corona
If there are physical laws in the universe, such as
gravity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism,
as well as dark energy, these laws must be universal or
else there would be chaos. There could be no science.
That fact refutes the nominalist position that universals
do not exist.
These laws are truths, so truths are universal.
Being so, they exist apart from human minds.
Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make
a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event.
Because existence then is independent of mind
(the realist position), This also refutes Berkeley's
position that things exist because we perceive them.
And the Ten Commandments, if they exist, exist
independent of us. If evil is the diminishment of life
and good the enhancement of it, evil and good have real effects
and so are real, whether you believe in them or not.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 06:02:52
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE
This is the same with some corrections of my bad dyslexic English
The modern notion of free will is a?nominalist?one. It redefine free will in
physicalist terms, when it ever was a?realist?question of whether I have moral
judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
?f course, in the modern, secularized version of Nominalism, called?Positivism,
good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will
were reduced to?physicalist?terms. The problem is that these redefinitions,
like the one of free will, in terms of physical laws are almost meaningless and
no doubt, self contradictory.?
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could not be reduced, were
relegated to a individual irrational sphere. Because these?rreducible?oncepts
were involved in the most fundamental questions for practical life, and these
concepts were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated t?emagogues,
revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. This is
the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. The results are the never
ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
2012/11/6 Alberto G. Corona
Roger:
That? right
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in
physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether I have
moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that?
why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these
redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost
meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like ?ood, evil, morals etc, that could? be reduced, were
relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the
false?ichotomy?etween is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for
practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to
demagoges, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and
planets. ?he results are the never ending waves of?otalitarianisms?ithin
Modernity.
2012/11/6 Roger Clough
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
self-determination is possible. ?y self I include everything inside
the entities' skin or shell.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 16:50:36
Subject: Re: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out
oftheir movements
So what? If you convinced someone that life is not worth living, then
they would be more likely to commit suicide.
I don't think this result really adds anything too profound...
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:57:23PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may
