Re: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-12 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi meekerdb 

Those are the complaints of the far left.
They hate everything that has authority or power.
 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/12/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-10, 18:36:27
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE


On 11/6/2012 2:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
Other concepts, like  good, evil, morals etc, that could磏 be reduced, were 
relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false 
dichotomy between 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.  The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within 
Modernity.

No, modernity came with the invention of individualism, the existence of a 
private sphere of belief and endeavor that was secure from the ecclesiastical 
authorities who tried to define good, evil, morals etc as extending to every 
nook and cranny not only of private life, but even of thought and consciousness.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-10 Thread meekerdb 

On 11/6/2012 2:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Other concepts, like  good, evil, morals etc, that could´n be reduced, were relegated to 
a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false dichotomy between 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.  The results are the never ending waves 
of totalitarianisms within Modernity.


No, modernity came with the invention of individualism, the existence of a private sphere 
of belief and endeavor that was secure from the ecclesiastical authorities who tried to 
define good, evil, morals etc as extending to every nook and cranny not only of private 
life, but even of thought and consciousness.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona  

I'm much indebted to you for bringing this
very important observation to my attention. 

I need very badly to study the issue and
am starting right now.



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, 05:21:48 
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE 


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 have 
> linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO. 
> Attention John Clark! 
> 
> "Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of 
> their movements 
> 

-- 

 
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performance Coders 
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 







--  
Alberto. 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
T

Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE

2012-11-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona 
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.


 Of course, in the modern, secularized version of Nominalism, called
Positivism,
good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that´s 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 irreducible concepts were involved in the most fundamental questions
for practical life, and these concepts were denied to rational discussion,
they were delegated t demagogues, 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´s 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´s 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  good, evil, morals etc, that could´n be reduced,
> were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the
> false dichotomy between 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.  The results are the never ending waves
> of totalitarianisms within 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.  By 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 have
>> > linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO.
>> > Attention John Clark!
>> >
>> > "Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of
>> > their movements
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 
>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>