[MD] Freewill

[Ian Glendinning]

:-)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> Well, I wouldn't want anyone to think my interest was just
> to disagree with dmb.  I'll go fishing and let you big boys
> deal with the Will.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>> Yes,
>> Ian
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian,
>>>
>>> Can you explain how free-will IS relevant with the MOQ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve, dmb
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the free-will vs determinism (in the MoQ context) debate
>>>> here is overlaid with the meta-argument about whose behaviour
>>>> "maintaining a weak position" exasperates who and why ... etc. But on
>>>> the core point here:
>>>>
>>>> Steve, I side with DMB.
>>>> I can't buy your a-determinism / a-free-willist stance.
>>>>
>>>> Free-will is not irrelevant to morals in the MoQ context.
>>>>
>>>> By taking the a-stance I believe you are just denying particular
>>>> definitions of free-will and/or determinism.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the primary DQ/sq split changes our descriptions / explnations of
>>>> what is going on, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a
>>>> relationship between will chosen by conscious thought being part of
>>>> (related to) morality - in the socio-intellectual levels of the MoQ.
>>>> (And it gives us an entirely new description in the physio-bio
>>>> levels.)
>>>>
>>>> If you deny free-will and determinism concepts outright, surely you
>>>> just re-invite a MoQish description of the (as patterns rather than
>>>> concepts perhaps) by another name. At the common sense level,
>>>> (Buddhist "as if" level) the relationship is still there ?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry if I missed your underlying point, but it is getting hard to discern.
>>>> I believed from earlier exchanges we were reasonably well aligned that
>>>> free-will and determinism need not be in conflict, if one took an
>>>> enlightened - balanced - MoQish view ?
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Steven Peterson
>>>> <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi dmb,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve said:... I am saying that the term "free will" has a usage in the English language, and the MOQ's response to the question of freedom is incompatible with this everyday usage. ... and my point is that the MOQ's answer is to accept neither free will or determinism in their usual sense and I'm not talking about underlying metaphysical assumptions but rather the common ways that the term "free will" gets deployed in sentences.  ...To deny free will is to deny the uncaused causer (see also Pirsig's dissolution of the mind-body problem). To deny determinism is to deny the mechanistic universe. There is nothing incompatible with doing both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>>> Well, as I see it, you are maintaining a very weak position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>>>> [Snip]
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>