[MD] Dennett & James' "Free will"

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:
...You're so lost that you don't even understand your own evidence. The man's name is Doyle, not Boyle, and his lecture at Harvard is an explanation of the the James essay you brought to the table. That is the essay where James presents his two-stage model. Your denials only show how clueless you are about your own words and deeds.


Steve replied:
...My point is that the Two Stage model is Boyle's suggestion for how James ought to be understood. To my knowledge James never used the term "two stage model" in that or any other essay. So, no, I did not bring any "two stage model" into the conversation. YOU did that through Boyle.

dmb says:
The Stanford, Wikipedia and most other encyclopedia articles also describe James's work in that essay as a two-stage model. It doesn't matter if you called it by that name or not when you presented. Of course you didn't. That would have required some comprehension on your part. There's no danger of that happening anytime soon. 



dmb said to Steve:
...The Seigfried quotes show that Jamesian free will is a practical and empirical matter, that it doesn't depend on any metaphysical claim. Drop the traditional metaphysical baggage, you keep you saying. And so I'm showing you that there isn't any.


Steve replied:
...I can see that in Seigfired's analysis. ... So the Seigfried analysis seems a better candidate for being relevant to Pirsig's notion of freedom. As for your metaphysical baggage, it comes to light upon consideration of the determinism side of the question. When you insist that determinism stands for what is ultimately true ...


dmb says:
I do NOT insist that determinism stands for what is ultimately true. That's the baggage you are adding. I only insist that the word "determinism" has a specific meaning. The word refers to a philosophical position that can be held for many different reasons but whatever those reasons are, regardless of whether they are metaphysical or not, the determinist believes we are determined. Period. Let me say that again, the Determinist believes we are determined. That's all the word means. I have no doubt that many of the various determinists have come to that conclusion for metaphysical reasons but those particulars are not part of the definition of the word. Determinism is just the view that we are determined. Honestly, Steve, how hard can that be? 

Steve said:
Who is the "we" in this picture that exercises control or is controlled? That's why the Two Stage model doesn't work for the MOQ. That is the important question that my "Big Self/small self" formulation takes into account.



dmb says:

There you go again. Do "we" really have to deny the Cartesian self at the end of every sentence? That's a bullshit objection and you know it. How many times do I have to post the quote wherein Pirsig says it's both impossible and unnecessary to give up words like "we" and "I". Every time you make this objection, I think even less of you. It's stupid and dishonest.