From: Phil Goetz (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 15:19:40 MST
--- Jef Allbright <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I replaced the key part of my statement above: that
> for us to enjoy free
> will we depend on our universe being a deterministic
> one. The paradox
> arises from using the wrong context. Within the
> subjective context from
> which we choose and act, we experience free will.
> From the ultimate
> objective context, there is no self to experience
> free will. It may be
> helpful to consider that everyone else (but you)
> might be a zombie and
> there would be no measurable difference in the
> actions you observe.
I thought your intent was to unify the subjective
and the objective. That seems to me to be what
an "objective morality" would be all about.
> Phil, I think it's clear we're not achieving the
> convergence of thought
> I had hoped for here. The apparent esteem with
> which you quote Gould is
> a strong indicator of fundamental differences in our
I don't hold Gould in high esteem. But the particular
book now being discussed makes a good case, and a lot
of people have objected to it without presenting any
data to the contrary, and it is an important point,
so I continue to defend it.
> Thanks for the compliment, but I had hoped to be
> challenged directly on
> the issues I present in simple language but
> certainly from an unfamiliar
> point of view. Instead it seems that you have
> repeatedly clipped out
> the heart of my arguments and resorted to citing,
> sometimes incorrectly,
> ostensive authorities you admit have been vexed by
> the problem. It's
> not an intrinsically difficult problem, but one that
> requires abandoning
> evolved biases that feel so very true.
As I said, I didn't understand the statement that
I had quoted. I couldn't parse it semantically.
I have no idea what it was supposed to say.
I was hoping you would explain it.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT