Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Reconciling cause and effect with necessitarianism and ending fears of fatalism

Expand Messages
  • Alice
    Stephen, Smart arse! Alice :) _____ From: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
    Message 1 of 101 , Apr 1 1:40 AM
      Stephen,
      Smart arse!
      Alice :)


      From: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of stephnlawrnce@...
      Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 5:44 pm
      To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Reconciling cause and effect with necessitarianism and ending fears of fatalism

       

      Alice,

      Just noticing Lyndon used a counter factual about human development when he stated that humans have, due to their technological advances improved the life expectancy of humans.  Well this is a false statement.  It might be better put or more reflective of the truth of reality, if he put it like this:  I get a sense that based on our perceived probability of life expectancy 100 years ago, as compared with now, that the perceived probability of life expectancy has grown.  Mmm this is challenging...

      ;-)



      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >

    • Alice
      Tom, The puzzle is to do with human nature – in that we have an ability to reason a choice – which feels like contra causal free will – and in reasoning
      Message 101 of 101 , Apr 4 3:39 PM

        Tom,

        The puzzle is to do with human nature – in that we have an ability to reason a choice – which feels like contra causal free will – and in reasoning this choice we use counterfactuals or none real possibilities.  This appears to me, to be a natural and intrinsic human process – so a natural human process includes none real possibilities.  How can a natural human process that is governed by determinism include none real possibilities?

        Stephen – is that about right for the puzzlement?

        In terms of its moral and practical significance – it only appears to be paradoxical to accepting determinism – and therefore implications for accepting naturalism as truth.

        The physics tells us of determinism but we are tricked by our human processes IMO.

        See SBS show seeing is believing – you ca see it here fore the next 7 days http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/  click on the link down a bit on right at top of that section.

        Alice J

         


        From: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com [mailto: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom Clark
        Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 9:13 pm
        To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Reconciling cause and effect with necessitarianism and ending fears of fatalism

         

         

        Stephen,

        You and Alice may well be onto something that I just don't see, and
        after all, you've quoted another philosopher who does see it as a
        problem. So I encourage you both the keep at it. But for some reason
        none of the examples produced thus far have been able to get me to grasp
        1) the puzzle itself or 2) its moral and practical significance. A
        possible diagnosis is that I'm just blind to the particular difficulty
        you're seeing or need it better explained to me with a really clear
        everyday example. Another possibility is that it's a pseudo-problem. I
        really don't know which is the case. But know that I appreciate your
        questing, steel trap minds! Plus the respectful tone of the discourse
        here.

        I'll check out the compatibilist debate thanks,

        Tom

        >
        >
        >
        > As for the deep puzzlementyou and Stephen feel about all this, I’m
        blissfully unencumbered with it.Just lucky I guess!
        >
        >
        > Oh well Tom, If I overcome my puzzlement I think it will be a useful
        contribution.
        >
        >
        > An aside, on the scandal of compatibilsm, I've been battling with a
        "compatibilist" for more than a year, I should think .
        >
        >
        > The latest bout is here
        http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/10024/P570/
        >
        >
        > It's terribly repetative and I lose it on occasions because it's so
        frustrating, so in a sense hardly recommended reading really.
        >
        >
        > But GdB, the character in question, is a great example of someone who
        says free will is compatible with determinism but is not accepting the
        implications of determinism so his Libertarian intuitions over desert,
        remain the same.
        >
        >
        > Best,
        >
        >
        > Stephen
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > .
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.