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

Sam Harris new book on Free Will

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Lawrence
    http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405 Should be helpful. Stephen
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
    • xephani76
      Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I ve run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen s memes after his death..... Alice :)
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....

        Alice :)


        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lawrence" <stephnlawrnce@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405
        >
        > Should be helpful.
        >
        > Stephen
        >
      • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
        Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I ve run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen s memes after his death..... You
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....



          You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
           
          Stephen  
           
           
           
        • xephani76
          I don t!?
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't!?

            --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
            >
            > Stephen
            >
          • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
            I don t!? I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It s just a good development. Stephen ... From: xephani76 To:
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              I don't!?


              I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
               
              Stephen

              -----Original Message-----
              From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
              To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
              Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will

               
              I don't!?

              --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
              >
              > Stephen
              >

            • xephani76
              Stephen, I get what you mean.... I reckon though that it s useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen,

                I get what you mean....

                I reckon though that it's useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives us more food for thought - as I'm sure that Harris would - he's such an interesting communicator.

                Alice :)

                --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > I don't!?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
                >
                > Stephen
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
                > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > I don't!?
                >
                > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
                > >
                > > Stephen
                > >
                >
              • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                Here is what I wrote at CFI, which I felt resasonably pleased with, fwiw. I believe the situation is this: Real free choice or free will, really is compatible
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here is what I wrote at CFI, which I felt resasonably pleased with, fwiw.
                   
                  I believe the situation is this:
                   
                  Real free choice or free will, really is compatible with determinism, the compatibilists are right about that. What we are really interested in when we think about all of the things we could do is compatible with determinism. What we are really interested in when thinking about moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Could always means could if…., just check and see.
                   
                  Real examples help George, I’d suggest you look at them as they arise in your life if you want to understand this.
                  My sister said it was “up to me” if we spent boxing day together. “Up to me” is just another way of saying your free will or free choice. Was it heck, nah not a bit of it, she was putting pressure on me (good for her) and that pressure was a restriction upon me. This real example is compatible with determinism. (we had a good day)
                   
                  On the telly there is an appeal to get clean water to a part of Africa where the people are drinking dirty water. The appeal says they drink it because they have no choice. No choice is another way of saying it isn’t a free choice or it isn’t their free will. Actually they do have two options, drink dirty water or drink nothing.
                   
                  What is rightly implied by the appeal, is if they had clean water to drink they would have a choice i.e a free choice or free will or it would be up to them what they drank. Obviously if it was “up to them”, if it was their free choice, they would drink the clean water.
                   
                  Really, obviously, free choice is not about being able to do otherwise in the circumstances at the time at all, if we look at these real cases, we can see that.
                   
                  So what’s the problem with compatibilism?  The problem is that people imagine we have control and freedom beyond compatibilist control and freedom. Compatibilists don’t stress that enough. Free will compatible with determinism means free will compatible with having one possible future given our past.
                   
                  Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It’s that simple, it’s 100% their misfortune.
                   
                  Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.
                   
                  And, of course, it generally isn’t, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.
                   
                  Sam Harris is rightly saying ‘oh no we don’t’ and that it matters that we don’t.
                   
                  Stephen



                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                  To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 8:35
                  Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will

                   
                  Stephen,

                  I get what you mean....

                  I reckon though that it's useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives us more food for thought - as I'm sure that Harris would - he's such an interesting communicator.

                  Alice :)

                  --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't!?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
                  >
                  > Stephen
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                  > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
                  > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't!?
                  >
                  > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
                  > >
                  > > Stephen
                  > >
                  >

                • xephani76
                  Stephen - I think the word free is: 1. unnecessary and; 2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings. If you remove the word
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stephen -

                    I think the word 'free' is:

                    1. unnecessary and;
                    2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings.

                    If you remove the word 'free' from your statements they make sense.

                    This bit of what you said is significant and worthy of more discussion and attention.

                    "Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It's that simple, it's 100% their misfortune.

                    Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.

                    And, of course, it generally isn't, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.

                    Sam Harris is rightly saying `oh no we don't' and that it matters that we don't."

                    Alice :)

                    --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Here is what I wrote at CFI, which I felt resasonably pleased with, fwiw.
                    >
                    > I believe the situation is this:
                    >
                    > Real free choice or free will, really is compatible with determinism, the compatibilists are right about that. What we are really interested in when we think about all of the things we could do is compatible with determinism. What we are really interested in when thinking about moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Could always means could if…., just check and see.
                    >
                    > Real examples help George, I’d suggest you look at them as they arise in your life if you want to understand this.
                    > My sister said it was “up to me” if we spent boxing day together. “Up to me” is just another way of saying your free will or free choice. Was it heck, nah not a bit of it, she was putting pressure on me (good for her) and that pressure was a restriction upon me. This real example is compatible with determinism. (we had a good day)
                    >
                    > On the telly there is an appeal to get clean water to a part of Africa where the people are drinking dirty water. The appeal says they drink it because they have no choice. No choice is another way of saying it isn’t a free choice or it isn’t their free will. Actually they do have two options, drink dirty water or drink nothing.
                    >
                    > What is rightly implied by the appeal, is if they had clean water to drink they would have a choice i.e a free choice or free will or it would be up to them what they drank. Obviously if it was “up to them”, if it was their free choice, they would drink the clean water.
                    >
                    > Really, obviously, free choice is not about being able to do otherwise in the circumstances at the time at all, if we look at these real cases, we can see that.
                    >
                    > So what’s the problem with compatibilism? The problem is that people imagine we have control and freedom beyond compatibilist control and freedom. Compatibilists don’t stress that enough. Free will compatible with determinism means free will compatible with having one possible future given our past.
                    >
                    > Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It’s that simple, it’s 100% their misfortune.
                    >
                    > Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.
                    >
                    > And, of course, it generally isn’t, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.
                    >
                    > Sam Harris is rightly saying ‘oh no we don’t’ and that it matters that we don’t.
                    >
                    > Stephen
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                    > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 8:35
                    > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Stephen,
                    >
                    > I get what you mean....
                    >
                    > I reckon though that it's useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives us more food for thought - as I'm sure that Harris would - he's such an interesting communicator.
                    >
                    > Alice :)
                    >
                    > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I don't!?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
                    > >
                    > > Stephen
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: xephani76 <alice1976@>
                    > > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                    > > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
                    > > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I don't!?
                    > >
                    > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
                    > > >
                    > > > Stephen
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                    Alice, P raps? I m not sure. In the case of the people in Africa they had two options, drink dirty water or
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Alice,
                       
                      <<I think the word 'free' is:

                      1. unnecessary and;>>
                       
                      P'raps? I'm not sure. In the case of the people in Africa they had two options, drink dirty water or no water. We need to differentiate between choices like that (which we call no choice)  and the choice to drink clean water.
                      <<2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings>>
                       
                      True, but can we really reduce the confusion by dropping one usage?
                       
                      Stephen



                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                      To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 0:42
                      Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will

                       
                      Stephen -

                      I think the word 'free' is:

                      1. unnecessary and;
                      2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings.

                      If you remove the word 'free' from your statements they make sense.

                      This bit of what you said is significant and worthy of more discussion and attention.

                      "Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It's that simple, it's 100% their misfortune.

                      Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.

                      And, of course, it generally isn't, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.

                      Sam Harris is rightly saying `oh no we don't' and that it matters that we don't."

                      Alice :)

                      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Here is what I wrote at CFI, which I felt resasonably pleased with, fwiw.
                      >
                      > I believe the situation is this:
                      >
                      > Real free choice or free will, really is compatible with determinism, the compatibilists are right about that. What we are really interested in when we think about all of the things we could do is compatible with determinism. What we are really interested in when thinking about moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Could always means could if…., just check and see.
                      >
                      > Real examples help George, I’d suggest you look at them as they arise in your life if you want to understand this.
                      > My sister said it was “up to me” if we spent boxing day together. “Up to me” is just another way of saying your free will or free choice. Was it heck, nah not a bit of it, she was putting pressure on me (good for her) and that pressure was a restriction upon me. This real example is compatible with determinism. (we had a good day)
                      >
                      > On the telly there is an appeal to get clean water to a part of Africa where the people are drinking dirty water. The appeal says they drink it because they have no choice. No choice is another way of saying it isn’t a free choice or it isn’t their free will. Actually they do have two options, drink dirty water or drink nothing.
                      >
                      > What is rightly implied by the appeal, is if they had clean water to drink they would have a choice i.e a free choice or free will or it would be up to them what they drank. Obviously if it was “up to them”, if it was their free choice, they would drink the clean water.
                      >
                      > Really, obviously, free choice is not about being able to do otherwise in the circumstances at the time at all, if we look at these real cases, we can see that.
                      >
                      > So what’s the problem with compatibilism? The problem is that people imagine we have control and freedom beyond compatibilist control and freedom. Compatibilists don’t stress that enough. Free will compatible with determinism means free will compatible with having one possible future given our past.
                      >
                      > Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It’s that simple, it’s 100% their misfortune.
                      >
                      > Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.
                      >
                      > And, of course, it generally isn’t, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.
                      >
                      > Sam Harris is rightly saying ‘oh no we don’t’ and that it matters that we don’t.
                      >
                      > Stephen
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                      > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 8:35
                      > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Stephen,
                      >
                      > I get what you mean....
                      >
                      > I reckon though that it's useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives us more food for thought - as I'm sure that Harris would - he's such an interesting communicator.
                      >
                      > Alice :)
                      >
                      > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I don't!?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
                      > >
                      > > Stephen
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: xephani76 <alice1976@>
                      > > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
                      > > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I don't!?
                      > >
                      > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
                      > > >
                      > > > Stephen
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >

                    • xephani76
                      Hi Stephen, Let me clarify - I meant to simply remove the word free from your statements. The word choice can remain as a description of what we do when we
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 3, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Stephen,

                        Let me clarify - I meant to simply remove the word 'free' from your statements. The word choice can remain as a description of what we do when we have options and thought processes that lead to outcomes.

                        The confusion about double meanings was regarding the word 'free'.

                        Does that clarify anything?

                        Alice :)





                        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Alice,
                        >
                        > <<I think the word 'free' is:
                        >
                        > 1. unnecessary and;>>
                        >
                        > P'raps? I'm not sure. In the case of the people in Africa they had two options, drink dirty water or no water. We need to differentiate between choices like that (which we call no choice) and the choice to drink clean water.
                        >
                        > <<2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings>>
                        >
                        > True, but can we really reduce the confusion by dropping one usage?
                        >
                        > Stephen
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                        > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 0:42
                        > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Stephen -
                        >
                        > I think the word 'free' is:
                        >
                        > 1. unnecessary and;
                        > 2. creates confusion due to it having at least 2 implications or meanings.
                        >
                        > If you remove the word 'free' from your statements they make sense.
                        >
                        > This bit of what you said is significant and worthy of more discussion and attention.
                        >
                        > "Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It's that simple, it's 100% their misfortune.
                        >
                        > Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.
                        >
                        > And, of course, it generally isn't, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.
                        >
                        > Sam Harris is rightly saying `oh no we don't' and that it matters that we don't."
                        >
                        > Alice :)
                        >
                        > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Here is what I wrote at CFI, which I felt resasonably pleased with, fwiw.
                        > >
                        > > I believe the situation is this:
                        > >
                        > > Real free choice or free will, really is compatible with determinism, the compatibilists are right about that. What we are really interested in when we think about all of the things we could do is compatible with determinism. What we are really interested in when thinking about moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Could always means could if…., just check and see.
                        > >
                        > > Real examples help George, I’d suggest you look at them as they arise in your life if you want to understand this.
                        > > My sister said it was “up to me” if we spent boxing day together. “Up to me” is just another way of saying your free will or free choice. Was it heck, nah not a bit of it, she was putting pressure on me (good for her) and that pressure was a restriction upon me. This real example is compatible with determinism. (we had a good day)
                        > >
                        > > On the telly there is an appeal to get clean water to a part of Africa where the people are drinking dirty water. The appeal says they drink it because they have no choice. No choice is another way of saying it isn’t a free choice or it isn’t their free will. Actually they do have two options, drink dirty water or drink nothing.
                        > >
                        > > What is rightly implied by the appeal, is if they had clean water to drink they would have a choice i.e a free choice or free will or it would be up to them what they drank. Obviously if it was “up to them”, if it was their free choice, they would drink the clean water.
                        > >
                        > > Really, obviously, free choice is not about being able to do otherwise in the circumstances at the time at all, if we look at these real cases, we can see that.
                        > >
                        > > So what’s the problem with compatibilism? The problem is that people imagine we have control and freedom beyond compatibilist control and freedom. Compatibilists don’t stress that enough. Free will compatible with determinism means free will compatible with having one possible future given our past.
                        > >
                        > > Those who are punished are unlucky to have that past. It’s that simple, it’s 100% their misfortune.
                        > >
                        > > Our sense of justice/fairness needs to be fully compatible with that.
                        > >
                        > > And, of course, it generally isn’t, because people imagine people have a magical way of doing otherwise in the circumstances that some how negates that.
                        > >
                        > > Sam Harris is rightly saying ‘oh no we don’t’ and that it matters that we don’t.
                        > >
                        > > Stephen
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: xephani76 <alice1976@>
                        > > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 8:35
                        > > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Stephen,
                        > >
                        > > I get what you mean....
                        > >
                        > > I reckon though that it's useful to read more and think more on these matters. Doing so consolidates what we think and gives us more food for thought - as I'm sure that Harris would - he's such an interesting communicator.
                        > >
                        > > Alice :)
                        > >
                        > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I don't!?
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I mean I doubt that there is anything new in it. It's just a good development.
                        > > >
                        > > > Stephen
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > From: xephani76 <alice1976@>
                        > > > To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 6:19
                        > > > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I don't!?
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Oh let me know how you go Stephen - I've run out of book budget this month - I blame enthusiasm to have access to Hitchen's memes after his death.....
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > You don't need to read it Alice :-) !
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Stephen
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 4, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          <<Let me clarify - I meant to simply remove the word 'free' from your statements. The word choice can remain as a description of what we do when we have options and thought processes that lead to outcomes.>>

                          The problem with that Alice, is that we almost always have options. In my example of people without clean water they do have two options, drink dirty water, or drink nothing. Once they have clean water they have four options, drink dirty water, drink clean water, drink a mixture of dirty and clean, drink nothing.
                           
                          One of these choices is so unfree, so as we understand it as having no choice, whilst the other isn't. 
                          We need to differentiate between various choices somehow.
                           

                          <<The confusion about double meanings was regarding the word 'free'.>>
                           
                          Yes, but I'm not sure what to do about it, perhaps we are stuck with it?
                           
                          And there is no other meaning really, in that being free to do otherwise in the circumstances, is no kind of meaningful freedom at all. 
                           
                          Stephen



                        • xephani76
                          what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can t be doing many things at that time
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 4, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?

                            Alice :)

                            --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > <<Let me clarify - I meant to simply remove the word 'free' from your statements. The word choice can remain as a description of what we do when we have options and thought processes that lead to outcomes.>>
                            >
                            > The problem with that Alice, is that we almost always have options. In my example of people without clean water they do have two options, drink dirty water, or drink nothing. Once they have clean water they have four options, drink dirty water, drink clean water, drink a mixture of dirty and clean, drink nothing.
                            >
                            > One of these choices is so unfree, so as we understand it as having no choice, whilst the other isn't.
                            >
                            > We need to differentiate between various choices somehow.
                            >
                            >
                            > <<The confusion about double meanings was regarding the word 'free'.>>
                            >
                            > Yes, but I'm not sure what to do about it, perhaps we are stuck with it?
                            >
                            > And there is no other meaning really, in that being free to do otherwise in the circumstances, is no kind of meaningful freedom at all.
                            >
                            > Stephen
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > MARKETPLACE
                            >
                            > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > .
                            >
                          • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                            Alice,
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 4, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Alice,
                               
                              <<what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?>>
                               
                              Clearly there is confusion over the freedom to do otherwise. The illusion is to imagine we are thinking about being able to do otherwise in the precise circumstances.
                               
                              What I try to do is understand what we are really thinking about. The first thing to understand is that there is always an if... we don't always include the if in our language but it's there.
                               
                              Could = nothing to prevent. Add the if and you have nothing to prevent if. Now, if there is nothing to prevent something from happening in certain circumstances, that is what would happen. So could if transposes to would if.
                               
                              What we are interested in is our options, options are things we could do if we choose to. So I could go to town if I choose to. Which means there is nothing to prevent me from going if I choose to, which means I would or will go to town if I choose to.
                               
                              These are the things that are worth deliberating over because if one option emerges as a winner we can do it (nothing to prevent) and so it would/will happen. I already know I'm not determined to go to town tonight, still it's important to me that I'm free to if I choose to.
                               
                              Also these are the things we are interested when holding each other responsible. To hold people responsible for consequentialist reasons it does need to be the case that they could have done otherwise in the above sense because if not it wouldn't work and in thoses cases it would be pointless and wrong to do it.
                               
                              Best,
                               
                              Stephen
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                              Recent Activity:

                            • xephani76
                              Stephen, I think what we are really talking about here is biochemistry - when we feel free - what does our bio chemistry look like - as compared with how we
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 4, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Stephen,

                                I think what we are really talking about here is biochemistry - when we "feel free" - what does our bio chemistry look like - as compared with how we feel when we "feel fated" - I think you would find the answers in the biochemical make up in our body at that time. Perhaps there are also some significant measurable differences in our neurology at those times.

                                Alice :)

                                --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Alice,
                                >
                                > <<what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?>>
                                >
                                > Clearly there is confusion over the freedom to do otherwise. The illusion is to imagine we are thinking about being able to do otherwise in the precise circumstances.
                                >
                                > What I try to do is understand what we are really thinking about. The first thing to understand is that there is always an if... we don't always include the if in our language but it's there.
                                >
                                > Could = nothing to prevent. Add the if and you have nothing to prevent if. Now, if there is nothing to prevent something from happening in certain circumstances, that is what would happen. So could if transposes to would if.
                                >
                                > What we are interested in is our options, options are things we could do if we choose to. So I could go to town if I choose to. Which means there is nothing to prevent me from going if I choose to, which means I would or will go to town if I choose to.
                                >
                                > These are the things that are worth deliberating over because if one option emerges as a winner we can do it (nothing to prevent) and so it would/will happen. I already know I'm not determined to go to town tonight, still it's important to me that I'm free to if I choose to.
                                >
                                > Also these are the things we are interested when holding each other responsible. To hold people responsible for consequentialist reasons it does need to be the case that they could have done otherwise in the above sense because if not it wouldn't work and in thoses cases it would be pointless and wrong to do it.
                                >
                                > Best,
                                >
                                > Stephen
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Recent Activity: New Members 2
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Visit Your Group
                                >
                                > MARKETPLACE
                                >
                                > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > .
                                >
                              • freethinker58
                                Alice, I think you have teased out an important issue which is our feelings versus the actual state of affairs independent of us. Take the example that you
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Alice,

                                  I think you have teased out an important issue which is our feelings versus the actual state of affairs independent of us. Take the example that you and Stephen have been kicking back and forth: the freedom to drink clean water or drink nothing or mixed clean and dirty. No. :) There is no freedom involved here whatsoever: Those people MUST drink. If one thinks one has the "freedom" to drink nothing, let them try and do that for 3 days and see where it gets them. :) They may feel free to pick and choose what brand of bottled water they would like when they are not thirsty but that goes back to their internal state which goes back to biochemistry as you correctly point out. People drink their own urine given enough time without access to water, dirty or otherwise. Where is the freedom in that?

                                  People are quick to assign freedom where nothing of the kind exists. When you unpack most things there is no freedom there, just varying degrees of compulsion.

                                  Rich




                                  Rich

                                  --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "xephani76" <alice1976@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Stephen,
                                  >
                                  > I think what we are really talking about here is biochemistry - when we "feel free" - what does our bio chemistry look like - as compared with how we feel when we "feel fated" - I think you would find the answers in the biochemical make up in our body at that time. Perhaps there are also some significant measurable differences in our neurology at those times.
                                  >
                                  > Alice :)
                                  >
                                  > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Alice,
                                  > >
                                  > > <<what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?>>
                                  > >
                                  > > Clearly there is confusion over the freedom to do otherwise. The illusion is to imagine we are thinking about being able to do otherwise in the precise circumstances.
                                  > >
                                  > > What I try to do is understand what we are really thinking about. The first thing to understand is that there is always an if... we don't always include the if in our language but it's there.
                                  > >
                                  > > Could = nothing to prevent. Add the if and you have nothing to prevent if. Now, if there is nothing to prevent something from happening in certain circumstances, that is what would happen. So could if transposes to would if.
                                  > >
                                  > > What we are interested in is our options, options are things we could do if we choose to. So I could go to town if I choose to. Which means there is nothing to prevent me from going if I choose to, which means I would or will go to town if I choose to.
                                  > >
                                  > > These are the things that are worth deliberating over because if one option emerges as a winner we can do it (nothing to prevent) and so it would/will happen. I already know I'm not determined to go to town tonight, still it's important to me that I'm free to if I choose to.
                                  > >
                                  > > Also these are the things we are interested when holding each other responsible. To hold people responsible for consequentialist reasons it does need to be the case that they could have done otherwise in the above sense because if not it wouldn't work and in thoses cases it would be pointless and wrong to do it.
                                  > >
                                  > > Best,
                                  > >
                                  > > Stephen
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Recent Activity: New Members 2
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Visit Your Group
                                  > >
                                  > > MARKETPLACE
                                  > >
                                  > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > .
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • xephani76
                                  Good point Rich, If Bear Grill can drink his own purified urine, why can t the west send urine purifiers over there ?... Back to the point though - well yes -
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Good point Rich,

                                    If Bear Grill can drink his own purified urine, why can't the west send urine purifiers over there ?...

                                    Back to the point though - well yes - if we want to look at the science - neurology and bio-chemistry is the key - stuff that we can measure. Sam Harris et al are onto that end of things...

                                    Alice :)

                                    --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "freethinker58" <freethinker58@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Alice,
                                    >
                                    > I think you have teased out an important issue which is our feelings versus the actual state of affairs independent of us. Take the example that you and Stephen have been kicking back and forth: the freedom to drink clean water or drink nothing or mixed clean and dirty. No. :) There is no freedom involved here whatsoever: Those people MUST drink. If one thinks one has the "freedom" to drink nothing, let them try and do that for 3 days and see where it gets them. :) They may feel free to pick and choose what brand of bottled water they would like when they are not thirsty but that goes back to their internal state which goes back to biochemistry as you correctly point out. People drink their own urine given enough time without access to water, dirty or otherwise. Where is the freedom in that?
                                    >
                                    > People are quick to assign freedom where nothing of the kind exists. When you unpack most things there is no freedom there, just varying degrees of compulsion.
                                    >
                                    > Rich
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Rich
                                    >
                                    > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "xephani76" <alice1976@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Stephen,
                                    > >
                                    > > I think what we are really talking about here is biochemistry - when we "feel free" - what does our bio chemistry look like - as compared with how we feel when we "feel fated" - I think you would find the answers in the biochemical make up in our body at that time. Perhaps there are also some significant measurable differences in our neurology at those times.
                                    > >
                                    > > Alice :)
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Alice,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > <<what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?>>
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Clearly there is confusion over the freedom to do otherwise. The illusion is to imagine we are thinking about being able to do otherwise in the precise circumstances.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > What I try to do is understand what we are really thinking about. The first thing to understand is that there is always an if... we don't always include the if in our language but it's there.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Could = nothing to prevent. Add the if and you have nothing to prevent if. Now, if there is nothing to prevent something from happening in certain circumstances, that is what would happen. So could if transposes to would if.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > What we are interested in is our options, options are things we could do if we choose to. So I could go to town if I choose to. Which means there is nothing to prevent me from going if I choose to, which means I would or will go to town if I choose to.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > These are the things that are worth deliberating over because if one option emerges as a winner we can do it (nothing to prevent) and so it would/will happen. I already know I'm not determined to go to town tonight, still it's important to me that I'm free to if I choose to.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Also these are the things we are interested when holding each other responsible. To hold people responsible for consequentialist reasons it does need to be the case that they could have done otherwise in the above sense because if not it wouldn't work and in thoses cases it would be pointless and wrong to do it.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Best,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Stephen
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Recent Activity: New Members 2
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Visit Your Group
                                    > > >
                                    > > > MARKETPLACE
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > .
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                                    Rich, People are quick to assign freedom where nothing of the kind exists. When you unpack most things there is no freedom there, just varying degrees of
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jan 5, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Rich,
                                      People are quick to assign freedom where nothing of the kind exists. When you unpack most things there is no freedom there, just varying degrees of compulsion.

                                      You hit the nail on the head.
                                       
                                      This is just semantics though, because various degrees of compulsion is various degrees of freedom.
                                       
                                      The charity appeal says the people had no choice meaning it wasn't a free choice because the compulsion was extreme. On the other hand, we freely choose to drink clean water as they would given the choice.
                                       
                                      Stephen
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: xephani76 <alice1976@...>
                                      To: naturalismphilosophyforum <naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:21
                                      Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Sam Harris new book on Free Will

                                       
                                      Good point Rich,

                                      If Bear Grill can drink his own purified urine, why can't the west send urine purifiers over there ?...

                                      Back to the point though - well yes - if we want to look at the science - neurology and bio-chemistry is the key - stuff that we can measure. Sam Harris et al are onto that end of things...

                                      Alice :)

                                      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "freethinker58" <freethinker58@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Alice,
                                      >
                                      > I think you have teased out an important issue which is our feelings versus the actual state of affairs independent of us. Take the example that you and Stephen have been kicking back and forth: the freedom to drink clean water or drink nothing or mixed clean and dirty. No. :) There is no freedom involved here whatsoever: Those people MUST drink. If one thinks one has the "freedom" to drink nothing, let them try and do that for 3 days and see where it gets them. :) They may feel free to pick and choose what brand of bottled water they would like when they are not thirsty but that goes back to their internal state which goes back to biochemistry as you correctly point out. People drink their own urine given enough time without access to water, dirty or otherwise. Where is the freedom in that?
                                      >
                                      > People are quick to assign freedom where nothing of the kind exists. When you unpack most things there is no freedom there, just varying degrees of compulsion.
                                      >
                                      > Rich
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Rich
                                      >
                                      > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "xephani76" <alice1976@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Stephen,
                                      > >
                                      > > I think what we are really talking about here is biochemistry - when we "feel free" - what does our bio chemistry look like - as compared with how we feel when we "feel fated" - I think you would find the answers in the biochemical make up in our body at that time. Perhaps there are also some significant measurable differences in our neurology at those times.
                                      > >
                                      > > Alice :)
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, stephnlawrnce@ wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Alice,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > <<what about - we are free to do otherwise - but we must commit to only one thing in any given frozen moment of time - we can't be doing many things at that time - and therefore we are only free according to time flowing forward.... freedom is an illusion of time ?>>
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Clearly there is confusion over the freedom to do otherwise. The illusion is to imagine we are thinking about being able to do otherwise in the precise circumstances.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > What I try to do is understand what we are really thinking about. The first thing to understand is that there is always an if... we don't always include the if in our language but it's there.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Could = nothing to prevent. Add the if and you have nothing to prevent if. Now, if there is nothing to prevent something from happening in certain circumstances, that is what would happen. So could if transposes to would if.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > What we are interested in is our options, options are things we could do if we choose to. So I could go to town if I choose to. Which means there is nothing to prevent me from going if I choose to, which means I would or will go to town if I choose to.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > These are the things that are worth deliberating over because if one option emerges as a winner we can do it (nothing to prevent) and so it would/will happen. I already know I'm not determined to go to town tonight, still it's important to me that I'm free to if I choose to.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Also these are the things we are interested when holding each other responsible. To hold people responsible for consequentialist reasons it does need to be the case that they could have done otherwise in the above sense because if not it wouldn't work and in thoses cases it would be pointless and wrong to do it.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Best,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Stephen
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Recent Activity: New Members 2
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Visit Your Group
                                      > > >
                                      > > > MARKETPLACE
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > .
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >

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