Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA20948 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:11:15 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:13:49 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD3AFCD.27093.781B5C@localhost> In-reply-to: <00ca01c0c113$29cfd680$5eaefea9@rcn.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 9 Apr 2001, at 12:36, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> > On 5 Apr 2001, at 8:36, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:55:38PM -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Free choices being subjective, then, do not
> > > > > > > > > > > > contradict with
> > > > > > > > objective
> > > > > > > > > > > > determinism.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You got it!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now all we have to do is get it clear that
> > > > > > > > > > > subjectivity is not
> > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > inferior (or superior) to objectivity.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What ever are you talking about?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, I have to spell it out: despite being
> > > > > > > > > subjective, freedom
> > > > is
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > as real as -- something real.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where does superiority or inferiority come into it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Illusions are generally considered inferior to real
> > > > > > > phenomena.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you prefer reality over dealing with illusions?
> > > > >
> > > > Preference is another question.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's entirely rational either, but you'll find
> > > there's quite a widespread preference for objectivity over
> > > subjectivity.
> > >
> > Which is quite strange, considering that objectivity is
> > unattainable; the best we can do is intersubjective agreement.
>
> Never the less, we still seek to improve our knowledge of truth
> (correspondence to reality). And besides subjectivity, there is also
> relativity. And the question remains whether subjective freedom is
> illusory or simply relative to the subjective frame of reference, thus
> as objectively real as superdeterminism, globally.
>
Much realer, since we all personally, phenomenologically
experience our apodictically self-evident freedom, while only some
of us hypothecize and conjecture that they might be deluded as to
their own experience's facticity. To even label such a conjecture
as objectively real (as if it were absolutely proven - something that
can never happen for a positive universal empirical truth-claim,
since it violates Popperian falsifiability) is much worse than simply
logically incorrect; it is absurd and nonsensical on its face.
>
> > > --
> > > Robin Faichney
> > > Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> > > (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
> > >
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 07:14:13 BST