Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA21335 (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 08:51:04 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:53:21 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD3C721.22311.D33E0D@localhost> In-reply-to: <006a01c0c252$744a3120$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 11 Apr 2001, at 2:41, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> > 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,
>
> No, only more immediate and vivid. And that IS entirely perceptual.
>
Can you name anything that does NOT originate in perception?
Certainly not our memories, nor the knowledge we extract from
generalizations of sets of them, nor our imagination, which is
memories dissected and recombined in novel ways, and cognition,
which is our knowledge dissected and combined in novel ways.
But we are capable of directing those dissections and
recombinations, and our actions taken on the basis of them.
>
> >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
>
> No hypothesis is real (except to the extent that such an hypothesis
> itself may have, indeed, been actually hypothesized), only, possibly,
> true (corespondent to reality).
>
But apodictically self-evident experience is real - which is my point.
>
> >(as if it were absolutely proven
>
> Another question entirely.
>
> Besides, as Einstein demonstrated, proof only exists in Logic and
> Mathematics. In all post priori questions, the best that may be had is
> evidentiary support.
>
But evidence for a universal empirical truth-claim must be
complete, and Popperianly, such evidence is impossible to muster;
however, a single counterexample can put the lie to such
absolutistic universal claims, as do both our experienced freedom
and the observed appearing-disappearing positron-electron pairs.
>
> >- something that
> > can never happen for a positive universal empirical truth-claim,
> > since it violates Popperian falsifiability)
>
> Not so. Only one contrary example constitutes falsification.
>
But my point is that no amount of evidence would constitute
verification because it can never be proven to be ALL the possible
evidence applicable. This is a logical point, of course; empirically,
the depths of all stars and the beginning and ending of our universe
cannot be plumbed for such evidence. One cannot look under
everty rock in the cosmos all the time. And this is why...
>
> >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 - 08:53:55 BST