Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA21406 (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 09:03:13 +0100 Message-ID: <009901c0c25d$5612e5c0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AD3C721.22311.D33E0D@localhost> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:59:29 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
> 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?
*Anything that happens, happens, whether it is seen or not, and is caused
prior to the outcome being witnessed.
> 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.
You are confusing Phenomenology with Ontology.
> >
> > >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.
Only real in so far as it is really experienced
> >
> > >(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,
False. Support only exists by degree.
>and Popperianly, such evidence is impossible to muster;
So, what?
> however, a single counterexample can put the lie to such
> absolutistic universal claims, as do both our experienced freedom
No. I have already reconciled the global and the subjective.
> 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
What is verification? There is only support, and by degrees, in all post
priori questions.
>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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 09:06:04 BST