Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA23880 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 05:59:39 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:01:41 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD4F065.10772.89E269@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010411151340.A1232@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD3B771.19846.95F427@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 01:46:25AM -0500 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 15:13, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 01:46:25AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 9 Apr 2001, at 15:49, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09,
> 2001 at 03:59:38AM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote: > > > On 5 Apr
> 2001, at 8:36, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > 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. > > > > So that's
> not your reason for rejecting subjective/objective > > compatibilism.
> Interesting. > > > The entire idea that objectively we are
> superdetermined marries a > conjecture with apodictically self-evident
> experiential evidence > contradicting it to a nonexistent and
> self-contradictory 'god's-eye > view".
>
> Leaving aside the grandiose jargonizing, I broadly agree. But this
> puzzles me: do you think that "subjective/objective compatibilism"
> implies "objectively we are superdetermined"?
>
Only if what is meant is that the hypothetical superdeterminism iss
oehow more real, and the subjective and itersubjective experiental
reality from which it, and idneed all ideas, are derived is thus maya.
Such an argument cuts the logical legitimacy of superdeterminism
off at the knees, for what is thus asserted is that a fallacious
premise supports a valid conclusion, and this is a logical error.
> --
> 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 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 06:02:35 BST