Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA03522 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 15 Apr 2001 15:38:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c0c5be$aacd1900$5b01bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D65@inchna.stir.ac.uk><002d01c0c593$4c0479c0$0404bed4@default> <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:13:09 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Agassi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
> Since I hold Superdeterminism necessary and sufficient for freedom, my
> position, precisely, is that omniscience would narrow down choices to the
> one optimal decision. Never the less, this would be, indeed, empowering,
<< Of course and I accept your position, but IMO still there is a twist
and turn which I did not mention in my previous post.
The todays political agreement that everyone is equal and has to be
equal be treated makes it in my view very difficult for your Superdeter-
The equality- principle is on the one hand a positive actor towards
a necessary freedom for all of us. It is a good thing that everyone is
capable to get access to the Net and to the information on it.
But on the other hand, the same principle works as a negative actor
if indeed all kinds of people do not possess the ability to deal with all
of that kind of information.
Where IMO you take determism as a necessary and sufficient actor
for freedom, you destroy (as in a perversity) in the same process the
differences which exists between and among people.
As you destroy all the differences in name of freedom, ( you determine
which and what is necessary and which and what is sufficient for us
to know what freedom is and means) than in my opinion you destroy
what Wade said... you destroy certain amounts of " Quality " !!
And you can indeed rightly argue that quality of knowledge is not in
correpondence to reality due to the fact that truth may or may be not
But the same argument goes for knowledge. What we know now, can
be gone tomorrow or is to be completely wrong. You make of freedom
a quantitive factor where IMO it has to be a qualitive one.
Like Nietzsche said, you have to have conflict. Determine or Super-
determine all what is necessary and or is sufficient for freedom is not
IMO good path to deal with such matters.
But if it is OK for you, I have no problems with it...
( I am, because we are) never the less free
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 15:47:43 BST