mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/15/85)
In article <1695@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> You postulate that all those who believe in free will believe that some >> outside agent (their soul) is responsible for some of the actions in 3 or 4 >> or 5. Therfore you think that all those who believe in free will also >> believe in souls. >All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication believe >in souls. There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two >contradictory beliefs. It's just a sign that they haven't thought things >through. I see. "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!" I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity. I always that it had something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong. [End heavy sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] >> This is not the only objection that has been made to the thesis of strict >> determinism. A good many people do not buy postulate 1 -- they think that >> some actions are definitely caused, but others are either uncaused or >> self-causing. For [them], a non-belief in determinism does not imply >> a belief in souls. >Do they believe this (obviously an assertion without evidence behind it) >for a solid logical reason, or because choosing that precept allows them to >reach a conclusion they want, e.g., god or free will? And I always thought that objective truth had something to do with evidence. Rich seems to be saying that you can claim something to be false merely because it is useful to someone else. I notice that he doesn't apply this standard to himself, though. Charley Wingate (The last mangoe in College Park)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/85)
>>>You postulate that all those who believe in free will believe that some >>>outside agent (their soul) is responsible for some of the actions in 3 or 4 >>>or 5. Therfore you think that all those who believe in free will also >>>believe in souls. >>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication believe >>in souls. There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two >>contradictory beliefs. It's just a sign that they haven't thought things >through. [ROSEN] > I see. "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!" > I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity. I always that it had > something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong. > [End heavy sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] God, you are a flaming asshole. Can you read? Honestly? I'll go through that whole three sentence paragraph very slowly. (I'm sorry to all readers for the tone, but the sheer arrogance of Charle's invective smacks of crude stupidity and not much else.) >>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication believe >>in souls. There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two >>contradictory beliefs. It's just a sign that they haven't thought things >through. Souls are a required implication of belief in free will by the definition. Note (i.e., by reading the words and interpreting them) that I said "There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two contradictory beliefs". This means that despite the fact that a given belief may have consequences, a person does not have to believe in the consequences. This is simply a sign that that they haven't necessarily thought about the consequences. If they did, would they drop one? Who knows? Note that I never said "I know they believe in souls", as Charles claims. I said that sucha belief would be a necessary consequence if they thought through the implications of the belief. Obviously, you are wrong, and in a very sad way this time. >>>This is not the only objection that has been made to the thesis of strict >>>determinism. A good many people do not buy postulate 1 -- they think that >>>some actions are definitely caused, but others are either uncaused or >>>self-causing. For [them], a non-belief in determinism does not imply >>>a belief in souls. >>Do they believe this (obviously an assertion without evidence behind it) >>for a solid logical reason, or because choosing that precept allows them to >>reach a conclusion they want, e.g., god or free will? > And I always thought that objective truth had something to do with evidence. > Rich seems to be saying that you can claim something to be false merely > because it is useful to someone else. I notice that he doesn't apply this > standard to himself, though. Charles, it's obvious that you are so desperate to argue your vacuous points into the ground that you will twist what I say till it turns blue. In your twisted way, you make it sound like "usefulness" of a conclusion has a bearing on its truthfulness, and that I am wrong for debunking notions that serve only because they are "useful" and not factual, as usefulness implies truth. At least he is bold enough to claim that he has neither evidence nor objective truth. All we have left is to get him to admit that there is no reasoning behind what he says. Which is apparent anyway. Frankly, I find it quaint that Charles is left only to defend the notion that wanting a notion to be true is a good reason for believing in it. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/19/85)
I am going to attempt to reply to the referenced article as if were not a flame. Hence the heavy editing. >>>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication >>>believe in souls. There is of course nothing to stop a person from >>>holding two contradictory beliefs. It's just a sign that they haven't >>>thought things through. [ROSEN] >> I see. "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!" >> I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity. I always that it had >> something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong. >> [End heavy sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] >Souls are a required implication of belief in free will by the definition. Considering the dispute on this subject, and even on the definition, I think it would be more accurate to say that "it has bee asserted that...." >Note that I said "There is >of course nothing to stop a person from holding two contradictory beliefs". >This means that despite the fact that a given belief may have consequences, >a person does not have to believe in the consequences. This is simply a sign >that that they haven't necessarily thought about the consequences. It could just as well be a sign that the two beliefs/truths are NOT contradictory, and that there is something wrong with the implications drawn by Rich. > Note that I never said "I know they >believe in souls", as Charles claims. I said that sucha belief would be >a necessary consequence if they thought through the implications of the >belief. Fine. That's what you said this time. But there has been a consistent effort on the part of Rich and Padraig to hang this belief in souls around my neck. It has shown up in this free will discussion. And there's the implication that the various people arguing for the possibility of free will, in various forms, haven't bothered to think about the subject. Is that not arrogance? >>>Do they believe this (obviously an assertion without evidence behind it) >>>for a solid logical reason, or because choosing that precept allows them to >>>reach a conclusion they want, e.g., god or free will? Let me reply to this in a second way. We again are arguing about formulations of concepts here, and not directly about their truth. There is abundant evidence at this level. >> And I always thought that objective truth had something to do with >> evidence. Rich seems to be saying that you can claim something to be >> false merely because it is useful to someone else. I notice that he >> doesn't apply this standard to himself, though. >Charles, it's obvious that you are so desperate to argue your vacuous points >into the ground that you will twist what I say till it turns blue. Drawing of implications is free. Refute that you choose to mean them if you care to. > In your twisted way, you make it sound like "usefulness" of a conclusion >has a bearing on its truthfulness, and that I am wrong for debunking >notions that serve only because they are "useful" and not factual, as >usefulness implies truth. Since you don't appear to understand doubt, pardon me if I take out my sldegehammer and state exactly what I mean, rather than have you infer it incorrectly. My contention is this: usefulness implies nothing about truth at all. It is invalid to claim to be objectively evaluating a proposition and then deny it on the grounds of utility. Whether or not someone wants it to be true cannot affect it. Now, mental determinism is in fact not proven. The only argument for it is through analogy with mechanics, and this analogy is considered to be rather weak by many, in view of the obvious differences in actions and also in view of the relative scarcity of objective data about the Will, whatever it is. Rich's reason for choosing it over free will is that it is in fact useful for him; it gives him yet another weapon to continue his rather incendiary attacks upon religion. Shall we not apply his test to himself? >At least he is bold enough to claim that he has neither evidence nor >objective truth. All we have left is to get him to admit that there is no >reasoning behind what he says. Which is apparent anyway. Rich obviously has never been able to destiguish between knowing that a thing is possible and know that it is in fact; otherwise, he wouldn't continue this attack (and it is an attack, and hardly reasoned). For my part, I will reply no more. Charley Wingate
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/24/85)
In article <1723@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Souls are a required implication of belief in free will by the definition. The problem is that you have not yet demonstrated the truth of this statement adequately. The fact that numerous people both on the net and throughout history, from ancient times up to the present, have disagreed with this supposed implication, and that many of these people were and are very intelligent, and that they have provided evidence that at least casts *doubt* on this statement, implies that there is little reason to treat it as obviously true. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa