Reply
Mon 19 Jan, 2015 11:41 am
Does " The problem is that no account of causality leaves room for free will" mean " The problem is that no explanation of causality gives space for free will"?
Context:
In fact, the possibility of reasoning with other human beings!aor, indee, of finding their behaviors and utterances comprehensible at all!adepnds on the assumption that their thoughts and actions will obediently ride the rails of a shared reality. In the limit, Heisenberg's "self-generated" mental events would amount to utter madness.
The problem is that no account of causality leaves room for free will. Thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring into view!aand move us, or fail to move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective point of view, perfectly inscrutable. Why did I use the term "inscrutable" the previous sentence? I must confess that I do not know. Was I free to do otherwise? What could such a claim possibly mean? Why, after all,
@dalehileman,
Thank you Dale.
BTW, who would like to answer this:
Does " problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding" mean "although there are problems with philosophy of science and reason in general"?
Context:
Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that,
problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace