DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The confusion comes down to the definition of "money". In the Major Douglas days the distinction between credit and money was one that was commonly made, nowadays this distinction is blurred.The point we make is that economic crises are not due quirks of the financial system, but the nature of the system of production as a whole.Can a commercial bank inifinitly extend credit without getting into trouble? The creationist school of economics would think so, experience and common sense proves otherwise.
Ok. I've spent 3000 hours of my personal time making a cheese and onion sandwich. Plesumably with these I'm now entitled to a Porsche with these hourCoins, please send me some.
John Oswald wrote:When trying to remember something, one follows backward the chain of one's thoughts, which thought caused the one after it, until one arrives at the forgotten thought.So if I want to remember something I did last year I first have to remember every thought I have had since then? Fat chance. Memory doesn't work like that at all. Why are you even posting such rubbish?
I posted this on Facebook but suppose may as well share here too."We can thus see that the free will wars – disputes about whether or not we should go around denying free will, and what free will really is – are a function of differing definitions. If you’re referring to our capacity for voluntary choice-making that gives us rational control over our behavior, and that makes us responsible, then it would be wrong to deny that. If, on the other hand, you’re referring to a contra-causal capacity that supposedly makes us more responsible than what deterministic voluntary action affords, then it would be wrong not to deny that, at least on the assumption that we want a well-informed public.[4] So the first order of business when discussing free will is to make clear what you’re talking about, then make your point." http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/what-should-we-tell-people-about-free-willThere's also a good potted history of the debate here:http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/
We are not absolutely self causing, but we are not absolutely caused either. Social science does not require the rejection of agency (which is what free-will is). "Economic determinism" and "technological determinism" are over simplifications and don't do justice to the work of Marx. None of this is a particularly new idea…
John Oswald wrote:All along, only I have been coherent, consistent, and materialist in my language and in tune with the materialists philosophically. My adversaries have not said anything of substance, and have shown only a vagueness which ill befits a thinker."“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
This is PF Strawson "Freedom and Resentment" confirmed live. Even if we try to convince ourselves that "free-will" does not exist, that people merely act according to previous antecedent causes, we *still* get mad at them, offer up praise etc. We still act as though they can modify there wills towards us. It's hard to be a radical skeptic for more than five minutes at a time. We are embedded in society and that means we are stuck treating people as moral agents no matter what silly things we try to make ourselves believe.This is why my interest in the topic comes and goes. I'm convinced it has only remained a problem for so long because the problem has been asked in an incoherent way.. But I think it will take another few thousand years before everyone agrees.
John Oswald wrote:I never get any support on forums from comrades who agree with me. I am left to be bruised and battered all by myself.I think it's "a laugh" for a lot of them.Why are you getting upset by the content of peoples wills towards you?They didn't will them you know!This kind of thing shows why even those who claim not to believe in free will go on behaving as though they do. We actually have no choice, this is what human animals do.
There's lots of other motivations to action besides coercion. One of the classic definitions of "free will" was acting in the absence of coercion.Anyway. Suppose I was to drop the word "free-will" and say "agency" instead, what would you say then? Would you try to deny it exists?
John Oswald wrote:When homosexuals were imprisoned, beaten and repressed, why didn't they exercise free will and be heterosexual?I've never heard someone describe "free will" as doing something because they have been cohersed to do it. I wonder why that is?
As if by magic this podcast has just showed up in my feed. I think some people might like it:“What Animals Can Teach Us about Free Will”http://news.prairiepublic.org/post/what-animals-can-teach-us-about-free-will
John Oswald wrote:Last question: your children are reading Voltaire on free will, and ask you about it. What do you tell them? That the definition has changed, or the reality?I'd say once people looked at it, it turned out that it wasn't as simple as the people that use definition "A" would have thought. It has always been used in a broad way the whole way through.Also I'd give them some modern science books. Mechanistic 19th century crude materialism is defunct, but there is still something we can all "materialism".
