Re: the *choice* between free-will and determinism: a reply

darth_versive wrote:
> "Kevin Aylward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Mr Michael Bibby wrote:
>>> Kevin, I was going to respond to your post point-by-point but I
>>> realised that that would be a complete and utter waste of time for
>>> both of us. You think that your right and that I am wrong and I dont
>>> even believe in right or wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> that they are choices and you are obviously unwilling to entertain
>>> the possibility that your epistemology might be flawed and
>>> insupportable of the claims you make.
>>>
>>
>> Because it isn't flawed. It is based on simple axioms, experimentally
>> confirmed to be correct. That is, Darwinian, variation, selection and
>> replication. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html. If you
>> have a *scientific* reason for disagreeing with the axioms or
>> deductions from those axioms, present your argument.
>
> The above exchange is a good example of the subjective "problem of
> frames" to which I referred in the above thread (Re: the science of
> psychology and the psychology of science 2 of 2).
>
> Each side has "framed" the issue using its own conceptual framework
> and terminology, and each interprets challenges and proofs in terms of
> their separate frames.
>
> My own "frame" is that such frames themselves should be the focus of
> research, although not from a standpoint which is itself independent
> of frames (which others have attempted, but failed to accomplish,
> since no perspective is frame-independent).  This is the tricky part
> of the study of subjectivity:  how to study it while holding to a
> subjective perspective of one's own.
>

But I think its a bit more than that. My main thrust was stating what I
perceived the facts to be. These of course, may be true or false. The
axioms and deductions could be in error. However, the issue that Mickeyd
brought up was not related to my scientific stance, as I see them, on
the facts. He made a statement about me "...not accepting
responsibility for the choices I made...", when I made no such
insinuation. My argument was based on *why* things are the way they are
from a scientific point of view, not whether or not one "should" in any
human moralistic sense, absolve oneselves from reasonability for ones
actions. Its a bit like if I simply *state* that blacks have curly hair,
than making a following assumption that I would also claim that blacks
should not be allowed to straighten it. The ideas are not simply not
connected. One does not imply the other. It is something I have noted
quite a bit about my papers. The inability to separate claimed facts,
and opinions as to how one should use those facts. By and large, I make
little claim on applications of the facts.

Kevin Aylward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.