🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <spurrett.30.721248046@superbowl.und.ac.za> spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:
>  That point made, for now, in what way was my argument transcendetal?  The
>initial datum from which I attempted to reason was the experience of 
>choosing,

(A lot of people are reluctant to get into this because this topic comes up
so frequently.  Nevertheless, I feel I must make a reply to this.)

It seems to me that you are making the fundamental mistake of assuming that
you are not part of the world.  For the state of the world, exclusive of
your will (which I take without more precise definition to be part of your
mind), there is more than possible future. Assuming determinism, when
your will is included, there is only one possible future.  So it is quite
consistent with determinism that you can "choose an actual future" (the
quotes are because you have limited information, so aren't choosing exactly
what you think you are choosing).

> and the distinction we (as far as I can tell universally)
>acknowledge between `do-ers' and `do-ees', particularly as manifest in 
>legal systems and procedures.  The analysis which followed attempted to show 
>that belief in this distinction involves disbelief in determinism with 
>respect to do-ers.  If the analysis is correct (and it has not been 
>criticised in this thread yet) then the only avenue for attack is the 
>interpretation of the datum.

The assumption is that certain kinds of systems (specifically people) are
capable of analyzing their behavior and its consequences, and making
rational decisions based on that analysis.  There is nothing in this which
implies that that analysis is non-deterministic.