h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hey Bored, and of course howdy psi!

thanks for cutting me some slack re footie. normally i am not much bothered, but there are some ghosts from my childhood ('74 and '78 Worldcups) that need laying to rest.......fingers etc crossed!


Mr Twisty; as he is supremely triangle happy it is inevitabl;e that all sorts gets binned/modded. i deal with him under the motto "do your worst inferior one", and it always ends with him in a strop.

he claims to have referred a whole dossier to some Committee or other, who require "10 working days" to come to some conclusion. time's nearly up, can't wait..... likely this Committee is just in that little mind of his. so much anger from 1 pwerson, bizarre.


thanks for the travel update Bored, i really enjoy reading them. will check links out later, can't at Satan Towers.....

btw, hope your visor/goggles has tearoffs for when you hit a swarm of biters at 100 kph, not sure how well one can see through 200 grams of squashed mosquito.............?


Hup Holland Hup!!!!(sorry, still buzzing.....)

hey both,

just checking out the 2 youtube links. Mr Reindeer Max sounds like he would be good in the flesh. having a drink listening to genuine passion. nice.

and then Ms Msari was a pleasant surprise too. though living in Brighton is responsible for it sounding quite familiar. there is rather an abundance of World Music. but it stands up in its own right, and she has a lovely tone. another genuine performance i thought.

Steve Jones; haven't quite found out what exactly the controversy is, or indeed if it's not been created by a "science correspndant" having grasped the wrong end of the stick.


btw Mr Twisty's hissy fit has resulted in me boing in pokey, for an hour/post no less. ah well, looks like the wind is good for tomorrow


anyhoo, just to trade some World Muzak, here are 2 stunners from Stewart Copeland (from The Police). i think streets ahead of what Paul Simon did around the same time. in fact; The Rhythmatist from 1985, Gracelands not untill 1986..............so, enjoy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxWSykgLAP4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT-vgBPi0w4&feature=related


de mazzel!

Hi jank,

I remember that album. I'm sure the lyrics of one track are something like 'green green and wet, in the river zone'. Or I could be confabulating.

I suppose Paul dosn't get to guess the result of the final since Germany aren't involved?

morning psi,


delighted to hear you remember that album too! i don't think it sold all that well, despite it being a genuine original at that time. beautiful sparse drumming, busy doing nothing.......


and as for Paul, untill a couple of days ago i'd never heard of him. some of my German work colleagues had been talking about "him" in respectful tone for weeks. i thought he was some psychic, untill i heard them say he lived in a tank!!!! then they explained.........

but since 1 theory is that Paul, like a good octopus, prefers the colour red, and the Spanish flag has more red than mine, i think it best he heads for the nearest plate!


tot ziens

hi Bored,

just tried to find out more about Steve Jones and the claim "human evolution is over";

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4894696.ece

that's about the extent of what's been reported, and i don't accept the argument at all. my main issue is the claim that the process of evolution can be halted at all, irrespective of the means (analogous to "stopping" gravity?).

the way i understand evolution is that it just "is". evolution does not by definition require huge environmental challenges, or mutations, or anything specific. instead; reproduction = evolution.

not sure i am making myself clear, am finding it tricky to put into words (especially as my children are weaving in and out of where i am trying to type.........)

tot straks!

Hi jank,

So, I heard Paul does get to pick one after all. I don't know what he chose. So, is it the case that the flag of each winner so far chosen has more red on it than their opponent's?

good luck..

Paul is vindicated yet again, my sympathies...

hi psi,

thanks for the commiserations. strangely enough i don't hold Paul personally responsible. i was pleased enough to finish with 10 Dutch blokes considering the level of violence.....

ah well, roll on 2042......

Yes I was beginning to think they had sent in the Dutch martial arts team by mistake...

dear both,

just to say i'm off sunday 1st thing for my annual hols to our favourite destination in Spain; Denia.

great beach, great apartment, great snorkeling, great windsurfing, great food/drink, great weather, no cake.......


agh well, the change will do me good as it does every year!

btw Bored; you back yet? did you manage to have a go at windsurfing? do tell.......


adios muchachos!

Hi Bx4,

Good trip?

Hi psi

Mostly.

I had written a longer reply but it has just vanished into the aether and I'm a bit busy at the moment.

catch you later

Hi Bx4,

Darn nuisance this curfew...

psi

Indeed it is and I have got myself into a muddle again. I wonder if the curfew is a consequence of the Abrahamaic bias of the Religious Affairs Deparment?

Perhaps there is some ritual we should be at; Evensong, Vespers, Maghrib and Arvith or somesuch?

Anyhow I am off to buy a kayak before starting the final leg home.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

Are you back yet?

Here's my latest rethink, a work in progress. The Frankfurt examples do provide a counterexample to PAP as originally construed, which is that a necessary condition for an agent to be acting on the kind of free will sufficient for moral responsibility is the ability to do otherwise. Since decisions are just examples of things agents do, it follows that if PAP is false, the ability to decide otherwise is not necessary.

What do you think?

Might not the incompatibilist reply that there is something about deciding which has a moral significance that other actions do not.

I've thought of another Frankfurt example. If we can hold Jones responsible for shooting Smith then it seems reasonable to hold her responsible for not shooting Smith.

So suppose The scenario is the same but Black has removed the firing pin of the gun. As it is, Jones decides not to shoot. It seems reasonable to hold Jones morally responsible for deciding not to shoot. But this doesn't form a counter example to the amended principle that somebody is responsible if they can decide otherwise, since clearly if alternative possibilities exist, she could have.

So what might be special or morally significant about 'deciding' as opposed to general actions? Perhaps it is that deciding is the very process which judges moral reasons.

Back I am and have been since my post that corrected my last pre-cut shambles

Decide and do:

Not sure I am persuaded. I tend to the view that humptydumptyist redefinitions of meaning are best avoided as they simply confuse the ground of debate as in 'It's free will, Jim, but not as we know it'. I'd take the view that the common usage of 'decide' as in 'decide to X' or 'decide that X' implies a choice between alternatives.

However, if one accepts (which I don't necessarily) the modern philosophical interpretation of the will as desire + volition (1) then I think 'decide' does necessarily entail volition but need involve nothing more than desire+velleity (2)

'do X' would seem to require (1) rather than (2)

Originally construed:

I have just re-read AP&MR which seems much more problematic than I recalled (I'll post why on the 'compatibilism' thread when time permits).

I'm not persuaded that Frankfurt's arguments to defeat PAP as originally construed but even if it does I'm not persuaded that it would defeat a differerent formulation of the PAP.

On this basis to defeat one /particular/ formulation of the PAP is /not/ the same thing as defeating the PAP.

(I'm not in any sense defending the PAP as my deflationary notion of what is meant by moral responsibility has nothing to do with it)

The ability to do otherwise:

I think Frankfurt's formulation of the PAP stacks the deck but as I said above to defeat a particular formulation of the PAP is not to defeat the PAP. Nothing in the PAP /require/ that it should include the phrase 'could have done otherwise' which is the pivot of Frankfurt's arguments.

Unnecessary:

I think I incline to Fischer's later thesis that we should only consider the actual sequence of events in assigning moral responsibility not some hypothetical alternative sequences.

I think this not only renders the PAP unnecessary but also renders FSC unnecessary.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

I agree with a lot of that, but I can imagine what an incompatibilist would reply: if you haven't defeated the PAP then what grounds have you (or Fischer) for assuming that we need only consider the actual sequence of events?

ttfn

hi psi

Incompatibilist reply:

I think this is an issue that the compatibilists have also to address.

Suppose we alter Frankfurt's definition of the PAP slightly to:

'A person is responsible for what he has done only if she could have done otherwise'

Then we might construct an FSC in which when Jones is presented with a plate containing a donut and a bagel and would unencumbered eat the donut but is in the presence of a counterfactual intervener who will prevent him from doing otherwise than eating the donut.

So the inclusion of 'moral' in the PAP is external(and perhaps irrelevant) to the issues raised by FSC.

Firing pin:

As you say this not a counter-example so it technically doesn't defeat the Frankfurt version of the PAP so it would not properly constitute an FSC.

Decisions and actions:

I think this comes back to my earlier distinction between 'decide' and 'do'

The issue surely is that if Jones chooses not to shoot Jones and does not, in fact, shoot then the counterfactual intervener does not come into play and is Jones judged on his decision and not the outcome.

Conversely if Jones chooses to shoot Jones and does not, in fact, shoot Jones (because counterfactual intervener precludes him from so doing) the we would still judge him on his decision and not the outcome.

So this FSC would not seem to defeat the PAP. The outcome may be the same but the alternative possibilities implicit in Jones decision to shoot/not-to-shoot shot are unaffected by the counterfactual intevener.

stuff to do

catch you later.

Hi Bx4,

"So the inclusion of 'moral' in the PAP is external(and perhaps irrelevant) to the issues raised by FSC."
I think the linkage is generally construed as being that the kind of free will for which PAP is necessary is assumed to be necessary for moral responsibility.

Decisions and actions:

I agree with what you have said in this section which is the motivation for my later attempts on the thread at Frankfurt examples which would operate at the level of decisions.