tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3941463718535918531.post6613875656425542636..comments2009-12-30T07:59:45.878-05:00Sheahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16883511315587369140noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3941463718535918531.post-79563475496990405942009-12-30T07:59:45.878-05:002009-12-30T07:59:45.878-05:00Super-Duper site! I am loving it!! Will come back again - taking you feeds also, Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3941463718535918531.post-71864864417700544302009-12-29T23:31:11.393-05:002009-12-29T23:31:11.393-05:00<a href="http://crystal-liu.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1113" rel="nofollow">miley cyrus nude</a> [url=http://crystal-liu.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1113]miley cyrus nude[/url] <a href="http://forum.ondertitel.com/index.php?showuser=74503" rel="nofollow">miley cyrus sex tape</a> [url=http://forum.ondertitel.com/index.php?showuser=74503]miley cyrus sex tape[/url] <a href="http://stabilo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showuser=799" rel="nofollow">miley cyrus nude</a> [url=http://stabilo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showuser=799]miley cyrus nude[/url] <a href="http://ragga-jungle.com/user/15036-vebsterd" rel="nofollow">miley cyrus nude</a> [url=http://ragga-jungle.com/user/15036-vebsterd]miley cyrus nude[/url] <a href="http://forums.quark.com/members/vebsterd.aspx" rel="nofollow">kim kardashian nude</a> [url=http://forums.quark.com/members/vebsterd.aspx]kim kardashian nude[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3941463718535918531.post-58788983266242261542009-07-21T00:06:21.933-04:002009-07-21T00:06:21.933-04:00I fall squarely in the “entities act in accordance with their natures” camp on this issue, and I chimed in a few times on HBL when this topic came up. As you pointed out, the “same cause, same effect” formulation clearly holds for deterministic phenomena (billiard balls, etc.), but how does this account for volitional beings? The “same cause, same effect” formulation seems to imply that either humans must be deterministic or causality does not apply to humans.<br /><br />Now, there is a certain perspective from which the “same cause, same effect” formulation seems to fit free-willed humans. We can say that “when faced with a choice, a human must choose.” If it were possible to place a person multiple times in the exact same circumstances, his particular choices may differ each time, but the fact that <i>a choice must be made</i> is always the same - thus, “same effect.” In other words, we may consider “same effect” to be, in general, multi-valued. For billiard balls (and all macroscopic matter), there is only a single possible outcome in a given circumstance. For humans, there are many possible outcomes in a given circumstance, but this does not mean that “anything goes”; the range of those outcomes is strictly constrained to the nature of humans, and the set of possibilities can be condensed into a single effect we call “his choice.” And it strikes me as entirely possible that some other entities in the universe that we do not (yet) know of could exhibit multi-valued effects. It would be arbitrary to state that such things <i>do</i> exist (because our sciences have not discovered them), but I see nothing <i>in philosophy</i> that disqualifies it.<br /><br />I’m reasonably comfortable with this perspective, but it makes me wonder: why am I working so hard to preserve a particular formulation? That’s going the wrong way. We should be making our formulations fit nature, not making nature fit our formulations. The “entities act in accordance with their natures” follows directly from the Law of Identity, and thus is necessarily true for anything that has ever or will ever exist, whether we discover it or not.Stephen Bourquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13699468585645166392noreply@blogger.com