![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He says:
"moreover if people could opt out of moral responsibility, wouldn't they have to be locked up like dangerous animals"
yet this is precisely what *does* happen doesn't it??
Needs some NPOV work. --Anonymous
The stuff about Dennett invoking quantum randomness is completely and totally wrong. Dennett's gone on at length about how quantum randomness is irrelevant and not a potential source of free will. This article isn't just biased, it's deeply ignorant and needs to be rewritten from scratch, or else removed entirely. It's worse than worthless. Alienus 16:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The current article is amazing....probably the only description of this book that does not discuss the importance of evolution in Dennett's argument (mentioning "evolves" in the title of the book does not count). -- 68.109.166.14 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should we even have a page that's nothing more than a book review? Dennett's ideas should be covered under his own page, or on pages appropriate to the ideas themselves (compatibilism, behaviorism, etc), not here. Anyone think this page should be allowed to live? -- Alienus 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What little content of value there is in this article should be scraped up and tossed back in with Daniel_Dennett. Alienus 07:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Could some further explanation be added about the book's conclusion that "Evitability ... actually requires, that human action be deterministic" i.e. what is the argument that leads to this? SP-KP 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken, and i very well could be, dennett classifies five distinct forms of possible freewill (that works with causality and not against it such as the view that freewill is god-given) I don't remember his specific qualifiers but i believe a bad and second hand list would be something like:
Someone with the book could skim and find dennett's actual classifications and explanations but unless there are objections i feel it would be a great inclusion.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He says:
"moreover if people could opt out of moral responsibility, wouldn't they have to be locked up like dangerous animals"
yet this is precisely what *does* happen doesn't it??
Needs some NPOV work. --Anonymous
The stuff about Dennett invoking quantum randomness is completely and totally wrong. Dennett's gone on at length about how quantum randomness is irrelevant and not a potential source of free will. This article isn't just biased, it's deeply ignorant and needs to be rewritten from scratch, or else removed entirely. It's worse than worthless. Alienus 16:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The current article is amazing....probably the only description of this book that does not discuss the importance of evolution in Dennett's argument (mentioning "evolves" in the title of the book does not count). -- 68.109.166.14 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should we even have a page that's nothing more than a book review? Dennett's ideas should be covered under his own page, or on pages appropriate to the ideas themselves (compatibilism, behaviorism, etc), not here. Anyone think this page should be allowed to live? -- Alienus 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What little content of value there is in this article should be scraped up and tossed back in with Daniel_Dennett. Alienus 07:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Could some further explanation be added about the book's conclusion that "Evitability ... actually requires, that human action be deterministic" i.e. what is the argument that leads to this? SP-KP 02:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken, and i very well could be, dennett classifies five distinct forms of possible freewill (that works with causality and not against it such as the view that freewill is god-given) I don't remember his specific qualifiers but i believe a bad and second hand list would be something like:
Someone with the book could skim and find dennett's actual classifications and explanations but unless there are objections i feel it would be a great inclusion.