Re: Compatibilism
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > Rex, > > Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source) > where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it > the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the > opposite? The looped hierarchies described by Hofstadter, if present, make > this a difficult question to answer. If the highest levels of thought and > reason are required in your decision making, does it still make sense to say > we are slaves of deterministic motions of particles or is that missing a few > steps? Well, I find it entirely conceivable that fundamental physical laws acting on fundamental physical entities (particles, fields, strings, whatever) could account for human behavior and ability. So if human behavior and ability is what we are trying to explain, then I see no reason to invoke thought and reason as causal forces. And, even if you wanted to, I don't see how they could be made to serve that role. 1Z and I discussed this in the other thread. We don't invoke thought and reason to explain the abilities and behavior of chess playing computers - and while human behavior and ability is much more complex and extensive, I think it can be put in the same general category. The conscious experience that accompanies human behavior is another matter entirely, but I don't think it serves any causal role either. > I could not perfectly predict your behavior without creating a full > simulation of your brain. Doing so would instantiate your consciousness. > Therefore I cannot determine what you will do without invoking your > consciousness, thought, reason, etc. I wouldn't necessarily agree that a full computer simulation of a human brain would produce conscious experience. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. I have serious doubts. I'm not a physicalist, or a dualist, but rather an accidental idealist. Or maybe an idealistic accidentalist? One or the other. > I do not disagree with your assertion that something must be either caused > or random, but does _what_ caused you to do something have any bearing? If > your mind is the cause, does that count as free will? Even if that were the case, there must be *something* that connects the mind to the choice. Otherwise how can you say that the mind is the cause of the choice? So what is the nature of that connective "something"? If it is a rule or a law, then the choice was determined by the rule/law. If there is nothing that connects the mind to the choice, then the choice was random and the mind didn't cause it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk
Ronald, Hope it isn't too late. I think the last line from Q in the last episode of the next generation is relevant: Q: "That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of existence." Jason On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, ronaldheld wrote: > Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I > would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes. > Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be > appreciated. > Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Compatibilism
Rex, Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source) where someone asked "Who pushes who around inside the brain?", meaning is it the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the opposite? The looped hierarchies described by Hofstadter, if present, make this a difficult question to answer. If the highest levels of thought and reason are required in your decision making, does it still make sense to say we are slaves of deterministic motions of particles or is that missing a few steps? I could not perfectly predict your behavior without creating a full simulation of your brain. Doing so would instantiate your consciousness. Therefore I cannot determine what you will do without invoking your consciousness, thought, reason, etc. I do not disagree with your assertion that something must be either caused or random, but does _what_ caused you to do something have any bearing? If your mind is the cause, does that count as free will? Jason On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Rex Allen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Nov 2010, at 04:51, Rex Allen wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >>> > >>> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false? > >> > >> Compatibilism is false. Unless you do something sneaky like change > >> the meaning of the term "free will" to make it true. > >> > >> Which is like changing the definition of "unicorn" to mean "a horse > >> with a horn glued to it's forehead". > >> > >> I agree with the critics of compatilism in this passage: > >> > >> "Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will: > >> Incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing > >> something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that > >> something ought not to be called 'free will'. > >> > >> Compatibilists are sometimes accused (by Incompatibilists) of actually > >> being Hard Determinists who are motivated by a lack of a coherent, > >> consonant moral belief system. > >> > >> Compatibilists are sometimes called 'soft determinists' pejoratively > >> (William James's term). James accused them of creating a 'quagmire of > >> evasion' by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying > >> determinism. Immanuel Kant called it a 'wretched subterfuge' and > >> 'word jugglery.'" > >> > > > > What is your position? And what is your definition of free-will? > > My position is: > > So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't. > > If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will. > > If there is no reason, then the choice was random. No free will. > > I don't see a third option. > > =*=*=*= > > As for my definition of free will: > > "The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused." > > Obviously there is no such ability, since "random" and "caused" > exhaust the possibilities. > > But some people believe in the existence of such an ability anyway. > > Why? Well...either there's a reason that they do, or there isn't... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
