Twins please report any philosophical findings today tyia
| ruby library dysfunction | 11/16/17 | | stimulating home | 11/21/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/21/17 | | stimulating home | 11/21/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/21/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 | | brindle charismatic corn cake | 11/21/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | brindle charismatic corn cake | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | brindle charismatic corn cake | 11/22/17 | | stimulating home | 11/22/17 | | brindle charismatic corn cake | 11/22/17 | | ruby library dysfunction | 11/22/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 21st, 2017 8:36 PM Author: stimulating home
I think I've discussed this before on here, but I posit a common misunderstanding of "free will" (and also agency," "agent," etc.) is that it can be defined atomistically, on the basis of a similar individual. This is much of the thrust of Dennett's work - you look at a single individual and say is free will here, at this level of description, no; at this one, no; etc., then when you've searched all levels of description you're done with the job and might as well accept some paltry substitute.
In contrast, I urge a relational definition. "Free will" is nonsensical without some sort of "game" (or situation) and two or more "players" (agents), each of whom is capable of at least in part simulating the other player's potential actions on the board, including simulating the other player simulating him, etc. [FN: The two "players" might be all the same "person" (viz. same identity but stretched out in time) -- as there are no guarantees of intertemporal unity of intent. How do I hide my XO password from myself?]
It is in this sense in which man's will might be termed "free" - you can't predict my moves because in predicting my moves you've proved the existence of a person predicting those moves, which my simulator might then pick up on and so could be expected to alter its moves. The substrate is relatively unimportant. And the ascription of agency and moral heft follows readily from this definition, as morality is ever defined with reference to a community, even if implicit, whether that community be obeyed or defied.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34744225) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:16 AM Author: ruby library dysfunction
Lol without circulatory
Minds: the things in which or to which qualia appear
Ccp: no nonphysical event can effect any physical event, all physical events are physically determined.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747064) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:47 AM Author: ruby library dysfunction
It's not clear you know what circulatory means.
The opposite of physicalism isn't monism. Physicalism is a form of monism.
If you think you can explain free will without consciousness you're going to have to settle for compatiblism, which is lol.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747189) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 1:51 AM Author: stimulating home
Re: colloquial use: that's an empirical question. I'd like to see data. I assert you're wrong.
Re: baby: To an extent, and it develops and grows.
Re: freeze frame - I didn't mention any 'transformation' so I'm not sure what you mean by your hypothetical. If you're asking for the simplest implementation of the kind of 'free will' I described, it should be obvious.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34746195)
|
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:01 AM Author: brindle charismatic corn cake
1. Lemme email google see if they will let me use data set. Jk but most ppl i think define free will as choice, whatever that means.
2 & 3. Does an embryo have free will? Does whatever the organic material at moment of concepcion have free will? If not then there must be a moment in time that this life matures from state of no free will to free will. I want to isolate the exact moment in time that this transformation occurs.
If i read correctly unpredictability and reaction to stimuli seem to and ability to copy others behavior = free will. Does chessmaster have free will? What about a
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747026) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:13 AM Author: stimulating home
1. Okay, show me survey data (at minimum) to prove it, otherwise it's your speculation against mine. In any event, irrelevant.
2&3. I understand the mereological point you're making. But it's akin to saying "there MUST be a moment a stack becomes a heap, and if you can't identify it heaps do not exist!" Free will is not a binary property, but a continuum; the fact it may have fuzzy boundaries doesn't invalidate the concept, any more than it does with e.g. race. I provided an example of the type of indeterminacy that you can use to mark out that continuum. It emerges from the total situation (two agents and environment), not atomistically.
Hence a single-celled organism might "have" free will, to an extent, if it can somehow simulate in part the moves of another single-celled organism simulating it with which it is in dynamic conflict. So too may larger creatures. But that's misleading, as my whole contention is that free will is NOT atomistic and located within an individual, but rather a property inseparable from agents simulating agents in an environment with available and contemplatable actions.
Just to save time, in response to MiG's question above re: causation - I really don't care about "physicalism" vs. "monism." I'm not sure I even know what it means, in this context! The concept of free will I gave would remain the same even if we were in a wholly monistic world. It's just an identification procedure (or even definition) to spare on memory.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747055) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:26 AM Author: brindle charismatic corn cake
Brother 9/10 people think of free will as bianary, you either have it or you dont.
You explain concept much clearer here than up top imo.
If you put a human being on the moon does he lose his free will? If you take a baby, who lacks "matured" free will, put it in a nourish pen on moon, will it ever have free will? If you take them out of system, isolate them will they have free will is what i am getting at.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747104)
|
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:30 AM Author: stimulating home
Thanks.
Re: what people think I still maintain it's irrelevant. The concept wasn't developed by the man on the street.
Re: man on the moon - here's the tricky part and why I mentioned intertemporality. A man on the moon would still have the "mental chorus" of past intersubjective experiences with others - they're formative of personality and would unlikely fade. Re: baby, I'd be comfortable saying the baby would not have free will, as I understand it, if somehow screened from all stimuli to which he could ascribe agentic behavior - but plainly would have a capacity to develop it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747128) |
|
|