The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Twins please report any philosophical findings today tyia
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 16th, 2017 5:27 PM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34703180) |
Date: November 21st, 2017 8:36 PM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch 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. |
 |
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:09 PM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck So an agency-capable individual only has agency when in a system with another agent-capable individual? Eg Can I have agency relative to an inanimate object? Or in that case does my relation to my other temporal selves kick in? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34744859) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:11 PM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch Yes. No. Not germane. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34744875) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:15 PM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck So minds don't break the causal closure of the physical? If that's the case then the only work my agency can do is affect your epiphenominal mental states? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34744929) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 1:58 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch Can you explain precisely (and without circularity) what you mean by "causal closure of the physical" and "minds?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34746239) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:16 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck 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. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:33 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch Oh right, "qualia." LOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747139) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:34 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck How anyone can deny qualia is completely beyond me. You gotta read something other than kim, dennett, churchland etc. These guys are total flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747146) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:39 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch The LOL was in reference to your patently circular definition. Only a hat-tip to Churchland. That said, you seem hung up on qualia and consciousness, but I'm discussing free will in a way that (i) doesn't require 'consciousness' if such requires qualia; and, (ii) is agnostic re: physicalism and monism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747155) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:47 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck 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. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:48 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch Yeah, I meant mentalism.
I didn't say without consciousness, I said without consciousness requiring qualia. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:51 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck The term you're looking for is idealism.
There is no consciousness without qualia. If there are no qualia then minds are identical to brains, and when you talk of "consciousness" you are just using another word for brain. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:52 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch "If there are no qualia then software is identical to hardware" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747216) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:53 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck That analogy, like every mind computer analogy, fails. Software isn't ontologically distinct from hardware. It's a fake distinction. Where, if not in the hardware, is software realized? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747222) |
|
Date: November 21st, 2017 10:31 PM Author: Provocative Indian Lodge Coloquial use of free will is way different. Also does a baby have free will? At what point does the baby have free will? Could you freeze frame the trillionth of a second at which this transformation from sack o meat to human with free will occurs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34745050) |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 1:51 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch 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.
|
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:01 AM Author: Provocative Indian Lodge 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 |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:13 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch 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. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:26 AM Author: Provocative Indian Lodge 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.
|
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:30 AM Author: hyperactive coral dilemma crotch 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. |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:46 AM Author: Provocative Indian Lodge I think i understand this a little better and have to walk around and think about.
Thank you sensei |
|
Date: November 22nd, 2017 9:30 AM Author: concupiscible territorial abode cuck Just jumping in here: I don't at all see how either free will or consciousness is a sorites problem. You either have it or you don't. What would an indeterminate case of consciousness or free will look like? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3799630&forum_id=2#34747127) |