64 replies to this topic

[Kalepha]

I don’t think an intention can really be mistaken. Either a particular intention exists or it doesn’t; and if a particular intention does exist, it is either relevant or irrelevant. In this instance, the intention is in the form of a thesis proposing that FW may increasingly become non-existent as technologies become more advanced in their predictability functions. But this is irrelevant since better technology may also widen the range of all possible volitional actions within increasingly smaller time intervals. This range may become so vast that the odds against any mind violating the goals of any other mind would become astronomical and eventually impossible.

I don’t foresee any philosophical crises in being fourth-level anthropocentrically conceited. Preventing ourselves from getting too cozy is a technical problem rather than a logical problem.

[bacopa]

The argument from Galen Strawson shows in explicit steps how free will does not exist -- the argument in Skeptic does not approach this precision. The Skeptic article even refences this argument "A few of these philosophers even smugly claim that anyone can see the logical impossibility of free will by reflecting on the relevant arguments from the comfort of his own couch" but the article's attempt at refuting Strawson's conclusion is limited to the description of him as "smug".

fair enough but your arguments are not necassarily airtight either, you argue for determinism is most instances, if not all, based on classical physics and not quantum indeterminism or a fuzzy logic model which you called a 'buzzword' when Paul, used it in his argument. I think what Paul was getting at is emergence of free will can happen in a deterministic universe based on a combatabilist model of free will emerging through 'the cracks,' so to speak, of hard determinism, but as he told me he is not an expert in Quantum theory. But what his big point was is that we can perhaps 'meta program' our own hard wired programs if we try to do so, thereby causing a paradox because if we can gain control over our own deterministic programs than we are in fact exhibiting a form of free will that someone like Galen would say is mere instinct. Paul told me his arguments over the phone that's why I'm even arguing at all at this point.

You called the artcle in Skeptic magazine rubbish in its approach to the problem, and I think that's quite biased and a bit righteous of you to do so, neither Paul nor I referred to your sources as 'rubbish' as I am not personally in disagreement with you. I guess anyone who doesn't have the outlook that you have on this subject should not even approach you in debate or am I being too 'blunt?' [huh] And since no one knows for sure if QI effects our brains the way it does the universe than why can't you be more open to 'loose' or 'fuzzy' interpretations yourself? Again I'm not angry myself, I'm merely defending a perfectly feasible argument with admitted conceit to not knowing as much as you and Paul perhaps do.

Also Galen's so called 'precise' arguments from the excerpt I read, was a pretty basic cause effect logical argument showing how the initial instinct towards a volitoinal decision comes from our genes and not a willful decision, and as you said she does not bring determinism into the argument. I don't know if I would call her argument 'precise' by any stretch of the word and certainly not worthy of the extreme bias that you ascribe towards it...

On another note I believe one should use more tact when arguing a problem such as free will with someone like Paul who knows quite a bit about this subject. [sfty]

[John Doe]

fair enough but your arguments are not necassarily airtight either, you argue for determinism is most instances, if not all, based on classical physics and not quantum indeterminism or a fuzzy logic model which you called a 'buzzword' when Paul, used it in his argument.  I think what Paul was getting at is emergence of free will can happen in a deterministic universe  based on a combatabilist model of free will emerging through 'the cracks,' so to speak, of hard determinism, but as he told me he is not an expert in Quantum theory.  But what his big point was is that we can perhaps 'meta program' our own hard wired programs if we try to do so, thereby causing a paradox because if we can gain control over our own deterministic programs than we are in fact exhibiting a form of free will that someone like Galen would say is mere instinct.    Paul told me his arguments over the phone that's why I'm even arguing at all at this point. 

I have never argued for determinism. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that a Strawsonian argument is independent of determinism.

You called the artcle in Skeptic magazine rubbish in its approach to the problem, and I think that's quite biased and a bit righteous of you to do so, neither Paul nor I referred to your sources as 'rubbish' as I am not personally in disagreement with you.  I guess anyone who doesn't have the outlook that you have on this subject should not even approach you in debate or am I being too 'blunt?' [huh]  And since no one knows for sure if QI effects our brains the way it does the universe than why can't you be more open to 'loose' or 'fuzzy' interpretations yourself?   Again I'm not angry myself, I'm merely defending a perfectly feasible argument with admitted conceit to not knowing as much as you and Paul perhaps do.

If you feel that my calling your source "rubbish" justifies your claim that anyone who disagrees with me should not approach me in debate, you are not being blunt, you are simply mistaken. My accusation that the source was "rubbish" was supported by several lines of argument -- none of which you have addressed. Furthermore, if you were to criticize my sources, such as the Strawson argument, you have yet to provide any argument why Strawson is incorrect. You write: "I don't know if I would call her argument 'precise' by any stretch of the word and certainly not worthy of the extreme bias that you ascribe towards it." For one, Galen Strawson is male. Second, as far as I can see, you are making assertions for which you provide no argument. How is the Strawson argument -- which proceeds in short, clear steps -- imprecise?

On another note I believe one should use more tact when arguing a problem such as free will with someone like Paul who knows quite a bit about this subject.

How might I use more tact?

[bacopa]

I just don't see how using short, clear steps is any better of a precise arguing style than any other I've seen on these boards.

John if you don't think you need to use better tact than maybe you don't than I apologize...I thought I made my argument about that clear but perhaps I didn't. I just disagreed with the bluntness and what I percieved as slight rudenss towards Paul, if you really don't see that than perhaps I am the one who'se now being foolish. I was just trying to show you Paul's argument. that's all. I'll try to come up with better counter arguments instead of quibbling on who insulted or didn't insult who this is getting silly.

[lynx]

To the originator of this thread, who wrote the article:

URL=http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000120.html

Why bother even quoting RAW and Lilly, you are, in essence, regurgitating RAW. But nice synopis.