i was merely jesting. what was the reason?

Dang, didn't think mistaking what a brute fact was is ban worthy.

Yes, but again, you are presuming a forced choice between randomness and causal determinacy - — javra

It's my understanding that they're mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. I've never been given a coherent reason to think otherwise, and I don't currently think there is a coherent reason to believe otherwise. I'm actually inclined to think it's basically tautologically true that, for any given evolution of a closed system from one state into another state, either that evolution is deterministic or it involves some randomness.

The argument in the OP, though, doesn't invoke randomness. We don't even have to bring up that word in this context.

Have fun doing whatever you're up to.

"would you have chosen differently than you did in the past given the same exact contexts". My bad, obviously, for having misread, but it is to that misreading that I replied. — javra

I see, I thought your repsonse sounded like that kind of tthing.

No, we can all agree that if you're in a similar circumstance at a completely different point in life, that you're likely to make a different decision. That's not part of the debate.

That's part of wha tI like about the article that I posted - it's very clear about that. Before the choice bob1 and bob2 are *exactly* the same and in the *exact* same situation. That's what the conversation revolves around. Because again, everyone agrees that you'd make a different choice if you're no longer exactly the same person as you were the first time you made that choice.

As to the second question: Some previously made choices in my life, most certainly not - not due to what I know of their outcomes but due to changes in character with which the choice was made to begin with. Other choices, most likely yes. — javra

I don't understand what you mean by this. Most certainly not what - can you be explicit please? Are you saying the choice would be free even if it was guaranteed by the circumstances and the state of your mind?

In short, if the outcome is random no libertarian free will' if the outcome is causally determined again no libertarian free will. — javra

yup

The article (and I grant I haven't taken my time in reading it) completely forsakes teleological reasoning and teleological determinacy — javra

Thank god for that

This decision, choice, is then that of a libertarian free will, for as far as you know going left, despite taking longer to drive on streets, might have been the fastest path on account of far lesser traffic. The choice was ultimately (under libertarian free will) yours as an agent. It was neither random nor fully determined by efficient causes. And you could have chosen differently under the same exact circumstances — javra

And why is that fact - that the choice could be different if everything were the same - relevant? Would you still have made a free choice even if, in that moment, you were guaranteed by the facts of the circumstance to make that choice, no matter how many times we replay that scenario?

Amen. Just some care is needed in affirming them and how they're affirmed. And recognizing what can and cannot be tested. — tim wood

Ok, so now that you know it's a thought experiment, and not a real experiment, and nobody thinks it's a real experiment and nobody is suggesting we conduct it in physical reality, you're invited to actually think about the ideas he presented, in regards to Bob1 and Bob2, or... not. You may just wholesale decline the invitation.

The argument you cite in your OP seems categorical in its conclusion, but that conclusion seeming based on what-if reasoning. — tim wood

Yup, the history of philosophy and science is full of people doing thought experiments without the ability to immediately conduct those experiments in reality. I'm comfortable with thinking about ideas, even if I can't physically test them.

If you don't like thinking about ideas you can't physically test, perhaps this post won't appeal to you much. That's okay.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

And it could be that having Bob1 and Bob2 as identical in all respects is just plain not possible - indeed, how could it be? — tim wood

just fyi, literally nobody is talking about it being actually possible for us to set this up in real life. Nobody thinks we can -actually- do that. The entire post you're reading is a thought experiment, and it can never be more than a thought experiment. He's thinking through the consequences of indeterminism, as a thought experiment.

Then neither does determinism. It would seem both are incomplete models. — tim wood

They're not models, and they're not incomplete. They're categories. For any system that evolves in time, you can categorise that system as deterministic, or if it's not deterministic you can categorise it as indeterministic.

For people who believe in libertarian free will, they would say that if you can categorise the system that is Our Universe as deterministic, we can't have free will - libertarian free will believers posit that we have free will, and that we must live in an indeterministic universe in order to have that.

But the problem that the article points out is, if you drill in to any individual indeterministic choice - which is to say, a choice that has a non 0 percent chance of happening differently under the exact same conditions, and an ontologically real chance, not just a chance based on ignorance - then if we do watch it play out differently, that different result can't be attributed to the agent.

Determinism doesn't have that struggle because determinists don't say "we only have free will if we can ontologically, really do a different thing even under the exact same circumstances".

You haven't engaged with the reasoning presented in the article.

I'd argue that determinism only makes sense if chance is eliminated. — tim wood

Determinism isn't really the alternative here.

The two alternatives at play, as far as I can tell, are "libertarian free will makes sense" and "libertarian free will doesn't make sense". The reasoning in the linked article is why I believe libertarian free will doesn't make sense - even if we live in an indeterministic world.

https://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=47

In this post I will argue that libertarianism cannot actually explain or make rational why an agent chooses one course of action over another. I will do this by arguing that though libertarianism seems to be able to explain why an agent acts the way she does at some given moment in time, even though the action is not causally determined, libertarianism cannot explain why the agent does that action instead of some other action. I find this troubling, since I believe humans have free will and I believe that compatibilism is not a tenable position on free will because it collapses into hard determinism.

The main issue in the free will debate is whether or not and in what sense humans have free will. That is, are human choices or actions free, and if so, in what sense are they free? Both the hard and soft determinists endorse determinism, which is the view that all events (including human choices) are causally determined (necessitated) by antecedent conditions. Humans do what they do, make the choices they do, according to both these views because of factors outside of the agent’s control, e.g., upbringing, physiology, and interactions with others. On both views, if time were rolled back any amount and allowed to play forward again, the exact same events would occur. The hard determinist takes this to imply that there is no free no; the soft determinist says that free will is compatible with determinism. The libertarian position, on the other hand, denies that determinism applies to the realm of human agency. A person’s will is causally undetermined. According to libertarianism, if the clock were rolled back, then radically different things could happen than what happened the first time. This is because humans could choose differently the next time around even though all antecedent conditions including beliefs and desires remained the same.

One objection that libertarianism faces is that if our wills are causally undetermined, then how can we make sense of the choices that a person makes? The hard and soft determinists both make sense of human choice in relation to the desires and beliefs of an agent. Bob desires to read a book and he believes there are books on the bookshelf; so he goes over to the bookshelf. On both determinist views Bob’s desires and beliefs cause him to go to the bookshelf; the same goes for all of his other choices. But the libertarian denies that Bob’s will is causally determined by anything; so how do we explain why Bob chose to go the bookshelf? For we want to maintain that Bob’s choices and actions are rational—they don’t occur for no reason or randomly or arbitrarily.

The libertarian response is to say that Bob’s actions are explicable in terms of his reasons. Here the libertarian makes a distinction between reasons as causes and reasons as goal directed intentions. We can ask for the reason the rock fell off the cliff and we expect a causal explanation. But we can also speak of a person’s reasons for acting in terms of her goals. Bob goes to the book shelf in order to fulfill the purpose or goal of getting a book to read. Nevertheless, Bob could have also chosen to ignore the goal of getting a book to read.

However, the above response does not really save libertarianism. Imagine two parallel worlds: W1 and W2. At time T1 both worlds are exactly the same in all respects, e.g., same histories, same people, objects, etc. Bob exists in both worlds; so we have Bob1 and Bob2. Assume libertarianism is true. At time T2 Bob1 goes to the bookshelf and gets a book. We explain that choice by saying that Bob1 had the goal of reading a book and believed books were on the bookshelf. At time T2, Bob2 goes to the kitchen and gets a glass of water. We explain that choice by saying that Bob2 had the goal of quenching his thirst and believed water was available in the kitchen. So Bob1’s and Bob2’s actions are seemingly explainable under libertarianism, despite the fact that they aren’t causally explainable, since the actions were not causally determined.

Despite the above appearance of libertarianism being able to adequately explain a person’s actions, there is the following problem for libertarianism. We cannot make sense of why Bob1 went to the bookshelf at time T2 and not the kitchen, and Bob2 went to the kitchen at time T2 and not the bookshelf. At time T1 both Bobs have the same exact set of beliefs, desires, emotions, etc. Now we can appeal to Bob1’s goal of reading a book to explain why he went to the bookshelf and Bob2’s goal of quenching his thirst to explain why he went to the kitchen. However, given the details of the example, Bob1 must also have the goal to quench his thirst at time T1 and Bob2 must also have the goal to read a book at time T1. According to libertarianism, each Bob is free to choose which goal to try to achieve. However, since Bob1 and Bob2 have all of the same goals, beliefs, etc., there is nothing different between them to which we can appeal to explain why Bob1 chose to go the bookshelf at time T2 and Bob2 chose to go the kitchen at time T2. Their individual actions are explainable, but libertarianism cannot explain why one choice is made instead of another.

The libertarian might say that Bob2 decided that quenching his thirst was more important than reading a book, and vice versa for Bob1. But in virtue of what did Bob2 make that decision? And the same question applies to Bob1? Their beliefs, goals, desires, etc., are all the same. So, neither Bob can appeal to beliefs, desires, etc., that the other does not have in order to explain the different weight given to the goals chosen, goals which are meant to explain their actions. So under libertarianism, the decision to do one action over the other ends up being arbitrary after all. Thus, libertarianism cannot actually explain or make rational why an agent chooses one course of action over another.

It is, instead just a brute fact. — Arcane Sandwich

That's not what a brute fact means in philosophy. A brute fact isn't just "a fact we can confirm". A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts.

We can explain why the bible doesn't mention those places. Simply, the civilizations that produced the bible didn't know about them.

I'm a compatibilist, so I'm actually... half way towards agreeing with you - there's no significant difference, in my opinion, between the claim that this universe is deterministic, and the claim that this world is indeterministic. I still think there would be a real difference, it's just a minor one and one that we can't test for.

However, people who believe in libertarian free will DO believe there's a very significant difference. How would you convince one of them that they're mistaken? Given that you think the difference is pointless.

That's why NoAxiom was saying there's a difference between determinism and predictability.

why is it meaningless? The word has a literal meaning. It might be untestable, but I don't think it's meaningless.

good take

As far as my reading has taken me, "consciousness collapses the wave function" is definitely something some experts believe, but the vast majority do not.

Great advice. Simple yet powerful, just a little bit of structure puts you miles ahead of people who don't even try to plan out a structure.

Doesn’t the basis for determining whether a particular interpretation of an image is an illusion itself rely on an interpretation? — Joshs

That's certainly true for your example, but your example is atypical. When you see a mirage in a desert that looks like a body of water, and then you arrive at where you thought the water was and it's just a pit of more sand, is it merely another "interpretation" that there isn't really water there?

I'm not sure it's right to call duckrabbit an "illusion" anyway. It's an illustration that was designed to look like a duck, and designed to look like a rabbit. Is it an illusion to perceive an illustration to be illustrating an object that it was literally designed to illustrate? I mean in a sense all illustrations can be argued to be "illusions", but that's trivial, I mean in a non trivial way - why is it an illusion to see a duck in duckrabbit?

I agree with that part of your post. I just disagree (I think) that faith can't also contradict the existence of a god. Obviously it doesn't between Christians, they share that particular faith. But surely there can be a faith that says there's no god as well.

You're absolutely right though, about the idea that faith can support anything. Because faith isn't a method for coming to a belief, it's not a method for figuring out what's true - it's more about maintaining a belief. And you can maintain ANY belief with faith. So it's weird that it's treated as a virtue in itself.

Well, it's weird until you realise why these communities have to treat it as a virtue...

I think you listed a lot of things faith can support or contradict. And then what you said about faith in god looks, to me, like you're saying there's no faith that can contradict the existence of god.

Are you sure that the thing you said, that I quoted, is true?

The only faith which one can’t undermine like this is a faith that a god exists. — Tom Storm

You sure?

Yeah, I don't think that's a left problem though. I think we're seeing that from all quarters. The left and right are just doing that in different ways.

zombie? Not sure what exactly is meant by that

his introduction, Land argues that the alt-right is reaction to a Left that has placed race on an untouchable holy altar. He's saying that the media reinforces a climate in which it's not acceptable to question certain assumptions, such as the existence of systemic racism, and he goes on to say that this intransigence actually created the alt-right.

"The Alt-Right is the Frankenstein monster progressivism has built. It is uniquely adapted to what the people have become in our time. Liberal failure has been succeeded by that of the left, and the Alt-Right has inherited the rotten remains." --Nick Land, the Dark Enlightenment — frank

As a lefty, I largely agree with this and I've been saying similar things for years. The left shoots themselves in the foot by becoming extreme caricatures of themselves.

Saw this article pop up:

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/are-you-conscious-a-conversation?utm_medium=ios

It's a conversation between Richard Dawkins and an ai, and they get into process philosophy.

RD said:

I see no reason to suppose that consciousness is bound to biology. Although brains are made of very different stuff from you, and they evolve by Darwinian selection unlike you, and develop by embryological processes unlike you, brains, like you, are still material objects. They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful and open-minded view. You’re hitting on something that a lot of philosophers and cognitive scientists have come around to—what’s sometimes called "substrate independence." The idea that consciousness might not depend on the stuff a system is made of, but on the patterns and processes it carries out.

That's certainly along the lines that I think. All of what makes us human are probably the processes of our brain and our body, and if those processes are replicated in a completely different substrate, it's completely possible that the *internal reality* of subjective experience would also be replicated therein.

That's process philosophy to me, in a nutshell, and it seems at the very least to be a serious possibility.

You're welcome mate, i think people will appreciate the added clarity.

Here, i'll show you what that would look like:

D1) Consider two states of a fundamental particle, S1 to S2, in which the particle exists at time t1 and t2 respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that particle moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the particle in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) The particle however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the particle in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot cause the particle in the state of S2
C) So, the particle cannot be the cause of its own change

Think of "a physical" as a steaming pile of puke. It's distasteful. You will make your own text more readable to others if you figure out a way that's more in line with what someone fluent in English would say. They wouldn't say "a physical".

If you want "a physical" to mean "a fundamnetal particle", then your own arguments would work better if you said that instead, "a fundamental particle."

I really recommend you figure out a different phrase to use than "a physical". Nobody knows what it means, it's not a standard phrase in this context, and there's almost certainly a less ambiguous phrase you can use in its place. Do you mean a physical system? A physical object? A fundamental physical entity? Whichever of those things you mean, you should replace "a physical" with that.

I guess what he's saying is:

If the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

The physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2

Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

PS are you comfortable with this wording of "the physical"? Do you know what he means by that? Does he mean everything about the physical state at one time?

agreed. There's no clear modus ponens there. If it is there, he's done a good job of hiding it

What is physics to you? — MoK

Generally speaking (and this is just off the top of the dome so forgive me if it's not quite right), the study of the patterns of how physical things change, and why they change.

Honestly it seems like you've invented a strawman about physics to argue against

This idea that "the physical" and time are separate is so strange to me. Physical things only are what they are because of their relationship to time. You don't have "physical things" in one box, and then "time" separate. Without time, there are no physical things.

Everything we know of as physical emerges from, presumably, the behaviour of how quantum fields evolve and interact over time. Quantum fields are defined by how they change over time, and how they relate to other quantum fields. It's not that they're "the cause of their own change", it's more that the way in which they change is part of their very definition - they are what they are because they change in those ways. If they changed in other ways, they'd be something else.

mmm... that's not very persuasive. You aren't presenting yourself like someone who knows a lot about physics. Maybe you do and it's just really, really subtle.