subfallen, ill hold you if you hold me

This demonstrates that you have no idea what philosophy does and how it pervades even YOUR daily life. Legal and ethical theory, epistemology, and a variety of other fields inform everyday institutions and interactions. Philosophy is extremely practical.

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard
"My thoughts were intended to support plausibility.
What "other legwork" do you have in mind?"


That sounds important. But how is that "legwork" showing "a way to explain agency and free will physicallistically"? That's the aspect of your project I was responding to. You've said you intend to seat free will in physicality. How do the above game-theoretic observations support that goal?



PairTheBoard

The title of the work involves game-theoretic behavior as a challenge to free will.

It's a challenge to it...it doesn't support it! I eventually argue that if we're going to find free will it's in our irrationality (and that our rational behavior is only 'free' because it's potentially irrational...potentially since there can be conscious interference w/ rational behavior pathways).

ok. But your paper aside, how do you seat free will in physicality?


PairTheBoard

I think that I've been pretty clear that I don't have an f clue ATM. A decent answer will likely be forthcoming in the next 50yrs though IMHO. Neuroscience is still very young but growing quickly and I expect a possible answer to pop out. This part of the question is the most difficult and one that isn't really yet worth worrying too much about (people like Kane have attempted to seat it in "interference" between pathways where both outcomes are willed but which occurs is indeterminate...I don't find this answer satisfactory, though. Another is in the quantum indeterminacy in the microtubules in the brain; again, I'm not really satisfied at all by this line). This is why I mentioned the other "legwork" that can be done in the meantime.

I see. Thanks for that clarification.

PairTheBoard

i don't think you would. you don't commit crime because you will be held responsible by society, whether you are in the philosophical sense or not.

which leads me to my next point: society enforcing responsibility makes it real

durkadurka33 -

I respect philosophy. I don't respect academia at large. Now aren't you going to summarize Dennett's analysis of 'free will' for me? Since you own his books and all. (Warning - I've read them.)

HIV -

<snuggles>

Hardball47 -

The philosophical method is essentially economy of principles. There's no room for your magical mystic and his torture fetish.

Wow. TL DR.

I suspect you've already covered this somewhere in this thread but there are 2 main arguments and it cannot be proven either is correct so no wonder you guys have been arguing so much.

1. Free will doesn't exist all, of our future actions have already been determined by envioroment and past and instinct starting with the birth of the universe to our death. In other words stimulii----> reaction-----> action but on an incredibly massive scale. We have no choice. If you are pure atheist then you should recognise this and i dont know how you stop yourself from going insane... after all your just a pink fluffy computer of neurones on a stick right?. However i think most people jsut claim they are atheist just because they have recognised science as fact and religous teachings as flawed. Then again this thought process could be created by the universe. WHO KNOWS!!!!

2. Things such as: The concept of morality. The foundations of religion. philosophy. Souls?

So this discussion boils down to your basic view of the world. Which may or may not have already been decided for you via enviroment (irony) It is increidbly pointless arguing about it. Its down to wether or not we have souls... and is there such a thing as a product of the mind? Or is the mind a product of the the universe?

because free will is different from everything else in nature. it defies cause and effect. determinism is the default position, free will is the exception.

The other way around, actually. Free will is the dominant position; lately, compatibilism is dominant in philosophy, but that's recent.

I dont mean according to most people.

It`s dominant in every sense of the word...

If you actually started reading that list of 100+ books in the history of philosophy, you`d see this.

Empirically speaking, by defying cause and effect, free will is only different from (certain of) the non-living components of nature. The processes of life have not been exhaustively described in causal terms either, so we have to remain agnostic about reductionism in that area.

No, that's the principle of economy, and that's not the essence of the philosophical method. You haven't learned much, have you? Get to it.

You're right, which is why you don't see my mentioning of this mystic anywhere in the thread. Only you've brought it up.

Christians make this same argument and it's ******ed. just because X people have been doing something for Y years doesn't mean ANYTHING, AT ALL

Umm, it does when you're discussing the 'dominant' position.

He never said dominant. Default=! dominant. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT!!?!! ...



And also but seriously I think the dude has a point. The "you can't prove my crazy extra-worldly bull**** wrong so there" approach is a bit suspect.

The latter is not an approach, it's just a fact that we have to deal with. It should be out in the open at the outset so that reaching an impasse may not be as surprising and need not result in insults since there can be rational disagreement.

However, determinism has never been the default position except for a vast minority.

"In short, here as everywhere else, let us beware of superfluous teleological principles...method, which must be essentially economy of principles, demands it."
- F.W. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil §13 (translated by Walter Kaufmann. Emphasis mine.)

...sigh...

n00bs

did u just pwn us?

No, he's just saying he thinks Nietzsche should have wasted his life on empty word-games instead of changing the world.

But he should really be shutting the **** up until he's summarized Dennett's analysis of free will.

Your metaphilosphical analysis leaves very much to be desired.

I'm not doing your own legwork for you.