= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on In favour of terseness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
Free Willis not conscious volition. There is a puzzle about the co existence of free will an determinism. There is no such puzzle about conscious volition. A few minutes uses ago, I made choice between chicken curry and beef curry. I chose chicken. Could I have chosen beef? You simple answer doesn't tell me.
Sure you could have, in the sense that IF you had desired beef more strongly, you WOULD have made that decision. The fact that it's deterministic does not make it any less your choice. I honestly don't think answering this requires more than one line, since it's in principle a really simple issue. Convincing someone of this is a lot harder and would take much longer of course, but that's not really the aim of a terse post. The fact that you don't feel convinced doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
Could I have desired beef more strongly?
It's not a simple issue. It seems intuitive to me that I have ownership of actions that I originate in a way that I don't over events that were originated by the Big Bang
Answering questions catechistically is easy. Justifying an answer as being the one true answer, and meeting objections is difficult.
The world does not abound with simple answers to complex problems, because they are hard to achieve -- genuinely.
The typical failure modes are:
1 answering a different, easier question.
2 taking sides on an issue without sufficient justification, ie coming up with doctrine.
A lot of the problemisthe ambiguity of "answer" between "solution" and "response to a question".