You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

hen comments on Explanations for Less Wrong articles that you didn't understand - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 31 March 2014 11:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (118)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 March 2014 03:47:42PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks, that's very helpful.

I am not convinced that a materialist determinist like Sam Harris or Democritus would be convinced. The fact that I draw a line around some part of physics and call it "me" doesn't mean I control what goes on in that boundary, after all.

I guess this is my sticking point. After all, a billiard ball is a necessary link in the causal chain as well, and no less a computational nexus (albeit a much simpler one), but we don't think that we should attribute to the ball whatever sort of authorship we wish to talk about with reference to free will. If we end up showing that we have a property (e.g. 'being a necessary causal link') that's true of everything then we've just changed the topic and we're no longer talking about free will. Whatever we mean by free will, we certainly mean something human beings (allegedly) have, and rocks don't. So this does just strike me as straightforward anti-free-will determinism.

But the reason that determinism worries freshman philosophy students and novice LWers is that it seems to imply fatalism...

That may be right, and it may just be worth pointing out that determinism doesn't imply fatalism. But in that light the intuitive grounds for fatalism seem much more interesting than the intuitive grounds for the belief in free will. I'm not entirely sure we're naturally apt to think we have free will in any case: I don't think anyone before the Romans ever mentioned it, and it's not like people back then didn't have worked out (if false) metaphysical and ethical theories.

Comment author: shminux 31 March 2014 10:49:31PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think anyone before the Romans ever mentioned it, and it's not like people back then didn't have worked out (if false) metaphysical and ethical theories.

Actually, the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat seems to include free will in some sense, as a "responsibility to choose Good", according to this excerpt. But yeah, it was not separate from ethics.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 March 2014 10:55:15PM 0 points [-]

That's really interesting, thanks for posting it. It's an obscure sort of notion, but I agree it's got some family resemblance to idea of free will. I guess I was thinking mostly of the absence of the idea of free will from Greek philosophy.

Comment author: asr 01 April 2014 02:59:22AM 0 points [-]

I guess I was thinking mostly of the absence of the idea of free will from Greek philosophy.

I took a course on ancient and medieval ethics as an undergraduate. We spent a lot of time on free will, talking about Stoic versus Epicurean views, and then how they show up in Cicero and in Thomas. My impression (as a non-expert) is that Aristotle doesn't have a term that equates to "free will", but that other Greek writers very much do.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 April 2014 02:08:37PM 0 points [-]

You're right, of course, that many of those philosophers wrote in Greek. I suppose I was thinking of them as hellenistic or latin, and thinking of Greek philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, and their contemporaries. But I was speaking imprecisely.