sereboi
-34
13
sereboi has not written any posts yet.
sereboi has not written any posts yet.
so i am starting to finally get the dogma of this community, correct me if i'm wrong but this is basically a Reductionist site, right?
Eliezer said: "Since free will is about as easy as a philosophical problem in reductionism can get"
Reductionism does not make sense at solving ALL problems, perhaps i'm too dumb to get it. The problem of Free will Vrs Determinism has baffled philosophers for a long time. Calling it a veridical paradox might seem like a capitulation but it's about the only thing that makes any kind of real sense. The problem is most rationalists can't accept that., like paradox's have to be solved.
I also get... (read more)
This makes sense, somewhat and now that i realize your not trying to defend compatibilism and can shift gears a bit. I really think that the whole situation might just be a veridical paradox, both being true equally. So in a way i would like to concede to compatibilism, however compatabilist attempts at solving the paradox are pathetic. Not sure if you have heard of Dialetheism, its a growing western philosophy that recognizes true contradictions. If compatibilism is a true contradiction than there will never be an explanation for how it works. It will just have to be accepted as such. The problem for most rationalists is that... (read more)
The reason i said "little effort" is to clarify that one could possibly with much concentration have an effect on the subconscious, However the kind of effect im concerned with is the act of everyday choices that happen in nano seconds. I would welcome some data on "much effort" effects as well.
Any shown tangible research that an agent can manipulate and control with little effort their subconscious mind.
The presence of, would imply a host of things from complete agent responsibility in all areas of life.
The absence of it would not only imply severed liability but also complete meaninglessness.
Most branches of existential philosophy solve meaninglessness by stating one has control over their choices and so creating meaning, If one is stripped of that control than meaninglessness truly abounds.
Of course that is unless one believes in God.
@ orthonormal
you said- I agree. But I think that there is actually some feature of the (deterministic) act of choosing which leads a person to falsely believe that their choice is nondeterministic, and that by analyzing this we learn something interesting and important about cognition.
Very true. so what do you make of reconciling the two? Do we castigate them both in hopes of finding something out that is hiding in the shadows? The nexus of the matter is "belief" and in order to have a sound belief one should know as many facts about the subject as possible. I listened to a long discourse given by Dennet who is a avid... (read more)
@Thomblake sorry about the message thing. Im still getting used to how this site works..
You substantiate analogies with proof. Basically im saying that your analogies don't hold water perhaps i'm using confusing vernacular.
Let me say one thing before moving on. I hate debating just to debate, for me when i involve myself in a debate it is to gain more insight. So i am totally open to your point of view if it sheds some light on this subject, the bottom line is if someone has a solid angle that i'm missing than i welcome it.
Ok that being said. it sounds like your actually mostly agreeing with me.
You do... (read more)
thanks thanks for the information, honestly i got to this site cause i get e-mail alerts from google with anything about determinism. So when i read the article i thought it was some regular commentator. i had no idea that it was written by someone in a smaller community. That is why i was so harsh in my opening line...
Well now that i have a better understanding of what this site is about, if i make anymore comments i will word them a bit differently thanks again.
Ok i finally get the etiquette thing of this system. :)
Sorry i am a straight shooter. I will work on my wording, however i still stand by my claims of conjecture vrs facts.
This sounds like intellectual snobbery to me.
No matter, nothing will dispel peoples beliefs, i simply stated the case that this blog/article is nothing but conjecture, no hard evidence to back up what is being said. If your going to make an intelligent opinion about something, shouldn't you have some evidence to back it up?
I stated my position and gave information on where to get substantiated evidence on the subject and im voted out?
As for the article on "dissolving the problem" rather than trying to answer it, this is the very pompous cop out. By calling something meaningless and diffusing it you can do that with the very nature of philosophy... (read more)
that would be funny were it a paradox.