tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5458678816751959353..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A philosopher tells us how to think clearly about evolutionary causes ... avoid adaptationismLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84629164320082267772017-02-16T09:56:40.009-05:002017-02-16T09:56:40.009-05:00Jack,
"It appears you are saying a selection ...Jack,<br />"It appears you are saying a selection is not a selection and— ding ding ding— incoherent."<br /><br />No, I'm saying that a random event is not a selection, which is what you seem to be suggesting. This is indeed incoherent to me.<br /><br />Nevermind - your argument now seems to mostly consist of an incredulous stare, which tells me this discussion has probably run its course. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16765832062886858472017-02-16T09:31:01.863-05:002017-02-16T09:31:01.863-05:00Radix-
Your objection is incoherent to me. I have...Radix-<br />Your objection is incoherent to me. I have no idea how to relate the words you are using to the situations that I encounter in the physical universe. It appears you are saying a selection is not a selection and— ding ding ding— incoherent.<br /><br />As I typed that, I had the sudden thought— that’s probably true for him- he has rejected what the words I am using mean and so obviously I am incoherent because I’m using meaningless words as well.<br />I have no way to know if you can even understand the problem— as I'm fairly sure you don't understand what I just wrote.<br /><br />I am certain I don't know what you are talking about.<br /><br />What the post is about is a woman who has done a fantastic job explaining the errors in adaptationist methods. <br />I would like to thank her for that and sign off this thread.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10522261976009051592017-02-16T02:43:20.927-05:002017-02-16T02:43:20.927-05:00Jack,
I don't think the "mixed state&quo...Jack,<br />I don't think the "mixed state" works as a model. The process doesn't seem to be a mix at all but rather consists of two separate stages:<br /><br />1) The decision to let the issue be determined by a coinflip<br />2) A coinflip<br /><br />We can quickly dispense with step 2, as it's obviously a random event and not a choice. Step 1 looks like any other choice and should be analyzed as such. Was there a reason to do do a coinflip? If not, this was a random event and not a choice. If there was a reason, did you choose this reason? If not, the decision was determined and not free. If you did choose the reason, what was the reason for this choice?<br /><br />As you can see, you will be caught in an infinite regress of choices based on previous choices or (more likely) you will reach a point where the reason for your choice was out of your control because it was either random or determined.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21811245697247146932017-02-16T00:10:06.355-05:002017-02-16T00:10:06.355-05:00Radix-
I’ll start by explaining how a ‘random choi...Radix-<br />I’ll start by explaining how a ‘random choice’ can be involved in ‘freewill’.<br /><br />I could select chocolate.<br />I could select vanilla.<br />I could select to ‘flip a coin’ to see if it’s chocolate or vanilla.<br /><br />Assuming my brain is subject to quantum indeterminism, my brain can do the ‘coin flip’.<br />Since my brain can do everything needed for the choice to be made in a way that is not determined by previous causes I would say my brain has ‘freewill’.<br /><br />So, assuming quantum indeterminism is correct, assuming the brain can enter into a ‘mixed state’, assuming my choices and my brains activities are related, I would say ‘I’ have freewill because ‘I’ can make a choice not determined by previous causes’ which is what the dictionary defines as ‘freewill’.<br /><br />I’m not sure if this freewill makes me ‘morally responsible’ or not and I have no claim there. The dictionary I use does not say 'freewill' = moral responsibility, so my only problem with your definition is that it isn't in any of the five dictionaries I checked.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29551578622166924722017-02-15T16:14:41.547-05:002017-02-15T16:14:41.547-05:00Jack,
As you may have gathered, my interest in fre...Jack,<br />As you may have gathered, my interest in free will mainly centers on its implications for moral responsibility, which also has seemed important for the proponents of free will that I've talked to. That's where my definition comes from. To be responsible for our choices, we must be in control of them. This rules out random events and choices determined by external conditions. In an earlier post, I've stated that I'm fine with other definitions of free will, as long as no claims of moral responsibility are made. If there are dictionary definitions of free will that include random events while simultaneously claiming that free will makes us morally responsible, I think these definitions are plain wrong.<br /><br />You earlier suggested that I might be a chatbot. Well, here's your chance to demonstrate that you're not a dictionarybot. Can you explain, without referring to a dictionary, how my definition is wrong? Specifically, can you explain how a random event can be a choice? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51364122292882590522017-02-15T14:06:46.569-05:002017-02-15T14:06:46.569-05:00Radix-
You continue to assert a definition of free...Radix-<br />You continue to assert a definition of freewill without reference to a dictionary or any other source. <br /><br />At this point you it appears you are asserting the dictionary definition is wrong.<br /><br />I have looked in 6 dictionaries for a justification to disallow a free choice to be ‘at random’ but I can’t find one.<br />In fact, a choice not determined by previous causes is ‘random with respect to previous causes’ by definition, so it appears you are claiming a number of English words have meanings other than what is in the dictionary. <br />Further a check with a couple of my friends indicates the power to make a selection ‘at random’ is part of what they consider to be an aspect of freewill, in keeping with the actual definition from the dictionaries I have looked into.<br /><br />Please justify your use of the term as it appears to be rather at odds with the one in the dictionary.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77864625413262257922017-02-15T09:05:21.860-05:002017-02-15T09:05:21.860-05:00Jack,
By ultimate causal agent I simply mean an ag...Jack,<br />By ultimate causal agent I simply mean an agent able to make choices that are truly free (as opposed to determined) and actual choices (as opposed to random events). I don't think there's any such thing - for the logical reasons I've outlined.<br /><br />Now, if you're just talking about the experience of making choices, I think Benjamin Libet pretty effectively showed that these experiences cannot be taken at face value. He was able to show experimentally that at the point in time when we feel we are making a decision, the actual process has been underway for a second or even more.<br /><br />Libet himself has pointed out that his work in itself does not prove that we don't have free will. I do think, however, that it shows that our experience of making choices cannot be used as evidence that we do have free will. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60940202176141089162017-02-15T08:15:46.530-05:002017-02-15T08:15:46.530-05:00Radix-
I understand what you are saying about the ...Radix-<br />I understand what you are saying about the regress.<br /><br />I’m talking about how people experience making choices and how they describe those experiences and how those descriptions might relate to the underlying physics involved.<br />I think you understand.<br /><br />I don’t know what an ‘ultimate causal agent’ is or how that relates to physics.<br /> <br />As far as I know the ‘ultimate causal agent’ is what people generally call ‘god’ (another subject I have no clue about but I guess suffers the same regress difficulty) or ‘the laws of nature’ (which don’t seem to involve an ultimate causal agent, so I’m not sure how that works at all).<br /><br />I see from your other comments your concerns in this matter are much different than mine and I would be happy if you could give me a clue about the ‘ultimate causal agent’. I admit I have not been talking about that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7182448000763453292017-02-15T05:52:45.271-05:002017-02-15T05:52:45.271-05:00Jack,
If your choice is chocolate, this choice has...Jack,<br />If your choice is chocolate, this choice has a reason. To be a "free" (i.e. not determined) choice, this reason must be under your control, which means it has to be a choice, which needs a reason, which must be a choice, a.s.o. ad infinitum - infinite regress nonsense. The same applies if your choice is vanilla. If the final flavour outcome is random, it's not the result of any choice at all. In neither case are you the ultimate causal agent of the outcome.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21682551629007418172017-02-15T05:34:20.613-05:002017-02-15T05:34:20.613-05:00Radix-
I could pick chocolate.
I could pick vani...Radix- <br />I could pick chocolate.<br />I could pick vanilla.<br />I could pick to let the ‘coin flip’ decide.<br /><br />In the first two cases I determined the final answer— in the third case I determined not to determine the final answer.<br /><br />In real life, in the first case I would be accountable for ‘chocolate’, in the second case ‘vanilla’ and in the third case I would be accountable for whichever ‘chocolate’ or ‘vanilla’ as I decided to allow either.<br /><br />Since I have no idea what ‘moral responsibility’ is I’m not sure how what I said relates to that just to be clear on that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47096815461396461092017-02-15T03:17:43.190-05:002017-02-15T03:17:43.190-05:00Jack,
I do agree that outcomes are probably not co...Jack,<br />I do agree that outcomes are probably not completely determined. Do you agree that this also means that these outcomes are not determined by us as individuals?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70022954707245103242017-02-15T03:10:15.890-05:002017-02-15T03:10:15.890-05:00John,
I think we should acknowledge the fact that ...John,<br />I think we should acknowledge the fact that we're not ultimately the authors of our actions and just do away with the concept of moral responsibility altogether. It's a distraction from what we should be focusing on, which is human behaviour and its consequences. If a person gets infected with a deadly and highly contageous disease, we're going to keep him isolated, not because we hold him responsible for being infected but because letting him move about freely would be harmful to society.<br /><br />The questions we should be contemplating are "what behaviour are we willing to accept and what behaviour do we consider harmful?", "why do some people behave in a harmful way?", "can we prevent such harmful behaviour from developing?", "can we reverse the process after this behaviour has already developed?" and "how do we deal with perpretrators in a way which is beneficial both to the individual and to society as a whole?".<br /><br />I'm not saying these are simple questions. Quite to the contrary, they're exceedingly complex and difficult but if the goal is to have a safe and prosperous society, I just don't think "moral responsibility" is a very helpful concept. Focusing on behaviour seems much more constructive to me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39180190402177851872017-02-15T01:50:08.380-05:002017-02-15T01:50:08.380-05:00Radix-
I really don’t know anything about ‘moral r...Radix-<br />I really don’t know anything about ‘moral responsibility’. <br />That’s why I was not talking about that.<br />I knew we were talking about different things.<br /><br />I was hoping to make the point that because according to the laws of physics outcomes are not completely determined by previous causes, that implies my outcomes may not be completely determined either.<br /><br />Does that have anything at all to do with what you are talking about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28826275561727293142017-02-14T18:37:52.960-05:002017-02-14T18:37:52.960-05:00Radix,
Well, now, being held responsible for thin...Radix,<br /><br />Well, now, being held responsible for things we do, or the knowledge that you will be held responsible, is an external condition, or prior cause if you like, that can influence behavior. So even if free will (which we agree is incoherent) is required for true responsibility, people should still as a practical matter be held responsible.<br /><br />I see you aren't getting any further than I did with Jack. See if you can get him to stick to one of his two definitions. That would be a victory.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5624665424135397052017-02-14T16:55:16.310-05:002017-02-14T16:55:16.310-05:00Jack,
"Now, would my construct be in keeping...Jack,<br /><br />"Now, would my construct be in keeping with the idea that ‘freewill’ makes one ‘morally responsible’?"<br /><br />No, I'm afraid it wouldn't. Whether we describe the outcome as indeterminate or random makes little difference when it comes to moral responsibility. In both cases, the process is beyond our control. We didn't choose the outcome, it simply happened. Since it's not the result of any deliberation or intent, we cannot be held responsible for it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40436831027532546412017-02-14T16:33:17.786-05:002017-02-14T16:33:17.786-05:00Radix-
Thank-you for clarifying what you are talki...Radix-<br />Thank-you for clarifying what you are talking about. <br /><br />You have taken a definition from some advocates— I would prefer to take the definition from the dictionary.<br />Similarly, if we are going to discuss evolution, for example, I would prefer to discuss the version the true experts use rather than some “Darwinism” promoted by some advocates. By attacking the advocates position, it puts one in a position of attacking a straw man, just as the Discovery Institute tends to do.<br />Let’s not make the same mistake the discovery people make— I think we can agree to that.<br /><br />https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will<br />1) voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will<br />2) freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine<br />intervention<br /><br />(If you would prefer to use a different dictionary, that’s fine, but let’s keep our definitions in line with those of the real experts in definitions.)<br /><br />I think your first definition is similar to the second in the dictionary, but there is nothing like your second definition in the dictionary.<br />In fact, your second isn’t a definition of freewill, but rather a possible consequence of freewill.<br /><br />I talk to people all the time who say things like— global warming can’t be true because that would mean I won’t be able to drive my car. Or if evolution is true than god didn’t design every single beetle or whatever. See, they can’t accept something because they are concerned about a possible consequence. I fear you might be making that error in this case- I know I have made that error more than once. It seems almost part of being human—<br /><br />If we take ‘external conditions’ to be ‘prior causes’ (they could both mean the same thing), then we have an agreement on that definition (and I think we probably agree on definition 1 from the dictionary as well).<br /><br />Here is my reasoning—<br />If quantum indeterminacy is true (and I believe it is), then it is possible for a brain to get into a ‘mixed state’ where the outcome would not be determined by external conditions or prior causes.<br />This fits the definition and would account for the experience of exercising one’s freewill. (That’s why I talk about the experience, because ultimately it has to fit with what those who supposedly have freewill experience- right?)<br /><br />Now, would my construct be in keeping with the idea that ‘freewill’ makes one ‘morally responsible’?<br /><br />That’s a different question isn’t it? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42355332653905166432017-02-14T13:42:46.998-05:002017-02-14T13:42:46.998-05:00I should probably stop using the term "random...I should probably stop using the term "random choice", since it's an oxymoron. A random outcome is by definition not chosen, so there's clearly no choice involved. I guess "random event" is better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79517207675772257842017-02-14T13:23:09.075-05:002017-02-14T13:23:09.075-05:00I get my understanding of free will from the way i...I get my understanding of free will from the way it's used by its proponents. They all seem to agree on two things:<br /><br />1) Free will means that we can make decisions that are not determined by any external conditions.<br />2) Free will makes us morally responsible for our actions.<br /><br />From 2), it follows that random choices do not qualify as free will, since we're not in control of them and thus can't be held responsible for them. Consequently, a free will choice can be neither determined nor random. The problem the proponents always seem to run into, is that they can't provide any examples of choices that are neither determined nor random. I suspect that's because no such choices exist.<br /><br />Now, if you're OK with random choices qualifying as free will, that's fine - but it seems to me you'd have to give up moral responsibility. Few free will proponents seem willing to do that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11880464067739950192017-02-14T12:25:48.132-05:002017-02-14T12:25:48.132-05:00Radix-
Where do you get your definition of freewil...Radix-<br />Where do you get your definition of freewill?<br />My comes from the dictionary and what you are talking about is not freewill but something else.<br />Check the dictionary.<br /><br />What are you talking about?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38431810840389266532017-02-14T08:06:15.555-05:002017-02-14T08:06:15.555-05:00Jack,
Sure - but then the decision on flavour isn&...Jack,<br />Sure - but then the decision on flavour isn't yours. You can't claim to be making a free will decision if you're outsourcing it to someone else.<br /><br />If you want to claim that your decision to let someone else make the decision for you is a free will decision, you need to demonstrate that it's not random and not determined by any external conditions. You need to establish that your decision had a reason (otherwise it would be random), what the reason for your decision was and that this reason was under your control, i.e. that the reason for your choice was itself a choice (otherwise it would be determined).<br /><br />At this point, the logical incoherence of free will should be obvious. If a free will choice needs to have a reason and this reason has to be a choice, free will inevitably leads to an infinite regress of choices based on previous choices. The only way you're going to get out of it with your free will intact is through an action which is not by choice (since this would just continue the regress) but still under your control. To put it another way, the action would need to be simultaneously involuntary and voluntary - an obvious contradiction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30456448753137016462017-02-14T06:37:12.663-05:002017-02-14T06:37:12.663-05:00John-
Thanks for the back and forth-- maybe we can...John-<br />Thanks for the back and forth-- maybe we can try again on a different topic.<br /><br />Radix-<br />If I had freewill and was asked- 'chocolate or vanilla?'<br />Would I have the option of saying 'surprise me?'<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18991851011160714612017-02-14T00:49:47.717-05:002017-02-14T00:49:47.717-05:00Jack:"If I couldn't decide to choose some...Jack:"If I couldn't decide to choose something at random I wouldn't have freewill, would I?"<br /><br />My point exactly. If it's random, you're not choosing it. Can you choose if the coin is going to come up heads or tails? If so, it isn't random, is it?<br /><br />"Have you made a decision before?<br />If so, then have you made a decision under duress?<br />If so, have you made a decision not under duress?<br />If so, was there a difference between those two experiences?"<br /><br />How does any of this make any kind of difference to a coinflip? Do you even know what "random" means?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16535258007275691350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72181776439339789152017-02-14T00:02:36.193-05:002017-02-14T00:02:36.193-05:00OK. I give up. You will never understand my argume...OK. I give up. You will never understand my argument, and you will never understand your own argument either. Might as well stop trying.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84471338773452373022017-02-13T22:24:07.258-05:002017-02-13T22:24:07.258-05:00John,
At this point my argument is basically-
&quo...John,<br />At this point my argument is basically-<br />"That which is not determined by prior causes is not determined by prior causes," (something I feel fairly safe in stating).<br /><br />Your argument seems to be that the people who write dictionaries do not know what the words mean or how to define them.<br /><br />I was so hoping I was wrong that your argument would rest on made up definitions.<br /><br />Of course things not determined by prior causes would be 'random with respect to the prior causes', so if your point is that you can define a word so that nothing can fit the description...<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37462570838782500882017-02-13T19:23:50.144-05:002017-02-13T19:23:50.144-05:00Jack,
You look more like a chatbot than Radix. Yo...Jack,<br /><br />You look more like a chatbot than Radix. You keep asking me for my definition of free will when I keep telling you to look at the definition I've already given. Let me try repeating it here, in case that works: free will is the ability to make decisions that both have no prior causes and are not random. I would say that there can logically be no such ability.<br /><br />Of course this is all moot since you persist is going back and forth between dictionary decisions 1 and 2 as it suits the moment, which enables you to avoid any real discussion. It's less the dictionary's problem than your problem in understanding how dictionaries work.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.com