the main problem is that the free will skeptic has a lot to deal with. you usually need to outline controversial views of causality or equally controversial interpretations of modern neuroscientific findings to really motivate free will skepticism
-
-
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
+ even though i'm favourable to libertarian free will, i don't think there are really any good arguments against compatibilism
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
sure there are, that it's fucking nonsense. either things happen for reasons and we live in a nightmare cosmos or things happen for no reason and we live in an even more nightmare cosmos. a free will that's caused isn't anyone's idea of free will and an uncaused one is worse.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
so your argument against compatibilism is basically "no u"?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
what the fuck even is compatibilism besides "we need to punish people to control them so let's pretend they could have done anything differently than they did"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
there are plenty of compatibilists who are explicitly against retributivism. dennett is one
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
okay. it's still handwaving that reduces to emotional appeals. it doesn't contain a coherent concept of what "free will" even is that doesn't rely on the concept of a soul that's somehow interactive with the world without being causally determined by it, because it can't
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
I'd be surprised, since that's exactly the most parsimonious and useful definition, why eschew it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @palecur @gabrielamadej
because on the one hand it's probably bullshit and on the other hand if it isn't bullshit it doesn't actually resolve the issue at all, it just puts it behind a Wizard of Oz curtain
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
it 100% does, though. souls are the origin of causality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
that may actually be the case but now we either have souls that have causes or souls that don't have causes so all we've accomplished is to push the original situation into a spooky corner where we can more easily ignore it
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
that's homeomorphic to solving the problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
or, less shitpostily, souls are *partially deterministic,* emerging from specific patterning of massenergy but able to act acausally upon massenergy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.