if it's uncharitable to regard as nonsense a giant pile of work that wants to talk about free will after opening by refusing to define it because they can't, then i guess i'm uncharitable, yes
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
*intellectually dishonest and hasn't done the appropriate reading required--due to prior biases & annoyances @ otherwise real problems in the literature [from the autistic writing style, to "unfortunately i do not have the space to address the best objection to my view, etc.]
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
that's a bit much it is in absolutely no way my responsibility to perform an exhaustive literature search until i've convinced myself of a position nobody can point me to literature about that isn't talking directly past the point
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
it is, but you don't have some huge obligation to fulfil it. it's just a weak epistemic norm if you want to better know what you're actually talking about
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
i know enough to know people talk nonsense it doesn't help that nobody addresses the core incoherence of the concept, that either choice is caused and therefore unfree or it's uncaused and therefore even less free than if it were caused, other than by pointing at this handwaving
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
that relies on a manifestly contestable view of causality. here's a different view of causality: substances/"agents" possess causal powers rather than belonging to a linear chain of causality. they have dispositions toward some effect. now your dichotomy has already collapsed
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
'self-determined' decisions are now possible without either preferring any background view in physics, whether the universe is generally casually determinate or indeterminate to x degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
the hashtag literature addresses your "core incoherence"--which is a philosophy 101 concern--and has been long considered and debated long before contemporary analytic & cont. philosophy. see? this is exactly what i'm talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
this, to be clear, refers to a more general ontology when i talk about substances/agents. instead of, say, event causation where it's the procedural factors of a bomb that collapses a bridge, a substance causation view would say 'the bomb collapses the bridge'. causal powers...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
introduced into a roughly similar view still allows use to 1) make sense of existing science, 2) has less mysteries than invoking causal chains and the principle of sufficient reason, 3) avoids your dichotomy from the onset
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
sure, we can just make up another physics that gives us better cuddles, i guess but the question isn't "self-determined", it's "freely self-determined" do we suppose then that your bomb can choose to not exert blowing up powers toward bridges
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
what? it doesn't make up a new physics. it can be subsumed under what's already being split by mutually incompatible models in physics. physics as a field itself is already constantly "making up another physics" in your absurdly general sense just to evolve as a field!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
what i described allows for freely self-determined conditions *because* we are higher-level versions, on a casual powers view, of what is already embedded into the nature of causality: to have causal effect is to have some causal power to do it, rather than exist in...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 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.