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 it takes the wind out of their sails. Also who decides something is a veridical paradox? Graham Priest has several books on the topic which challenges Aristotle’s Law of Non Contradiction which is what we base most western debate off of. Perhaps it is time to start rethinking the wheel of some rational solutions..
Well, I wouldn’t give up that easily! The default assumption should be that there’s an underlying consistent reality, that paradoxes are in the map, not the territory (as was the case with the simple “mirror paradox” above). Assuming that an apparent contradiction is fundamental ought to be the last resort.
Think about free will for a while— focusing on what the act of choosing feels like, and also on what it might actually consist of— and then check Eliezer’s proffered resolution. It’s much less naive than you’re expecting.
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”
to me 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. For me it’s about the only thing that makes any kind of real sense.
I also get the feeling that this community loves to talk in circles and never really get anywhere, like the whole fun of it is just talking forever and presenting endless scenario’s. Thats not my bag. Im NOT saying i’m right. Built im defiantly not into intellectual masturbation. I have asked repeatedly for substantial evidence and have gotten only subjective reasoning delivered in analogies.
Thanks to everyone for you time responding to my questions. Believe me my intent is not to bash you guys. Its just not for me.
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 the feeling that this community enjoys talking in circles and never really getting anywhere, like the whole fun of it is just discussing forever and presenting endless scenario’s. Thats not my bag. Im NOT saying i’m right, but im defiantly not into intellectual masturbation.
I have asked repeatedly for substantial evidence and have only gotten subjective reasoning delivered in analogies.
Thanks to everyone for you time responding to my questions. Believe me my intent is not to bash you guys. Its just not for me.
Well, you may or may not be interested in the site; that’s up to you. I do want to point out that the reason I haven’t tried to explain except by analogy is that a good explanation of a slippery problem (like a reductionistic account of choice) takes a while to read, and longer to write. I did link it for you if you’re curious.
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 it takes the wind out of their sails. Also who decides something is a veridical paradox? Graham Priest has several books on the topic which challenges Aristotle’s Law of Non Contradiction which is what we base most western debate off of. Perhaps it is time to start rethinking the wheel of some rational solutions..
here is a WIKI link to read more on dialethesim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
Do they also not challenge Aristotle’s Law of Non Contradiction?
that would be funny were it a paradox.
Well, I wouldn’t give up that easily! The default assumption should be that there’s an underlying consistent reality, that paradoxes are in the map, not the territory (as was the case with the simple “mirror paradox” above). Assuming that an apparent contradiction is fundamental ought to be the last resort.
Think about free will for a while— focusing on what the act of choosing feels like, and also on what it might actually consist of— and then check Eliezer’s proffered resolution. It’s much less naive than you’re expecting.
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”
to me 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. For me it’s about the only thing that makes any kind of real sense.
I also get the feeling that this community loves to talk in circles and never really get anywhere, like the whole fun of it is just talking forever and presenting endless scenario’s. Thats not my bag. Im NOT saying i’m right. Built im defiantly not into intellectual masturbation. I have asked repeatedly for substantial evidence and have gotten only subjective reasoning delivered in analogies.
Thanks to everyone for you time responding to my questions. Believe me my intent is not to bash you guys. Its just not for me.
Chow
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 the feeling that this community enjoys talking in circles and never really getting anywhere, like the whole fun of it is just discussing forever and presenting endless scenario’s. Thats not my bag. Im NOT saying i’m right, but im defiantly not into intellectual masturbation.
I have asked repeatedly for substantial evidence and have only gotten subjective reasoning delivered in analogies.
Thanks to everyone for you time responding to my questions. Believe me my intent is not to bash you guys. Its just not for me.
-10 for me. i know, i know.
Chow
Well, you may or may not be interested in the site; that’s up to you. I do want to point out that the reason I haven’t tried to explain except by analogy is that a good explanation of a slippery problem (like a reductionistic account of choice) takes a while to read, and longer to write. I did link it for you if you’re curious.