tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post6152236027286913038..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: I read it, but I don't get itJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-47674844995083974722009-03-24T07:41:00.000-07:002009-03-24T07:41:00.000-07:00Jason,What do you mean by, "Some aspects of it cle...Jason,<BR/>What do you mean by, "Some aspects of it clearly are deterministic?"<BR/><BR/>My feeling is that you really should be "building your free will" from a non-deterministic (not a deterministic) foundation.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52870746063542612292009-03-24T07:00:00.000-07:002009-03-24T07:00:00.000-07:00I am unsure whether the universe is entirely deter...I am unsure whether the universe is entirely deterministic. <BR/><BR/>Some aspects of it clearly are deterministic, while some may be nondeterministic.<BR/><BR/>If it's possible to build a free will solely from deterministic parts, however, the nondeterministic ones can either exist, or not, and we still have a workable theory of the will.Jason Kuznickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18048961572158534561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-65466377595909321072009-03-23T19:44:00.000-07:002009-03-23T19:44:00.000-07:00Jason,Compatibilism between deterministic properti...Jason,<BR/><EM>Compatibilism between deterministic properties and free will is my own preferred answer, though ...</EM><BR/><BR/>Does your compatibilism need reforming given that the universe is <EM>not</EM> deterministic?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-61317460143657374272009-03-23T07:14:00.000-07:002009-03-23T07:14:00.000-07:00"...with a lot of anthropomorphizing to make it al..."...with a lot of anthropomorphizing to make it all work."<BR/><BR/>That was my gut feeling, but as a non-expert, I wasn't sure if my gut was really getting it.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-75429030278435618152009-03-23T06:43:00.000-07:002009-03-23T06:43:00.000-07:00From what I can tell, it's an attempt to demonstra...From what I can tell, it's an attempt to demonstrate free will by noting that at least one property of elementary particles is nondeterministic. This still doesn't prove the philosophical idea of free will, however. It appears only to impute it to an object, with a lot of anthropomorphizing to make it all work.<BR/><BR/>Assume a die to be nondeterministic for our purposes. <BR/>One can never, then, determine which face will land upward. Yet it doesn't have intentionality, responsibility, or any of the other attributes we typically ascribe to the will. <BR/><BR/>In Daniel Dennett's phrase, this isn't a free will worth wanting. Moreover, violating strict causation is perhaps not even necessary to having a will in the sense usually meant by philosophers. Compatibilism between deterministic properties and free will is my own preferred answer, though I'd prefer not to explain it in a comment. (It takes a while... though happily there's no math. I may have to get back to you on it.)Jason Kuznickihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18048961572158534561noreply@blogger.com