tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post2232906910743841114..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Whither free will?Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75903925091587420682010-05-26T15:28:25.305-07:002010-05-26T15:28:25.305-07:00> Now, "cannot be ruled out" leaves r...> Now, "cannot be ruled out" leaves room for "(almost certainly) cannot be a factor", but I'm curious as to why you wanted to leave room in one article yet tried to exclude it in the other.<br /><br />I dunno. Because it's two years later? Because I'm going for a different rhetorical emphasis? Because Mars is in Scorpio? Because I felt like it? What Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60512927649142244122010-05-26T11:46:13.979-07:002010-05-26T11:46:13.979-07:00I want to comment on the statement, A belief in a ...I want to comment on the statement, <i>A belief in a certain amount of free will, even if in reality it is only an illusion, is a logical prerequisite to morality...</i>.<br /><br />I agree that something has to be free, but it may not need to be the will. It depends on where the lines in the model of our wetware are drawn. The "thing that chooses" operates on "things to be wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-26552539693469118472010-05-26T11:07:54.956-07:002010-05-26T11:07:54.956-07:00In the discussion on comp.lang.lisp regarding Free...In the discussion on comp.lang.lisp regarding Free Will, message id <rNOSPAMon-C952A6.09462725052010@news.albasani.net>, you wrote: Quantum randomness is a "real" phenomenon (with "real" in scare quotes because it is only "real" relative to a classical universe, which isn't "really real") but it's <i>(almost certainly) not a factor in mental wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1713984384219121362008-05-17T13:32:00.000-07:002008-05-17T13:32:00.000-07:00> Well, you could have just mentioned JesusGood po...> Well, you could have just mentioned Jesus<BR/><BR/>Good point.<BR/><BR/>> I think there is a self-consistent model in here somewhere.<BR/><BR/>OK, but I think the burden is on you to explain what it is.<BR/><BR/>> I didn't mean to say that you agree with Calvinism, what I meant was that everybody (whatever your perspective on free-will) all agrees that you are still responsible for the Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19862807449022676212008-05-17T11:03:00.000-07:002008-05-17T11:03:00.000-07:00Well, you could have just mentioned Jesus, who by ...Well, you could have just mentioned Jesus, who by reason of the Trinity, is God, and who "stepped into time". The mental picture I have in my mind is that of a yardstick, measuring not distance but time. God, holding the ruler, can choose to put his finger on the ruler at a certain place if he likes, and in the language of the analogy, has a fingerprint around t=33ad. So God would have had to asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-64183650864167941812008-05-17T10:02:00.000-07:002008-05-17T10:02:00.000-07:00> It makes sense to me to argue that God created s...> It makes sense to me to argue that God created space (the 3 dimensions), and therefore by general relativity, he created the time dimension as well. If God created time, then he is outside of it, and asking questions involving time about God are meaningless.<BR/><BR/>This seems to me clearly at odds with what the Bible says about God's nature. The old testament clearly describes God as a beingRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24955304364864935162008-05-16T15:14:00.000-07:002008-05-16T15:14:00.000-07:00See, it's so difficult to arrive late at a convers...See, it's so difficult to arrive late at a conversation. This is why my website idea is a good one! :-) Since this looks like it got interesting, I'll read through everything later. In the meantime, I thought I'd mention 2 things:<BR/><BR/>1) Jeffrey Schwartz, whether or not he's right, would agree that quantum effects are present in the mind:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Schwartz<asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-13207158864830543552008-05-15T16:18:00.000-07:002008-05-15T16:18:00.000-07:00OK, I need to give this some more thought, and I p...OK, I need to give this some more thought, and I probably won't be able to get to it until the weekend. But I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the commentary, and that I'm not ignoring it.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60118340107111575632008-05-15T15:39:00.000-07:002008-05-15T15:39:00.000-07:00"I'm starting to think this whole free-will thing ...<I>"I'm starting to think this whole free-will thing is really just a red-herring."</I><BR/><BR/>Now I don't know whether to respond or not. :-) If you don't want to continue, that's fine.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise...<BR/><BR/><I>"there are many different kinds of truth. E=mc^2 is one kind of truth. That flowers can be beautiful is a different kind of truth."</I><BR/><BR/>I find that a really odd Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-34804365911955232132008-05-15T11:45:00.000-07:002008-05-15T11:45:00.000-07:00> I had assumed, in this (admittedly public) conve...> I had assumed, in this (admittedly public) conversation between you and me, that we were "merely" seeking truth.<BR/><BR/>First, why would you assume that?<BR/><BR/>Second, there are many different kinds of truth. E=mc^2 is one kind of truth. That flowers can be beautiful is a different kind of truth. The question of free will is much more akin to the second kind than the first. In fact, itRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-62720518679769924912008-05-15T09:29:00.000-07:002008-05-15T09:29:00.000-07:00I think you really need to separate two different ...I think you really need to separate two different things, and I'm having some trouble because you keep switching back and forth between them.<BR/><BR/>The first is a search for truth. What is the world actually like?<BR/><BR/>The second is a persuasive effort in society. What political/marketing approaches will have a sympathetic reception?<BR/><BR/>I had assumed, in this (admittedly public) Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-766246166543907892008-05-15T08:57:00.000-07:002008-05-15T08:57:00.000-07:00If all our actions are truly out of our control (a...<I>If <B>all</B> our actions are truly out of our control (as the Calvinists would have you believe)</I><BR/><BR/>I thought it was hyper-Calvinist would think that way.<BR/><BR/>Have you read Don Knuth's "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About"? Here the author of "The Art of Computer Programming" reconciled that free-will is actually a humongous binary-tree of decisions/outcomes. He mar13https://www.blogger.com/profile/09791122927647295136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-21104755292459781472008-05-15T08:05:00.000-07:002008-05-15T08:05:00.000-07:00> I wonder why the distinction is so important.Whi...> I wonder why the distinction is so important.<BR/><BR/>Which distinction? I hope the distinction between the three types of behavioral influences is obvious. Whether or not type-3 influences require "free will" (whatever that is) is mostly a quibble over terminology. The point is that type-3 influences are qualitatively different from type-1 and type-2 influences (even though at root Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76945231788393034962008-05-13T17:52:00.000-07:002008-05-13T17:52:00.000-07:00"Because the definition of morality is that it is ...<I>"Because the definition of morality is that it is the thing that makes people do the "right thing" in the absence of external coercive influences."</I><BR/><BR/>OK, if you say so. But I wonder why the distinction is so important. The materialism view on this is that these "internal mental" influences you speak of were shaped by genetics + childhood environment. Again, free will really Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75969660460583197942008-05-13T17:16:00.000-07:002008-05-13T17:16:00.000-07:00> But you're asserting that such an illusion is ne...> But you're asserting that such an illusion is necessary for morality.<BR/><BR/>That's right. Because the <I>definition</I> of morality is that it is the thing that makes people do the "right thing" in the <I>absence</I> of external coercive influences. Without free will, by definition your actions are governed exclusively by external influences, and so there can be no morality.<BR/><BR/>Try Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-16320532315949944212008-05-13T16:00:00.000-07:002008-05-13T16:00:00.000-07:00Ron said: "Why?"OK, so the relevant original sente...Ron said: <I>"Why?"</I><BR/><BR/>OK, so the relevant original sentence is: <I>"A belief in a certain amount of free will, even if in reality it is only an illusion, is a logical prerequisite to morality, and a practical necessity for the functioning of human society."</I><BR/><BR/>My point with the levees was meant to show that actions have consequences, whether things are determined or not. It Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-34312246655548900232008-05-13T14:46:00.000-07:002008-05-13T14:46:00.000-07:00> But if all you're arguing is that the illusion o...> But if all you're arguing is that the illusion of free will matters ... well, I still think you're wrong<BR/><BR/>Why?Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-91358013179271647742008-05-13T11:24:00.000-07:002008-05-13T11:24:00.000-07:00Oh, ok, I guess I missed the subtlety of your post...Oh, ok, I guess I missed the subtlety of your post. When you wrote <I>"A belief in a certain amount of free will, even if in reality it is only an illusion, is a logical prerequisite to morality"</I> I didn't quite realize that you meant only the <I>illusion</I> is necessary. But actual free will itself is not necessary.<BR/><BR/>See I think I got caught up by the next sentence: <I>"If all our Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36865689964208988672008-05-13T11:14:00.000-07:002008-05-13T11:14:00.000-07:00> Is this a tautology? Are you defining free will ...> Is this a tautology? Are you defining free will by this statement?<BR/><BR/>No. Trying to get a handle on what free will actually is is a very thorny philosophical problem. I (attempt to) sidestep this problem by not making a commitment as to whether we <I>really</I> have free will (whatever that means) or whether we just labor under the illusion that we have it. It's kind of like trying to Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-481876745681741962008-05-13T10:09:00.000-07:002008-05-13T10:09:00.000-07:00Threats of punishment can only be effective agains...<I>Threats of punishment can only be effective against something with free will.</I><BR/><BR/>Is this a tautology? Are you <I>defining</I> free will by this statement?<BR/><BR/>It is clearly the case that threats of punishment can alter human behavior. You have people speeding on the highway, you add 10x the cops on the road, visibly pull people over, and ... miracle of miracles, people stop Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-8379287437121151602008-05-11T22:20:00.000-07:002008-05-11T22:20:00.000-07:00> When you live in a flood plain, you build levees...> When you live in a flood plain, you build levees to direct the water around your house.<BR/><BR/>Yes, but you have to build the levee *before* the flood happens. There's no point in trying to prevent a flood by threatening to build the levee afterwards. Threats of punishment can only be effective against something with free will.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-42986037834878876032008-05-11T21:32:00.000-07:002008-05-11T21:32:00.000-07:00There is no reason to punish murderers, or, indeed...<I>There is no reason to punish murderers, or, indeed, not to become a murderer yourself, because whatever happens is just the inescapable consequence of whatever is out there pulling our strings.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not quite true. Even if the universe is deterministic and predictable, punishing murderers has positive consequences for society. It reduces further crime by those individuals, andDon Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14921093108555061757noreply@blogger.com