– Jerry Coyne, Why do we need free-will compatibilism? , April 30, 2021
9. júla 2024 00:38,
Prečítané 74x,
kristian66,
Nezaradené
„As you know, “compatibilism” is the philosophical view that even though we cannot control our thoughts and actions beyond what the laws of physics dictate, and therefore have no “free will” in the traditional sense, we have free will in a nontraditional sense. Those “compatibilistic” varieties of free will vary among different philosophers; Dan Dennett has expounded several versions, and other philosophers still more versions (This all makes me wonder what we’re supposed to tell people what really constitutes our [compatibilist] “free will.”). Opposed to compatibilism are the two forms of incompatibilism that see free will as incompatible with physical law: a.) Contracausal free will. This is the traditional “you could have done/chosen otherwise” free will in which we are agents whose wills can effect, at a given time, two or more different behaviors or choices. It is the kind of free will that most people think we really have, and is certainly the basis of Abrahamic religions whose gods either save you or doom you based on whether you make the “right” choice about God or a savior. b.) Free will skepticism (sometimes called “hard determinism”). As you must know, this is the view to which I adhere. Though it’s often called “determinism”, with the implication that the laws of physics have already determined the entire future of the universe, including what you will do, that’s not my view. There is, if quantum mechanics be right, a fundamental form of indeterminism that is unpredictable, like when a given atom in a radioactive compound will decay. It’s unclear to what extent this fundamental unpredictability affects our actions or their predictability, but I’m sure it’s played some role in evolution (via mutation) or in the Big Bang (as Sean Carroll tells me). Thus I prefer to use the term “naturalism” rather than “determinism.” But, at any rate, fundamental quantum unpredictability cannot give us free will, for it has nothing to do with either “will” or “freedom”. And this question struck me, as my neurons chugged through their program this morning: Why do we even bother ruminating about compatibilism, much less write long books about it? To me the really important issues are a) vs. b) above, which in principle can be attacked with science, while compatibilism is more or less a semantic issue. If naturalism be true, then we should trumpet it from the rooftops, as it flies in the face of what most people think and (as I note below), does have real and important implications for society. But why bother so much with compatibilism? The only reason I can think of—and it’s a reason often voiced by philosophers—is that people need to have a definition of free will that comports with their “feeling” that they have contracausal free will, even if the definition itself isn’t contracausal. But why this need? Even I feel like I have contracausal free will, but I realize that at best it’s an illusion and, at any rate, I have no use for a philosopher-confected definition of some compatibilistic free will. I do just fine, thank you.“
14.11.2024
Autor: Někdy v roce 2003 jsem se cítil velice unavený a uvažoval, že nechám práce na jednom projektu spojeném s hnutím a trochu se vyspím. Bylo půl třetí ráno a moc jsem toho poslední dobou nenaspal. Pak mě ale napadlo: „Na co se vlastně šetříš?“ Potřeboval jsem spánek, abych si zachoval svou krásu? Všechno, co ušetříme, stejně musíme vydat, jelikož smrt [...]
13.11.2024
Nietzsche says, “God is a rough-fisted answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers- at bottom merely a rough-fisted prohibition for us: you shall not think!” The same is true of the idea that we have a “soul” that gives us our personal identity. I dispense with the “soul” outright and from the beginning. It’s a primitive, simplistic, and vacuous idea. If you believe in this [...]
13.11.2024
Ďalšou dôležitou vecou v tomto rámci je, že pod univerzálnou zhodou medzi príslušníkmi druhu sa nemyslia konvencie, na ktorých sme sa dokázali všetci dohodnúť. Nehovoríme tu teda o spoločenskom kontrakte ani o sociálnych inštitúciách, ktoré sme v minulosti ustanovili. Podľa Wittgensteina by sme nemali zabudnúť, že termínom „konsenzus“ sa nemyslí len to, na [...]
Celá debata | RSS tejto debaty