Oh good grief. You can call anything vague if you set the bar high enough. Am I being significantly more vague than EY was?
ETA:
Woops, looks the people who wite the Skeptic’s Dictionary are mystical trolls too:
“Free will is a concept in traditional philosophy used to refer to the belief that human behavior is not absolutely determined by external causes, but is the result of choices made by an act of will by the agent. ”
Yes. I understood precisely what Eliezer was referring to.
Whereas I have no idea whatsoever what you’re referring to. Elaborating:
You state that the question of free will comes down to:
“Whether some organisms have the ability to make choices that aren’t fully determined by outside circumstances.”
When asked to define “outside circumstances,” drilling down, it becomes anything outside the central nervous system.
Which leaves the question in an uncomfortable position whereby it is calling dualism a form of determinism. Indeed, any solution which posits a non-reductionist answer to the question of free will is being called determinism by your definition.
Worse still, your formulation is completely senseless in the reductionist form you’ve left it; you deny non-reductionist answers, but you implicitly deny all reductionist answers as well, because they’ve -already- answered your question: No choice happens whatsoever that is “fully determined” by things outside your central nervous system, that denies the very -concept- of reductionism. Your question maintains meaning only as rhetoric. To say Eliezer hasn’t answered it in that context is to complain that he didn’t preface his arguments with a statement that the brain is the organ which is making these choices.
Which leads me right back to “You have to be trolling.”
Which leaves the question in an uncomfortable position whereby it is calling dualism a form of determinism. Indeed, any solution which posits a non-reductionist answer to the question of free will is being called determinism by your definition.
A dualist would regard their immaterial mind as internal. I was givin a non-dualist asnwer to the question “what is outside” because I thought there weren’t any dualists round here. Are you a dualist? Am I being vague because I correctly anticipated your background assumptions?
Worse still, your formulation is completely senseless in the reductionist form you’ve left it; you deny non-reductionist answers, but you implicitly deny all reductionist answers as well, because they’ve -already- answered your question: No choice happens whatsoever that is “fully determined” by things outside your central nervous system, that denies the very -concept- of reductionism.
Events happen that are fully determined by outside events, for instance if someoen pushes you out of a window. We wouldn’t call them free choices, but so what? All that means is that I have correctly identified
what free choice is about: my definition picks out the set of free choices.
Your question maintains meaning only as rhetoric.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
To say Eliezer hasn’t answered it in that context is to complain that he didn’t preface his arguments with a statement that the brain is the organ which is making these choices.
He hasn’t answered the question of FW because he hasn’t said anything at all about whether. or not brains can make choices that are not entirely determined by outside events.
A dualist would regard their immaterial mind as internal. I was givin a non-dualist asnwer to the question “what is outside” because I thought there weren’t any dualists round here. Are you a dualist? Am I being vague because I correctly anticipated your background assumptions?
Worse still, your formulation is completely senseless in the reductionist form you’ve left it; you deny non-reductionist answers, but you implicitly deny all reductionist answers as well, because they’ve -already- answered your question: No choice happens whatsoever that is “fully determined” by things outside your central nervous system, that denies the very -concept- of reductionism.
Events happen that are fully determined by outside events, for instance if someoen pushes you out of a window. We wouldn’t call them free choices, but so what? All that means is that I have correctly identified
what free choice is about: my definition picks out the set of free choices.
Your question maintains meaning only as rhetoric.
I have no ide what you mean by that.
To say Eliezer hasn’t answered it in that context is to complain that he didn’t preface his arguments with a statement that the brain is the organ which is making these choices.
He hasn’t answered the question of FW because he hasn’t said anything at all about whether. or not brains can make choices that are not entirely determined by outside events.
Oh good grief. You can call anything vague if you set the bar high enough. Am I being significantly more vague than EY was?
ETA:
Woops, looks the people who wite the Skeptic’s Dictionary are mystical trolls too:
“Free will is a concept in traditional philosophy used to refer to the belief that human behavior is not absolutely determined by external causes, but is the result of choices made by an act of will by the agent. ”
Yes. I understood precisely what Eliezer was referring to.
Whereas I have no idea whatsoever what you’re referring to. Elaborating:
You state that the question of free will comes down to: “Whether some organisms have the ability to make choices that aren’t fully determined by outside circumstances.”
When asked to define “outside circumstances,” drilling down, it becomes anything outside the central nervous system.
Which leaves the question in an uncomfortable position whereby it is calling dualism a form of determinism. Indeed, any solution which posits a non-reductionist answer to the question of free will is being called determinism by your definition.
Worse still, your formulation is completely senseless in the reductionist form you’ve left it; you deny non-reductionist answers, but you implicitly deny all reductionist answers as well, because they’ve -already- answered your question: No choice happens whatsoever that is “fully determined” by things outside your central nervous system, that denies the very -concept- of reductionism. Your question maintains meaning only as rhetoric. To say Eliezer hasn’t answered it in that context is to complain that he didn’t preface his arguments with a statement that the brain is the organ which is making these choices.
Which leads me right back to “You have to be trolling.”
A dualist would regard their immaterial mind as internal. I was givin a non-dualist asnwer to the question “what is outside” because I thought there weren’t any dualists round here. Are you a dualist? Am I being vague because I correctly anticipated your background assumptions?
Events happen that are fully determined by outside events, for instance if someoen pushes you out of a window. We wouldn’t call them free choices, but so what? All that means is that I have correctly identified what free choice is about: my definition picks out the set of free choices.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
He hasn’t answered the question of FW because he hasn’t said anything at all about whether. or not brains can make choices that are not entirely determined by outside events.
A dualist would regard their immaterial mind as internal. I was givin a non-dualist asnwer to the question “what is outside” because I thought there weren’t any dualists round here. Are you a dualist? Am I being vague because I correctly anticipated your background assumptions?
Events happen that are fully determined by outside events, for instance if someoen pushes you out of a window. We wouldn’t call them free choices, but so what? All that means is that I have correctly identified what free choice is about: my definition picks out the set of free choices.
I have no ide what you mean by that.
He hasn’t answered the question of FW because he hasn’t said anything at all about whether. or not brains can make choices that are not entirely determined by outside events.