If you’re still thinking about turning this sequence into a book (or have you already done so? This business of reading and responding years after the fact is a bit disorienting sometimes.) I would strongly recommend adding an earlier discussion that makes a weaker version of the same argument from cognition.
My experience is that exploring the machinery of cognition tends to weaken the intuition of unbounded free will, and tends to be more accessible than the machinery of quantum mechanics. That is, it’s easier to demonstrate to people that there are cases where we make what feel like unconstrained choices that are nevertheless constrained.
And once you’ve given up the naive idea of free will, once you’ve accepted that the experience of choosing among options is something we construct rather than something that is “just there,” it’s easier to accept the idea of a timeless block universe.
You have to empty the cup before you can fill it.
Of course, you do touch on this in your discussions of cognitive biases—what is a bias, after all, if not a constraint on the thoughts that I’m “free” to think? -- but more explicitly connecting the dots might be valuable.
Similarly, I find it’s helpful when exploring determinism to let go of the emotional attachment to making things go a certain way. Otherwise, you end up thinking things like “Well, if the future is determined anyway, then I might as well , because if I do then it’s what I was going to do, right?” and so forth.
If you’re still thinking about turning this sequence into a book (or have you already done so? This business of reading and responding years after the fact is a bit disorienting sometimes.)
I believe the first draft is nearly complete, and he’s approaching the seeking-a-publisher stage, followed by the writing-a-second-and-third-draft stage
If you’re still thinking about turning this sequence into a book (or have you already done so? This business of reading and responding years after the fact is a bit disorienting sometimes.) I would strongly recommend adding an earlier discussion that makes a weaker version of the same argument from cognition.
My experience is that exploring the machinery of cognition tends to weaken the intuition of unbounded free will, and tends to be more accessible than the machinery of quantum mechanics. That is, it’s easier to demonstrate to people that there are cases where we make what feel like unconstrained choices that are nevertheless constrained.
And once you’ve given up the naive idea of free will, once you’ve accepted that the experience of choosing among options is something we construct rather than something that is “just there,” it’s easier to accept the idea of a timeless block universe.
You have to empty the cup before you can fill it.
Of course, you do touch on this in your discussions of cognitive biases—what is a bias, after all, if not a constraint on the thoughts that I’m “free” to think? -- but more explicitly connecting the dots might be valuable.
Similarly, I find it’s helpful when exploring determinism to let go of the emotional attachment to making things go a certain way. Otherwise, you end up thinking things like “Well, if the future is determined anyway, then I might as well , because if I do then it’s what I was going to do, right?” and so forth.
I believe the first draft is nearly complete, and he’s approaching the seeking-a-publisher stage, followed by the writing-a-second-and-third-draft stage