Again context matters, and it might help if you reread the context of what you are replying to. I gave the homeopaths example as one of a list where expertise is not in general reliable. That can occur for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t say that philosophers are frauds in any way shape or form. For that matter, I’m not even sure I’d label homeopaths frauds to start with- many of them are quite sincere.
Again, that needs some epistemology. If experts disagree, then some if them are wrong. That is the only straightforward case. Otherwise, if you think someone somewhere is wrong about something specific, you need to say why...and how come you know better.
Sure- I and others have outlined reasons for that. That you don’t find them persuasive is something that therefore requires further discussion.
options that occur earlier on are given more weight.
I can’t see how that is any kind of objection to two stage theories. They state that some sort of option generation occurs, that some sort of weighting occurs , and that some sort of selection occurs. These are black boxes, and you are free to fill in the details to match empirical data.
The problem is twofold: if simple physical and temporal factors have a direct impact, and the process of deciding is wound together with the option generation, then it is hard to see there being a distinct two stages. Second, if the more we study a process the more we find it is predictable, that’s evidence in the direction that the process really is predictable.
In this situation, we have no evidence (either psychological, neurological or otherwise) suggesting that there’s anywhere that there are two stages occurring. And yes, you can keep changing what you mean by the two stages so that anything whatsoever fits into your “black box” but it should be clear what that isn’t helpful.
You have been seeking to argue that the FW is a settled question, the answer to which is that it doesn’t exist. The fact that Kane has his critics does not i.mply that, since everyone has their critics, and since his critics have their critics. FW is a live issue with arguments on both sides.
Sure, the mere existence of critics doesn’t imply that. The fact that critics have completely smacked down Kane’s approach is what is relevant here.
theology
You know as well as I do that the theological bandwagon will keep rolling for the foreseeable future because there is a sociological demand for it, because there are are individuals and organisations willing to sponsor it.
The word “theology” doesn’t appear in my post anywhere. It would be helpful for you to clarify what you are talking about, and also be careful about putting things in quotes when they aren’t quotes. Are you talking about the paragraph discussing arguments for the existence of God? If so, then yes, that’s exactly a major reason why that is still the case- and I’d argue that many of the problems with philosophy as practiced today are similar- there are incentives (in this case, deep-seated human intuitions about free will) that keep the subject going, developing more sophisticated versions of the claims, rather than moving on.
The point of the simplistic two stage model is to avoid the false dichotomy of the”it’s either all random or all determined” . Two stage models have the indetrmimism needed for free choice occurring at one place and time, and determinism need to carry out actions occurring another.
That doesn’t get lost in more sophisticated versions.
A simplistic computer programme might perform calculation A, and then serially perform calculation B once A has finished.
You could rewrite that so that A and B run in parallel, with A pipelining it’s results to B.
But A and B would still be performing conceptually distinct roles..and that is the point.
...the more it’s predictable..
You can’t predict that an earlier option will definitely occur, and you also can’t predict which option occurs earliest. At best you have statistical predictability..
Critics have smacked down Kane...
Subjective opinion.
theology/incentives
You’re fee of incentives? It’s not the case that you hate FW because you’re an atheist and it seems theistic?
The point of the simplistic two stage model is to avoid the false dichotomy of the”it’s either all random or all determined” . Two stage models have the indetrmimism needed for free choice occurring at one place and time, and determinism need to carry out actions occurring another.
Yes, that’s the attempted goal. How is it relevant in this context?
You can’t predict that an earlier option will definitely occur, and you also can’t predict which option occurs earliest. At best you have statistical predictability..
So? The point that we are getting more and more ability to predict as we get more data is exactly what determinism suggests.
theology/incentives
You’re fee of incentives? It’s not the case that you hate FW because you’re an atheist and it seems theistic?
It would help a lot if you would not add things in quotes that don’t appear- it is both annoying and it makes it difficult to figure out exactly what you are responding. It is even less helpful when I just asked you clarify last time whether you are talking about a specific paragraph. I tentatively presume from context that you are responding to my final paragraph. I’ll respond under that interpretation: Sure, incentives are always a problem, and we all need to be careful about them. In my own case, I don’t think that I “hate FW” so it seems problematic to ask if “I hate FW because of X” for any X. If you mean something like “Do you discount free will because you’re an atheist and it seems theistic?” then I have to answer that I suspect that isn’t the case. Belief in free will doesn’t strike me as connected to theism much at all except in so far as they are both motivated by human intuitions, which applies to a lot of things (some of which are correct, others not so). I cannot rule out some other motivation at work, but I suspect that that’s not the case here. But it also isn’t that relevant: if I’m easily lead astray by my own motivations (and likely I am in many ways), that doesn’t make it less of a problem that that’s happening for a lot of professional philosophers.
Who’s incentivising Kane and co?
The question to a large extent here is not “who” but “what”- that is one thing they both share a similarity, a need to fill in deep seated intuitions. In this case, the near universal intuition that we have choices about our actions. I strongly share that intuition, and I sometimes think to myself “But I made that choice” even as I’m intellectually sure that the free will argument is extremely weak.
Again context matters, and it might help if you reread the context of what you are replying to. I gave the homeopaths example as one of a list where expertise is not in general reliable. That can occur for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t say that philosophers are frauds in any way shape or form. For that matter, I’m not even sure I’d label homeopaths frauds to start with- many of them are quite sincere.
Sure- I and others have outlined reasons for that. That you don’t find them persuasive is something that therefore requires further discussion.
The problem is twofold: if simple physical and temporal factors have a direct impact, and the process of deciding is wound together with the option generation, then it is hard to see there being a distinct two stages. Second, if the more we study a process the more we find it is predictable, that’s evidence in the direction that the process really is predictable.
In this situation, we have no evidence (either psychological, neurological or otherwise) suggesting that there’s anywhere that there are two stages occurring. And yes, you can keep changing what you mean by the two stages so that anything whatsoever fits into your “black box” but it should be clear what that isn’t helpful.
Sure, the mere existence of critics doesn’t imply that. The fact that critics have completely smacked down Kane’s approach is what is relevant here.
The word “theology” doesn’t appear in my post anywhere. It would be helpful for you to clarify what you are talking about, and also be careful about putting things in quotes when they aren’t quotes. Are you talking about the paragraph discussing arguments for the existence of God? If so, then yes, that’s exactly a major reason why that is still the case- and I’d argue that many of the problems with philosophy as practiced today are similar- there are incentives (in this case, deep-seated human intuitions about free will) that keep the subject going, developing more sophisticated versions of the claims, rather than moving on.
The point of the simplistic two stage model is to avoid the false dichotomy of the”it’s either all random or all determined” . Two stage models have the indetrmimism needed for free choice occurring at one place and time, and determinism need to carry out actions occurring another.
That doesn’t get lost in more sophisticated versions.
A simplistic computer programme might perform calculation A, and then serially perform calculation B once A has finished.
You could rewrite that so that A and B run in parallel, with A pipelining it’s results to B.
But A and B would still be performing conceptually distinct roles..and that is the point.
You can’t predict that an earlier option will definitely occur, and you also can’t predict which option occurs earliest. At best you have statistical predictability..
Subjective opinion.
You’re fee of incentives? It’s not the case that you hate FW because you’re an atheist and it seems theistic?
Who’s incentivising Kane and co?
Yes, that’s the attempted goal. How is it relevant in this context?
So? The point that we are getting more and more ability to predict as we get more data is exactly what determinism suggests.
It would help a lot if you would not add things in quotes that don’t appear- it is both annoying and it makes it difficult to figure out exactly what you are responding. It is even less helpful when I just asked you clarify last time whether you are talking about a specific paragraph. I tentatively presume from context that you are responding to my final paragraph. I’ll respond under that interpretation: Sure, incentives are always a problem, and we all need to be careful about them. In my own case, I don’t think that I “hate FW” so it seems problematic to ask if “I hate FW because of X” for any X. If you mean something like “Do you discount free will because you’re an atheist and it seems theistic?” then I have to answer that I suspect that isn’t the case. Belief in free will doesn’t strike me as connected to theism much at all except in so far as they are both motivated by human intuitions, which applies to a lot of things (some of which are correct, others not so). I cannot rule out some other motivation at work, but I suspect that that’s not the case here. But it also isn’t that relevant: if I’m easily lead astray by my own motivations (and likely I am in many ways), that doesn’t make it less of a problem that that’s happening for a lot of professional philosophers.
The question to a large extent here is not “who” but “what”- that is one thing they both share a similarity, a need to fill in deep seated intuitions. In this case, the near universal intuition that we have choices about our actions. I strongly share that intuition, and I sometimes think to myself “But I made that choice” even as I’m intellectually sure that the free will argument is extremely weak.
If what you are predicting X from is indeterministic, X is indeterministic. Cf the thermal noise result.
It is matter of fact that chairs in theology are funded the way they are. It’s your opinion that people have the motivations you think.
In any case, if you can explain common intuitions, why reject them?