Skycomet

Okay, here’s an argument against the possibility of p-zombies. I’m not saying whether or not I accept it. I do wonder about it.

Let’s take two men in parallel worlds. Let’s call him Joe Smith. Joe in World A is a regular human. Joe in World B is a p-zombie.

In World A, Joe is a widower whose beloved wife recently died suddenly from bacterial…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Th degree of randomness encountered appears to be function of knowledge. Sometimes we do know enough about a process to at least assign a probability/curve. If that curve is based only on past observations, the curve is more questionable than when there is an understanding of the mechanics of the process.

It’s very difficult to…[Read more]

Bernie Sander is a Jew. He’s not a weekly synagogue attendee and is not a practicing Jew in any sense, but he is Jewish en0ugh for most rabid antisimites for being the child of a Polish Jew. So, he is a Jew in the way we refer to both practicing and ethnic Jewish people.

He’s a Jew, and here is his view of whether attacking the practices of…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Well, the question remains: are these entanglements and quantum processes set in stone by the past or is there true randomness that excludes any possible omniscience? The believers in God’s gift of “free will” also believe in omnipotence and omniscience so in reality they are the hard determinists. There is only one possi…

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
The believers in God’s gift of “free will” also believe in omnipotence and omniscience so in reality they are the hard determinists. There is only one possible future: God’s plan.

Those believers will have to believe in a weird logic that embraces nonsense because omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible in the sense that a…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Does the prospect of many possible futures fit in with your view of hard determinism?

I believe that effects have causes, which normally are effects themselves of sufficient causes which sometimes (very rarely for sure) are random or the result of chaos. If hard determinism is that everything on the level where…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Does anyone have an argument against an infinite number of possible futures, each one dependent on the present state?

Not sure what you’re getting at, so I’ll just say that the future will probably be just like the past that got us here today: cause and effect, cause and effect, with some of those causes happening randomly…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
I can see the logic in determinism – that we are now a complete product of the past.  However.  What about this?  It has been determined that we have a level of free choice given the many constraints on our existence.

The determinism I talk about only refers to the immediately proximate causes, the sufficient causes, igno…[Read more]

Dennett redefines free will so that it no longer involves a truly free choice among alternatives and can thus be made compatible with the truths of science. So, he accepts determinism, but limits its scope so that it stops at the door of morality.

He makes the reality of free will depend on our need for morality rather than the other way around.…[Read more]

Just a thought: Dennett rescues the notion of free will by diminishing it. I think that most people who value free will are going to find Dennett’s free will less than fully satisfying.

@ Reg

Prof. Dennett confuses determinists with predeterminists. He argues, in so many words, “If determinism is true, then the future is entirely laid out ahead of time until the end of time.” That’s a pastiche of several things he says in the video you gave us, as well as in other videos.

I’m sure there are determinists who hold that view, but…[Read more]

It might be worth giving Dennett another chance to make his case on ‘Determinism’ (and the ‘free will’ that matters).

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
For the ones involving deliberation even the deliberation just happens in a sense. If I say “Choices just happen and I don’t know how the brain does it,” that doesn’t really scream “free will” to me.

Well, just because we can’t explain something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Yes, whether or not we have free…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
As far as most people go, they all have the same level of free will, whether or not that free will is illusory.  They can choose to keep the law, or choose to break it.  That’s enough free will to convict a typical person who has broken the law.

Illusory free will is the absence of free will, isn’t it?

That someone can cho…[Read more]

@ Reg

That was a very interesting discussion for someone like me who’s interested in philosophical issues and who thinks that, contrary to those who argue “Philosophy is dead,” philosophy is important and as society and technology advance, is becoming even more so.

My last paragraph in the original post, which reads, And here’s a really d…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Ya know the scapegoating of Jews, the historical distortions and lies, the attribution of western sins projected onto Jews is antisemitism. The denial of their right to a state is antisemitism. The insane hyperfocus and double/higher standards is antisemitsm. But equally or more important the hyperfocus by the far left on Israel…

[Read more]

What’s it like to be a p-zombie?