Timeline for 'Free will' as a 'confused concept': Is Ned Block correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3 at 16:03 | answer | added | NotThatGuy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 2 at 20:25 | answer | added | user369070 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 2 at 19:03 | answer | added | JimmyJames | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 2 at 9:50 | answer | added | TKoL | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 1 at 23:57 | answer | added | Hudjefa | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jan 1 at 21:38 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 1 at 20:46 | answer | added | SystemTheory | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 1 at 19:27 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 1 at 18:38 | comment | added | xerx593 | Block's argumentation has "flavors" due to the "mystery" of det./n-det.,,,still you/Block are right: "free will is a (very) confused concept." (as a (biological!?)rule of thumb: when free will is to eat more/digest more/multiply more/rest more/live more/die more it is rather non-free-will! ..so accordingly free will (for a biological individual but also for social/evolutionary group) is: to eat less/digest less/multiply less/rest less/live less/die less! ;) the mystery behind "det./n-det." is the same mystery as behind "potaytoh-potahto" ... (as long as you dont know "all facts") | |
| Jan 1 at 17:41 | answer | added | Pertti Ruismäki | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 1 at 15:00 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @scottrowe. We can describe the 'different level of organisation' between Word and the transistors. Describing it for free will is beyond us for now....although some libertarians might agree with your analogy. | |
| Jan 1 at 14:18 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | You could say that free will is on a different level of organization from simple determinism. Like how your thesis written in Microsoft Word on a computer is at a different level from transistors turning on and off, and no amount of describing transistors will ever predict your thesis. Too sensible, people will never accept it... | |
| Jan 1 at 12:43 | comment | added | user70707 | its intutive appeal may well lie in a conflation to the definition of 'chance': "the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause." i agree that free will does not exist at the level of chance physical events, but ik nothing about the topic and have not read what you cite... | |
| Jan 1 at 11:49 | comment | added | user70707 | if the world is composed only of determined and chance events then there may well be no free will, but that's question begging as it is that they exhaust things, reductionism aside | |
| Jan 1 at 11:47 | comment | added | Conifold | Judging by the quote, Block makes an elementary mistake, but it is hard to be sure without context. Indeterminism is just the negation of determinism, and, as such, is not equivalent to chance. However, the problem is not that (libertarian) free will cannot be "squeezed" into determinism or indeterminism, it trivially falls under indeterminism, but that determinism/chance is a false dichotomy. Perhaps, he means that our not being able to produce any clear conceptions compatible with physics aside from those two and combinations thereof despite many efforts, makes his conclusion plausible. | |
| Jan 1 at 11:34 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 1 at 11:25 | history | asked | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |