Timeline for Truth Claims - Free Will - Determinism
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 21, 2020 at 7:07 | answer | added | Joshua Graham | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1081203755989848069 | ||
| Jan 10, 2018 at 11:16 | vote | accept | Nemo | ||
| Jan 5, 2018 at 17:13 | answer | added | Frank Hubeny | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 20, 2017 at 15:34 | comment | added | user3017 | @SwamiVishwananda. It's not a question of whether the act of making the claim is determined but rather whether its content is. If the content of the claim is determined mechanistically to any extent, it fails to reliably convey the truth value of the proposition in question. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 12:56 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | Can't it be deterministic that you are going to make the truth claim? | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 21:55 | comment | added | user3017 | @Conifold. Denying the need for the computer do grasp the concept is to deny that a computer could meaningfully make a truth claim (which, of course, it can't). Denying that humans can grasp truth in that way is to deny than our truth claims are independent from mechanistic determinations, thus rendering the concept of truth meaningless for us. | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | user3017 | @Conifold. A computer could only do so in virtue of a human programmer's ability to grasp objectivity in that way, and the computer would then be merely acting according to its program. The computer could not itself grasp such an ideal in order to perform any self-evaluative pursuit of truth. | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 21:30 | comment | added | Conifold | The reasoning seems to be that only indeterministic ("free") creatures are capable of pursuing truth. Anything that may look like it does not qualify unless it is "truly" free. Say a computer, however sophisticated, that acts "intelligently" and revises its programming based on new input would not count. But then it is unclear if anybody ever makes truth claims in this high-minded sense. So either the premise is impossible to establish or, if we presuppose that such truth claims are indeed made, the argument is circular. | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 19:37 | comment | added | user3017 | Here's my take on it: A claim with respect to truth is either determined by a mechanistic process or by an objective evaluation of the claim with respect with reality. The accuracy of an evaluation requires it to be independent of any determination other than the truth itself. Although this may often be an unrealizable ideal, any approximation to it presupposes the emancipation from any sort of mechanistic process which would interfere with it. An alarm clock can display the time, but it can't evaluate its own performance as a result of a pursuit for objectivity. | |
| Nov 8, 2017 at 18:32 | history | asked | Nemo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |