I feel freeeeeeee. It could be due to not going on podcasts, or maybe it's because of a longstanding effort to embody the following syllogism: Premise 1: If the world is indetermined, free will exists. Premise 2: If the world is determined, free will exists.
I love where you are going with the free will discussion and I would like to be a part of your reading group. I suggest that you add "Determined, Life Without Free Will" by Robert Sapolsky who also wrote "Behave". Dr. Sapolsky is the most brilliant - I will call him a behaviorist - who has the talent to effectively link the elements of human behavior through condition, genetics, neuroscience, biology, physics, and multiple other disciplines. I took a 36 week course from his Stanford teachings which were offered online through YouTube (may still be available). The course made the viewer a part of the classroom. Amazing work!
Then, he comes out with "Determined", a 406 page book plus appendices and notes. The book shocked the majority of his students and followers. It made worldwide news for about a week. The challenges began immediately to this author who is considered to be "One of the best scientist-writers of our time. Even he states, "As I said, even I think its crazy to take seriously all of the implications of there being no free will". But he does not shy away from his objective to prove that free will does not exist.
I disagree with his position but he does make some very convincing arguments
I like the lesswrong version of compatibilism, it's called requiredism. It's different from supercompatibilism, since the argument is that determinism is required for free will - that there's no possibility of free will in an indeterminate universe.
In an indeterminate universe, cause aren't necessarily connected to effect. The argument is that choices are a form of causes, leading to actions (and outcomes) - which are effects.
Now, it's impossible to always predict outcomes, and sometimes akrasia kicks in, but at least actions and outcomes have some relation to our choices, enabling virtue ethics practice.
The idea that free will is incompatible with determinism is rooted in Cartesian Dualism, the remarkably persistent idea of mind-body separation. I operate according to Cartesian assumptions most of the time, but I treat it as a model rather than a truth.
I use models of mind-body unity when exploring meditation, metis practices, mind-altering substances and the vast impact exercise has on my cognitive faculties.
Thinking of mind-body dualism as an inherent property of reality seems highly inconsistent to me. Starting to treat it as a useful perspective removes the notion that determinism (objective/body) is incompatible with free will (subjective/mind).
As per Landry's immanent modal metaphysics - the more universal/objective perspective you take, the more things looks predetermined - and the more local/subjective perspective you take, the more things seem agentic and free-willed.
I like how you point to the pragmatic considerations - how different worldviews affect the ways in which we relate to ourselves. Very in line with my stoic practice - extending cbt with the agent -arena relationship.
Putting your focus on the subjective leads to an abundant sense of agency, while focusing on the objective/universal can lead to a loss of agency/freedom. Locus of control.
I can see how supercompatibilism is nice here, but it seems like an attempt to stop an argument, "shut up and act".
This is good advice for most - but I feel pulled towards the decline of the Cartesian worldview. Preserving the good I'm a non-cartesian world..
Definitely going to check out the Jünger book! Interesting to see the endorsement from Adam Johnson. I loved The Orphan Master’s Son
I love where you are going with the free will discussion and I would like to be a part of your reading group. I suggest that you add "Determined, Life Without Free Will" by Robert Sapolsky who also wrote "Behave". Dr. Sapolsky is the most brilliant - I will call him a behaviorist - who has the talent to effectively link the elements of human behavior through condition, genetics, neuroscience, biology, physics, and multiple other disciplines. I took a 36 week course from his Stanford teachings which were offered online through YouTube (may still be available). The course made the viewer a part of the classroom. Amazing work!
Then, he comes out with "Determined", a 406 page book plus appendices and notes. The book shocked the majority of his students and followers. It made worldwide news for about a week. The challenges began immediately to this author who is considered to be "One of the best scientist-writers of our time. Even he states, "As I said, even I think its crazy to take seriously all of the implications of there being no free will". But he does not shy away from his objective to prove that free will does not exist.
I disagree with his position but he does make some very convincing arguments
Check it out
Dave
Yep, I hyperlinked it in this piece.
I like the lesswrong version of compatibilism, it's called requiredism. It's different from supercompatibilism, since the argument is that determinism is required for free will - that there's no possibility of free will in an indeterminate universe.
In an indeterminate universe, cause aren't necessarily connected to effect. The argument is that choices are a form of causes, leading to actions (and outcomes) - which are effects.
Now, it's impossible to always predict outcomes, and sometimes akrasia kicks in, but at least actions and outcomes have some relation to our choices, enabling virtue ethics practice.
The idea that free will is incompatible with determinism is rooted in Cartesian Dualism, the remarkably persistent idea of mind-body separation. I operate according to Cartesian assumptions most of the time, but I treat it as a model rather than a truth.
I use models of mind-body unity when exploring meditation, metis practices, mind-altering substances and the vast impact exercise has on my cognitive faculties.
Thinking of mind-body dualism as an inherent property of reality seems highly inconsistent to me. Starting to treat it as a useful perspective removes the notion that determinism (objective/body) is incompatible with free will (subjective/mind).
As per Landry's immanent modal metaphysics - the more universal/objective perspective you take, the more things looks predetermined - and the more local/subjective perspective you take, the more things seem agentic and free-willed.
I like how you point to the pragmatic considerations - how different worldviews affect the ways in which we relate to ourselves. Very in line with my stoic practice - extending cbt with the agent -arena relationship.
Putting your focus on the subjective leads to an abundant sense of agency, while focusing on the objective/universal can lead to a loss of agency/freedom. Locus of control.
I can see how supercompatibilism is nice here, but it seems like an attempt to stop an argument, "shut up and act".
This is good advice for most - but I feel pulled towards the decline of the Cartesian worldview. Preserving the good I'm a non-cartesian world..
🤔