Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EleanorStroustrup t1_j8qxowm wrote

Reply to comment by Devinology in “The principle of protecting our own thinking from eavesdroppers is fundamental to autonomy.” – Daniel Dennett debates the sort of free will it’s worth wanting with neuroscientists Patrick Haggard and philosopher Helen Steward by IAI_Admin

> on the one hand we have the science demonstrating for us that everything that happens is determined in some sense, and on the other we have human intuition, experience, ethics, and practical reason telling us (or necessitating) that we exercise agency of some kind. The challenge is in reconciling the two

But they can’t be reconciled. If reason tells us it’s necessary for us to exercise agency, that’s too bad, because we can’t. We are going to act like we can, but we can’t.

The existence of the field of ethics is one thing among many that both arose out of the past physical state of the universe, and will influence its future state, but not from any external cause - it’s all in the closed system. We’re pulled towards the earth because there is gravity, and someone might “decide” something in a certain way because they are aware of some ethical principle, and that contributed to what the particles in their brain do in the current moment. That doesn’t mean the principal itself has intrinsic value.

0

Devinology t1_j8qyptd wrote

If they can't be reconciled then there is no point to anything and no such thing as responsibility. Why wouldn't you just kill someone for $5? You aren't responsible anyway.

But you know that you are. How do you reconcile this? You realize that free will is not constituted by going against laws of nature.

1

EleanorStroustrup t1_j8qzakg wrote

> Why wouldn’t you just kill someone for $5? You aren’t responsible anyway.

Lacking moral responsibility is not the same thing as believing or acting like you lack moral responsibility, nor is it the same thing as lack of practical consequences for things that happen.

> But you know that you are. How do you reconcile this?

I know that I feel like I am responsible for my actions and that we have to act for all intents and purposes like we are. That doesn’t mean that we are.

> You realize that free will is not constituted by going against laws of nature.

Why does feeling like you have free will require you to conclude that there is free will?

1

Devinology t1_j8r06bs wrote

Because that's all that free will IS. I don't think we're going to get anywhere further here, it's too large of a conversion.

I'm not saying that because I feel like a can genuinely alter the state of affairs of the world that I must therefore have it. I'm saying that I can't do that, and I know I can't do that, but I experiemce free will, so I can conclude that free will isn't altering the state of affairs of the world. It's not that kind of phenomenon.

You're morally responsible because you have agency, not because you can genuinely choose what happens.

1

EleanorStroustrup t1_j8r37h8 wrote

> I’m not saying that because I feel like a can genuinely alter the state of affairs of the world that I must therefore have it. I’m saying that I can’t do that, and I know I can’t do that, but I experiemce free will, so I can conclude that free will isn’t altering the state of affairs of the world.

It seems like you’re still not really addressing my central point. You don’t experience free will, so you cannot conclude that.

A stereotypical schizophrenia patient doesn’t actually experience voices. They experience the illusion of voices.

“I have a certain perception, and I have named that concept, and therefore the thing I just named is actually equivalent to a different thing with that name” is not logically valid.

> You’re morally responsible because you have agency, not because you can genuinely choose what happens.

We are caused to act for all intents and purposes like people are morally responsible for things, because we have to, practically. But that doesn’t imply actual responsibility.

1