HamiltonBrae t1_jc78t6u wrote on March 14, 2023 at 3:39 PM

Reply to comment by zms11235 in No empirical experiment can prove or disprove the existence of free will without accounting for the inadvertent biases surrounding both the experiment and the concept of free will. by IAI_Admin

Not necessarily. Accuracy can just mean that the model you construct predicts data accurately... the data you see in the world is what the model tells you to expect. That doesn't necessarily mean the model is true. Nor does it necessarily mean there is a single true model that we can construct.

zms11235 t1_jc7fu1g wrote on March 14, 2023 at 4:24 PM

That’s a truth claim. So what model did you use to construct it?

HamiltonBrae t1_jc7j920 wrote on March 14, 2023 at 4:45 PM

>That’s a truth claim.

Yes, but if you're an anti-realist about truth then I don't think it really matters. I use words like true or false all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean I am using them to mean something in the sense of truth/justification realism.

>So what model did you use to construct it?

what are you talking about exactly?

zms11235 t1_jc8fyur wrote on March 15, 2023 at 1:15 AM

Then what does "truth" even refer to in your worldview?

You're arguing that predictive modeling is the best/only real standard for truth. That's a truth claim. So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling? If not, it's an invalid claim on your own grounds.

HamiltonBrae t1_jc95vmi wrote on March 15, 2023 at 4:28 AM

I dont know exactly what truth means, probably something similar to what many people think; "what is the case" or "what are the facts" but what does this mean? I don't think it can be specified in some way that reflects some objective standard.

"predictive modeling" maybe is a standard for belief (just in the sense of changing beliefs with regard to evidence), but it is not enough for truth.

>So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling?

ha this is almost like asking "did you come up with this belief via thinking"

zms11235 t1_jcclz35 wrote on March 15, 2023 at 9:33 PM

Thinking rarely involves predictive modeling.

Do you believe in the law of non-contradiction?

HamiltonBrae t1_jcdohzh wrote on March 16, 2023 at 2:04 AM

All Ive been talking about is how beliefs are supported by evidence and I think thats how most people think. They change their minds if they feel that their beliefs are no longer supported by the evidence they see.

As for non-contradiction, I don't know. It seems an obvious part of my general thought the overwhelming majority of the time but I do understand there are people with views and who have created logics that are not so strict about that. I am open to logical pluralism and/or nihilism.

zms11235 t1_jche50v wrote on March 16, 2023 at 9:04 PM

So it's okay if we contradict ourselves? We shouldn't strive to have coherent paradigms?

HamiltonBrae t1_jcni16m wrote on March 18, 2023 at 2:53 AM

well according to those logics and views there are some contradictions that are acceptable. im not saying that arbitrary contradictory sentences make sense and i dont even know too much about those views but im open to the idea that logic can be done in different ways.

even so, i dont think the idea of non-contradiction is enough to pick out truth because truth depends on the premises and if these are blurry or underdetermined or context dependent then its not straightforward.