bortlip t1_jdsc0re wrote
Reply to comment by rejectednocomments in A Proof of Free Will by philosopher Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder) by thenousman
Enlighten us, please.
rejectednocomments t1_jdsjfjf wrote
If you actually read what he says, Huemer is offering a refutation of hard determinism, by which he means the view that no one could act otherwise. He evenly explicitly says he is not objecting to compatibilism (since compatibilists don’t deny the ability to do otherwise, but simply analyze it in a way consistent with determinism).
So, read the argument with that conclusion in mind.
flipflipshift t1_jdti5xv wrote
I tried this to see if the argument follows. I pretend I have a completely deterministically simulated universe with one entity (person A) speaking in this way to another (person B).
Person A says "We should only believe the truth". I say to myself "it makes sense that this person's synapses make him say this; societies that flourished were ones based on trust and trust comes from a history of honesty with each other and oneself".
Person A then says "Whatever you (person B) should do is something you can do". Person A's synapses may have been motivated to say such a thing because societies that flourished held people responsible for what they did. They did not overthink one's ability to actually dictate their future which I know to be false. This statement by person A is therefore false.
bortlip t1_jdsk31s wrote
>If you actually read what he says
Nevermind. I don't care what you think.
turdspeed t1_jdso3su wrote
What argument ?
ImFromSomewhereElse t1_jdsc94n wrote
Seconded. If all of us are missing the point, perhaps you can rephrase it the way you understand it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments