/lit/ - Literature

>>16493764
>a fucking popsci audiobook
Go away butts, you're drunk. Also nobody likes you.

>>16462072
-----ATTENTION!-----

Now the argument takes a turn. We look at the reasons why our perception of free will might be doubted and evaluate how effective they are.

Notice an extremely important point here. In this argument we have already achieved something that I've never seena anyone else arguing for free will achieve before, at least not explicitly. We have completely turned the tables of the argument. We made it so that the burden of proof is on the objector of free will to give a valid reason to doubt my perception of free will.
We do not search for mechanisms for free will. We do not look at how to account for free will using our known physical laws. One might try to attempt such a thing (which personally I don't think is likely to yield anything interesting) but the crucial point is the argument does not need it! It works just as well if we have no idea whatsoever about how to account for free will in physical terms or what is the precise mechanism of free will. This already eliminates a VAST majority of objections to free will that I have seen, i.e. all the objections like "You can't prove free will" (I don't need to for the argument to work), "How can free will arise from small particles?" (I have no idea and I don't need to have an idea for the argumen to work). This point cannot be understated and it's the point that confuses most people.

-------------------

Now we take a look at the supposed defeaters for free will.

The first and the most obvious one is determinism.


5. There is no rational reason to prefer determinism over indeterminism.


In the days of enlightenment, physics has had great success with laws which were all deterministic in all interpretations. Classical mechanics can be viewed through the lens of Lagrange, Hamilton or Newton. They're all different interpretations of classical mechanics but all are fully deterministic. Input the state at some time, and get the states at all other times.

>>16458558
>I think the Harris objection/response was a little weak, though. I'm thinking of this
I agree. I think it's one of the weakest parts of my argument. I plan to improve on it later.
>Abolishing the distinction between conscious and unconscious seems shaky
That's not what I'm doing. I recognize the distinction, merely putting to question if this is also a distinction between self and non-self. That is, I ask if it's reasonable to say that everything that I'm unconscious of is outside of me. I don't think it is.
>Also, does this imply that reflexes (flinching at sudden movement etc) fall under free will?
I don't consider them to fall under my free will, because I perceive them to be forced. They are not a choice I make. Rather they are forced unto me.
This distinction between certain actions that I feel are acts of free will and others that are not is more evidence for why free will is real.

BTW I'm going to sleep now. I've stayed up long enough writing it up. Talk to you all tomorrow. Cheers!