4 ms·

>but you haven't demonstrated why any of it precludes the existence of free will. Except I don't need to. Compatibilists haven't proven the existence of free w

>but you haven't demonstrated why any of it precludes the existence of free will. Except I don't need to. Compatibilists haven't proven the existence of free will, so the null hypothesis still holds true, at least for now. Throughout the comments here you seem to continually rely on the fact that professional philosophers strongly agree with the idea of compatabilism, but from my point of view, it doesn't really matter what philosophers think. It's a matter of what the science says. I don't see any real incompatibilities with moral reasoning between a universe where there is no free will and one where it is compatible with determinism, so saying that compatbilist moral reasoning is predictive of how we generally behave is not an argument for free will.

naasking 8y ago
> I don't see any real incompatibilities with moral reasoning between a universe where there is no free will and one where it is compatible with determinism, so saying that compatbilist moral reasoning is predictive of how we generally behave is not an argument for free will. Prove that "a universe without free will but behaviourally indistinguishable from one that features Compatibilism" is actually a coherent definition/non-empty set. Compatibilism entails that any universe featuring intelligent agents acting on reasons and capable of understanding and learning from their actions will have free will. So basically, you're claiming that a universe that features such intelligent agents is indistinguishable from a universe that has no such intelligent agents. > Except I don't need to. Compatibilists haven't proven the existence of free will, so the null hypothesis still holds true, at least for now. I honestly don't understand what confusion would lead you to make such a statement. Null hypotheses are simply not relevant to this sort of question. What populations are you comparing here exactly? Secondly, Compatibilism describes exactly what humans do because it's compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic worlds (see point above re:universes with Compatibilism). Compatibilist free will clearly exists in our universe virtually by definition, ie. we are clearly intelligent agents acting on reasons and capable of understanding and learning from our choices. > Throughout the comments here you seem to continually rely on the fact that professional philosophers strongly agree with the idea of compatabilism Because most people don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate possibilities that require profound domain knowledge. Would you be similarly derisive if I referenced the medical consensus when wading through a health debate?
- cthalupa 8y ago
  >Prove that "a universe without free will but behaviourally indistinguishable from one that features Compatibilism" is actually a coherent definition/non-empty set. It being at all meaningful for me to do that relies Compatibilism having been proven to be correct. There's no evidence that this is the case. >I honestly don't understand what confusion would lead you to make such a statement. Null hypotheses are simply not relevant to this sort of question. What populations are you comparing here exactly? What? The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. If you are claiming it does, you're the one that needs to prove it. >Because most people don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate possibilities that require profound domain knowledge. Would you be similarly derisive if I referenced the medical consensus when wading through a health debate? Philosophers do not have profound domain knowledge in determining how the universe actually works. Physicists do. The medical consensus question makes no sense because that is a false equivalency.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >What? The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. If you are claiming it does, you're the one that needs to prove it. That's not what the null hypothesis is.
    - cthalupa 8y ago
      It very much is. Please see my response at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610573
  - naasking 8y ago
    > The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. Take a look at the actual definition of null hypothesis and tell me how it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis You're suggesting there's no relationship between what two phenomena when it comes to free will? > The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. No it's not. Science is agnostic on such questions until there's evidence, and that's the proper answer. Making a definitive claim of existence or non-existence both require proof. > It being at all meaningful for me to do that relies Compatibilism having been proven to be correct. Lay out what constitutes proof of such a question, because I frankly think you're very confused either about what Compatibilism actually says, or what the whole free will debate is actually about. > Philosophers do not have profound domain knowledge in determining how the universe actually works. Fortunately, the philosophical question of free will is not about how the universe works.
coldtea 8y ago
>so the null hypothesis still holds true And who said the existence of free-will is the null hypothesis?
- cthalupa 8y ago
  >And who said the existence of free-will is the null hypothesis? How could it not be? You don't assume that literally everything is true without evidence of its existence. Otherwise there is an infinite amount of an infinite variety of things existing in my room right now that I can't observe.

naasking 8y ago

> I don't see any real incompatibilities with moral reasoning between a universe where there is no free will and one where it is compatible with determinism, so saying that compatbilist moral reasoning is predictive of how we generally behave is not an argument for free will. Prove that "a universe without free will but behaviourally indistinguishable from one that features Compatibilism" is actually a coherent definition/non-empty set. Compatibilism entails that any universe featuring intelligent agents acting on reasons and capable of understanding and learning from their actions will have free will. So basically, you're claiming that a universe that features such intelligent agents is indistinguishable from a universe that has no such intelligent agents. > Except I don't need to. Compatibilists haven't proven the existence of free will, so the null hypothesis still holds true, at least for now. I honestly don't understand what confusion would lead you to make such a statement. Null hypotheses are simply not relevant to this sort of question. What populations are you comparing here exactly? Secondly, Compatibilism describes exactly what humans do because it's compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic worlds (see point above re:universes with Compatibilism). Compatibilist free will clearly exists in our universe virtually by definition, ie. we are clearly intelligent agents acting on reasons and capable of understanding and learning from our choices. > Throughout the comments here you seem to continually rely on the fact that professional philosophers strongly agree with the idea of compatabilism Because most people don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate possibilities that require profound domain knowledge. Would you be similarly derisive if I referenced the medical consensus when wading through a health debate?

cthalupa 8y ago
>Prove that "a universe without free will but behaviourally indistinguishable from one that features Compatibilism" is actually a coherent definition/non-empty set. It being at all meaningful for me to do that relies Compatibilism having been proven to be correct. There's no evidence that this is the case. >I honestly don't understand what confusion would lead you to make such a statement. Null hypotheses are simply not relevant to this sort of question. What populations are you comparing here exactly? What? The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. If you are claiming it does, you're the one that needs to prove it. >Because most people don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate possibilities that require profound domain knowledge. Would you be similarly derisive if I referenced the medical consensus when wading through a health debate? Philosophers do not have profound domain knowledge in determining how the universe actually works. Physicists do. The medical consensus question makes no sense because that is a false equivalency.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >What? The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. If you are claiming it does, you're the one that needs to prove it. That's not what the null hypothesis is.
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    It very much is. Please see my response at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610573
- naasking 8y ago
  > The null hypothesis is 100% relevant to this sort of question. Take a look at the actual definition of null hypothesis and tell me how it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis You're suggesting there's no relationship between what two phenomena when it comes to free will? > The scientific null assumption is that something doesn't exist. No it's not. Science is agnostic on such questions until there's evidence, and that's the proper answer. Making a definitive claim of existence or non-existence both require proof. > It being at all meaningful for me to do that relies Compatibilism having been proven to be correct. Lay out what constitutes proof of such a question, because I frankly think you're very confused either about what Compatibilism actually says, or what the whole free will debate is actually about. > Philosophers do not have profound domain knowledge in determining how the universe actually works. Fortunately, the philosophical question of free will is not about how the universe works.

coldtea 8y ago

>so the null hypothesis still holds true And who said the existence of free-will is the null hypothesis?

cthalupa 8y ago
>And who said the existence of free-will is the null hypothesis? How could it not be? You don't assume that literally everything is true without evidence of its existence. Otherwise there is an infinite amount of an infinite variety of things existing in my room right now that I can't observe.