3 ms·

> I think it's decidable, as long as we agree on our definitions and assumptions. I guess, you mean if I accept your definitions, assumptions, and their underl

> I think it's decidable, as long as we agree on our definitions and assumptions. I guess, you mean if I accept your definitions, assumptions, and their underlying premises which will most likely lead us to conclude that your point of view is more reasonable, don’t you? :) That is, yes, once we agreed on every underlying concept scopes and the rules to play with them, chances are far better that we agree on the conclusions. But the first part is actually a big part of what is so difficult with communication, isn’t it?

simonh 6y ago
Oh absolutely, that's exactly my point. Even my example definition has ambiguities. I defined an agent as being a non-random consistent being, but what does consistent mean exactly? What I meant was that I have reasons for my actions. After all, if I can give reasons for my actions, and I'm not deluded, surely my reasons determine my actions? Take that deterministic relationship away in the name of some abstruse philosophical concept of 'free will' being the ability to do otherwise, and why did I perform that action exactly? Of course dualists have a very different conception of a human actor. They deny that we are 'mere' mechanisms and that there must be more to humans and their minds than the merely physical. Whatever that 'more' is. How exactly that gets round the problem I really don't know. Ive never read a convincing account of that. You're right, we need to dig into these assumptions. What is an actor? What is a consistent being? In dualism, what is this dual other thing, that isn't physical and what role does it play in decisions? That is the real question for dualism. Free will or lack of it is merely a consequence.