3 ms·

I've give it a read. But if it's just rehashing John Locke's prisoner dilemma of perceived choice vs actual choice... I'm talking about objective reality, not

I've give it a read. But if it's just rehashing John Locke's prisoner dilemma of perceived choice vs actual choice... I'm talking about objective reality, not subjective experience. The free will I'm interested in knowing if it exists or not is one we (in theory) could possible eventually measure (a difference in what physical processes say we should do and what we actually do). I'm interested in 'actual' free will, the ability to do what you would otherwise not. Illusionary free wills are boring to discuss - as they are merely redefining our experiences in terms feed-back systems... which obviously exist - but that's not free will, that's our understanding and knowledge about observable systems. The only free will that matters is: can we defy physics, or are we subjects of physics from now until the end of time. Are we free to choose the actions or is physics determining the actions we take. Are we in control of our lives or is the universe and we just lie to ourselves to keep on keeping on? If everything is run by physics - that make you physics' sweet submissive. edit: reading the back cover - the idea's of control vs freedom and elbow room are familiar, and in my opinion entirely misguided from the point I raise above... a feedback-system that allows you to control results is not a good definition of free will. What free will in that case is: is being able to choose anything in response to that feedback system... which has yet to be shown to be the case... and good arguments argue that it is impossible.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
IMO, Dennett's book is a tour de force review of many others' writing about free will combined with what he considers his own contributions to the philosophical ideas around it. It is a relatively easy read, but also profound, and (again, IMO) he dispenses with your "The only free will that matters is: can we defy physics..." quite thoroughly and effectively. Reading the back cover is certainly not an adequate way to assess the contents (not that it ever is, but is certainly is not in this case).
- altruios 2y ago
  I'll put it in my reading list and get to it soon. But these are ideas that I have been looking at for a long time... and previous refutations of 'free will' as 'actually it's just these feed-back systems and we shouldn't think or worry about John Locke's locked door', have been unsatisfactory. Also - having read the short story - 'Where Am I' relies heavily on the author's incredulity to make their arguments... which is unconvincing to me. Not being able to conceive of something is different than the reality of that thing. It's a story about confusing subjective experience with objective reality. The reality of the 'self' is different than your own point of view of what that self is. Your subjective experience is just that: subjective and not objective... He also makes dubious claims in that story like 'the self can move faster than the speed of light'... That's going to need some evidence to claim something that fantastical... It is a fantastic story, fun and fantastical, and asks interesting questions...

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

IMO, Dennett's book is a tour de force review of many others' writing about free will combined with what he considers his own contributions to the philosophical ideas around it. It is a relatively easy read, but also profound, and (again, IMO) he dispenses with your "The only free will that matters is: can we defy physics..." quite thoroughly and effectively. Reading the back cover is certainly not an adequate way to assess the contents (not that it ever is, but is certainly is not in this case).

altruios 2y ago
I'll put it in my reading list and get to it soon. But these are ideas that I have been looking at for a long time... and previous refutations of 'free will' as 'actually it's just these feed-back systems and we shouldn't think or worry about John Locke's locked door', have been unsatisfactory. Also - having read the short story - 'Where Am I' relies heavily on the author's incredulity to make their arguments... which is unconvincing to me. Not being able to conceive of something is different than the reality of that thing. It's a story about confusing subjective experience with objective reality. The reality of the 'self' is different than your own point of view of what that self is. Your subjective experience is just that: subjective and not objective... He also makes dubious claims in that story like 'the self can move faster than the speed of light'... That's going to need some evidence to claim something that fantastical... It is a fantastic story, fun and fantastical, and asks interesting questions...