Metric and mgeduld seem a little disillusioned with Stef's latest discussion on Freewill/Determinism.

mgeduld says: (quote)

I am not worried about it in that sense. I am just sad, because I thought I'd found a site run by someone who doesn't play politics -- someone who spells his views out and, if questioned about them, answers questions directly (nor worrying about "traps" and whatnot), because he's not concerned with anything except the collaborative search for truth. Or, if he absolutely can't or doesn't want to answer, he'd at least say, "I'd rather not answer that."

I actually still do think that Stef is honorable in this way -- based on everything else I've seen, watched and read here. This is just some weird anomaly.

I hope.

(unquote)

Good luck with that ungeduld.

I love what hkw says after Metric's comment :

hkw


Joined on Sat, Apr 18 2009
Posts 433

Re: FDR1273-5 Free Will / Determanism
Reply Quote Contact

I wouldn't worry so much about it. Honestly, I get the impression that Stef takes a certain kind of pleasure in holding "different" views (we probably all do, to some extent), and this is just a manifestation of that. It's not the end of the world -- Stef has some great and important things to say on some topics, but I think we are allowed to figure some things out for ourselves, too.


To which hkw responds:

Whoo boy.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

This was entertaining!



I'm figuring out now why Molyneux wasn't too fond of discussing freewill/determinism. Maybe he should go back to that (?)

The determinism issue at FDR is a really interesting one. If anyone else was making the kinds of statements he's making, about any other topic, he'd be calling them out for "fogging" and such. But for him and for this topic, it is OK to make strange, evasive comments. Nay, he thinks it's the only way to be consistent with his beliefs. I wonder what kind of emotional motivations he has for holding steadfast to his position as he does. For continually strawmanning the concept of determinism even though I have seen him display a perfect understanding of the determinist position. The question of responsibility seems to play a huge part in it (as it does in other issues he seems to struggle with, e.g. forgiveness).

Stefan Molyneux wrote:

Determinism is not true, because in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as "truth." I really can't make it any simpler or clearer than that, and so I bow out.

(Thread link.)

I know he's intelligent enough to rip that statement to shreds. In my opinion, it would be about a million times more interesting and intellectually honest for him to dive into the real issues instead of sticking to talking about rocks and correcting for years and years and years. If I were still a listener, I would be far more interested in hearing about the reasons why he's attached to the idea of free will than more talk about rocks bouncing down hills.

Just like with strong atheism, this is an issue that is never going to be completely proven one way or another, and it seems a bit silly to me to pretend that you've solved it with a couple of snappy lines. I thought the point of philosophy was to think deeply about issues and try to understand the motivations behind other people's beliefs regarding complicated issues. Not to come up with your own supposedly airtight belief system and refuse to engage with anyone who questions it.

And I think you're onto something, Nelle. If you'll allow me to psychologize for a moment, I think that every time he makes one of his wishy-washy arguments against determinism, he reminds himself how flimsy his case for free will really is, and that there are probably some issues there he could explore. I would love to see him one day come out and admit that he was being really evasive about a big issue, and apologize to his listeners for misleading them out of a personal desire to avoid uncomfortable topics.

I'll also freely admit that this is probably a desire I feel more strongly about people in my own life, that I'm transferring onto him. You know, a desire to hear them come out and say: "I was young and uninformed; I'm sorry for leading you to believe with so much certainty things I should have realized I had no idea about. I'm sorry for refusing to reconsider things when you questioned me -- instead putting you down and robbing you of your self-confidence." It's so much easier to be angry with some man in the distance who you think has hurt hundreds or thousands of people, than people close to you who have hurt only you.

dammit, now I'm allowing myself to be sucked in again. anyhoo, Stef just wrote: "If reason and evidence prove universal causation, so be it. If not, it will be rejected"

of course he is being his usual vague self (and thus has several escape routes), but he seems to say here that he doesn't believe that causation is universal and he allows for the possibility that it is (in which case his a priori argument against free will doesn't seem to make sense)

anyway. i think this is more than anybody else has gotten out of him on this subject

Stef might be (though need not be) a Russellian on causation: “The law of causation,… is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” (1992, p. 193) (No offense, Nancy Cartwright]

You know what's funny to me now? Molyneux is taking on the actual theoretical physicist (Metric) and telling him that scientists don't know everything and that history often proves how scientists are wrong:

Quote:

I would generally caution people to avoid extrapolating from inanimate matter to living matter, and particularly to consciousness, which is barely understood at the level of biology, let alone physics. Generally, that's like saying "Everything falls down" before you come in contact with a helium balloon. History is full of examples of science overturning its own prior assumptions -- such as the speed of light being constant, particles being in two places at the same time, and so on... Anyone who says that he understands the physics of consciousness is not making a factual statement. We are probably generations away from anything like that, at best.

Again with the generations away from something! It's such a handy postponement device. And I am surprised that he says the speed of light isn't constant--although I am not up-to-date on science news, that seems like something big that would have made the Yahoo! news site--but I don't know. Metric will probably answer that before he gets chased off.

Anyway, why is this funny? Because just a few days ago there was a thread about how the argument "Science cannot explain X" is used (in their opinion, erroneously) as an argument for things like religion and some supernatural phenomena. And in that (fairly short) thread is this remark:

Quote:

They're projecting their own dogmatism onto science, and assuming that "science" is just a packet full of answers, rather than a methodology.

It's not a thread Molyneux posted in himself, but it seems apropos!

This is a link to that thread.

And then as I was typing this, the original poster of this Determanism thread answers thusly:

Quote:

"Anyone who says that he understands the physics of consciousness is not making a factual statement. We are probably generations away from anything like that, at best." That is a very good and important point. However, I do think there are things we know about consciousness. We know that it is something that happens via brain activity; we know it's not supernatural; we know it obeys physical laws. If we don't know those things, we have some very basic, serious problems. There's a huge difference between saying "We have no idea how X works" and saying, "We have no idea how X works and so let's believe it does Y!" Y being a basically magical thing we don't see anywere else in the universe and that we can't prove X does. That's God in the gaps, isn't it?

Followed by one post later:

Quote:

Why free will specifically? It sounds like it might be an axiomatic belief of yours -- one that you need in order to do moral work, to argue, etc. I have no problem with that, except that you've denied that it's axiomatic. Or maybe you haven't. You've just opted out of discussions about axioms.

This is a very good example of a newbie pressing a point. Also, I like using the word "thusly."

During my time off from reading fdr/limi, I had forgotten how much fun this can be. This is better than soap operas!

Haha!

and then this

Quote:

Anyone who says that he understands the physics of consciousness is not making a factual statement. We are probably generations away from anything like that, at best. Science cannot be used to overturn that which science does not understand, has no explanation for, and cannot predict. And thus we fall back to the philosophical argument, which is that free will cannot be opposed without being assumed.

so first he says that we're (at best) generations away from understanding the physics of consciousness, which means that he is open to the possibility that science can show that it's all determinism, and then he says "science cannot be used to overturn what science cannot understand," which seems utterly irrelevant here as he just admitted the possibility that science may understand the physics of consciousness in the future. So basically what he is really saying here is that 'as long as science cannot explain it, we rely on philosophical argument' (which in itself may be problematic). But then all of a sudden he tries to fall back on an a priori argument to negate the possiblity for determinism per se
(and I doubt he has in mind the doctrine of "fallible apriorism" here)

gee, he's really trying to bluff his way out of this

and he sighs and bows out, ending with his a priori argument that he himself unwittingly undermined in an earlier post

If determinism is true IN EVEN THE SLIGHTEST WAY, then Stef can't really, honestly, hate his family the way he does, because they didn't exactly CHOOSE their actions (the ones he considers himself a victim of, and thus condemns them for) freely. And by extension, neither did the families of his followers. That's what's at stake, his righteous moral judgement and subsequent hatred. Since it defines him, his whole identity and the edifice of FDR he's built upon it, would crumble.

Anti-determinism is absolutely CRUCIAL to FDR.

Ahh, the last-resort debating tactic. Recognize when you're about to get squashed by people who actually know what they're talking about, and GTFO of there, pausing just long enough to make some sideswipes that will hopefully convince those who were unable to follow the debate that you won. When really, nothing could be further from the truth. Is that one on your list yet, Conrad? It's a classic!

On the upside, just like with the Logical Flaws thread, the part of the conversation in which Stefan and the FDR regulars are not involved is actually rather fruitful and interesting. It's amazing where thoughtful conversation -- not rooted in the desperate need for a particular outcome to occur -- will get you.

Finally a place that put together so many of the ideas i was already convinced of, and actually claim to be filled up with truth seekers. And then such an unceremonious fail.
I was honestly surprised and shocked at how bake was kicked out of FDR for asking logic questions. Really surprised.

Thats a description of the mechanisms idea-wise:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ln/resist_the_happy_death_spiral/

A problem happening to many thinkers is to lump all the stuff they made up together instead of taking it apart piece by piece. And then leaving their field of experience. And then getting convinced they are always right. And well then shunning questions that might rattle the building.