tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post4496858694870170511..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: A handy dandy guide for the skeptic of determinismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37703192392734164192013-12-04T17:26:17.758-05:002013-12-04T17:26:17.758-05:001. The static interpretation of the universe is po...1. The static interpretation of the universe is possible simply because as far as we know all equations of motion obey relativity. But you can still assume a 3-dimensional space and SOLVE those equations to show how it traces out a 4-dimensional history. Given two or more equivalent interpretations, I think the most illuminating view is the one that (ESTD) reconciles them all.<br /><br />2. Determinism is the "of-the-gaps" position, because it requires faith that the future either is pre-arranged as an exact destiny or unfolds from a unified error-free dynamic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74339830936876911982013-01-17T21:47:11.344-05:002013-01-17T21:47:11.344-05:00Non-volitional constraints would not exist if ther...Non-volitional constraints would not exist if there were no volitional determinations to constrain.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76506986402558539312013-01-17T20:00:55.907-05:002013-01-17T20:00:55.907-05:00I think that this sense of determinism is irreleva...I think that this sense of determinism is irrelevant, in the discussion of the plausibility of a "strong" free-will. <br /><br />"Strong" free will posits free will more or less as a "natural phenomenon" of the universe, not quite subject to physics (only "weakly", even though arguably enough to counter the sense of free will anyway), and then it's to be contrasted with "physical determination", which includes even the possibility that physics itself in a way may be indeterministic. As long as the alternative isn't some sort of "animistic physics", a notion that the universe behaves by "will" of particles and/or systems (as opposed of non-volitional constraints of such things), then it does not matter at all.<br /><br />chemolithoautotrophichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095852342098869989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-882598896937357562011-12-13T15:30:40.642-05:002011-12-13T15:30:40.642-05:00I'm referring to Galen -- whose “The Impossibi...I'm referring to Galen -- whose “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” is cited in the SEP entry.<br /><br />"considering that many experts in the same field do not agree"<br /><br />The field should close down because it is a quagmire of mediocrity and intellectual impotence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58049616136035185842011-12-13T08:52:47.264-05:002011-12-13T08:52:47.264-05:00Attlee,
> Strawson is emphatic that the truth ...Attlee,<br /><br />> Strawson is emphatic that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant. ... To characterize Strawson as a compatibilist seems more than a little inane. <<br /><br />That's not at all the impression I got from the SEP entry. Did you even read it?<br /><br />> "His views are far from being universally accepted by philosophers" — so what? <<br /><br />So your confident talk that Strawson has done X, besides apparently not being a correct interpretation of Strawson, ought to be at least qualified, considering that many experts in the same field do not agree.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37919250085462485452011-12-12T17:03:44.512-05:002011-12-12T17:03:44.512-05:00DJD said: "once determinism wipes out moral r...DJD said: "once determinism wipes out moral responsibility, and morality generally....we will still have value"<br /><br />Massimo said: "though I do not agree with some of his specific takes on moral responsibility"<br /><br />"Moral responsibility" can be ruled out using logic alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28891855291030025862011-12-12T16:57:57.527-05:002011-12-12T16:57:57.527-05:00Strawson is emphatic that the truth or falsity of ...Strawson is emphatic that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant. <br /><br />To characterize Strawson as a compatibilist seems more than a little inane. The question is not whether "volition" is compatible with determinism, but rather, whether the random generation of alternative possibilities is compatible with any given set of preferences in any situation. <br /><br />"His views are far from being universally accepted by philosophers" — so what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71689231166799198722011-12-12T11:08:56.173-05:002011-12-12T11:08:56.173-05:00Massimo,
> And that claim is simply wrong, as ...Massimo,<br /><br />> And that claim is simply wrong, as explained in detail by Roskies.<br /><br />From Roskies's paper: "Thus, in order to make judgments about determinism from neuroscientific data, we would need to know far more about the microphysical makeup of neurons than our neurophysiological techniques tell us, as well as to have complete information about the global state of the system impinging upon the neurons from which we are recording."<br /><br />That sounds familiar, somehow...<br /><br />> You keep making the same mistake, confusing a physical process for its outcome. I don't know how to explain this any better, sorry.<br /><br />You're not explaining anything. You're just asserting. Explain how a "number" (or "language", or "laws of logic") are non-physical yet non-mystical and exist but cannot be measured.<br /><br />My contention is that numbers et al are uniquely identified by the physical processes that enable them.<br /><br />I see (via Wikipedia) there is a PhD published that attempts to refute the idea I've been describing, but my French is pretty rusty. I'll try to give it a go anyways: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/lillethesis/CPC.pdfSharkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04175556830248883005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2898405696785180032011-12-12T07:37:03.503-05:002011-12-12T07:37:03.503-05:00Sharkey,
> The claim is that neuroscience show...Sharkey,<br /><br />> The claim is that neuroscience shows a weight of evidence for determinism <<br /><br />And that claim is simply wrong, as explained in detail by Roskies.<br /><br />> Numbers are physical processes in human brains. For instance, there are systems of numbers that are linked to computation, which is the physical process I am referring to. <<br /><br />You keep making the same mistake, confusing a physical process for its outcome. I don't know how to explain this any better, sorry.<br /><br />Attlee,<br /><br />> Insofar as you are concerned with the topics of "free-will" (pointlessly renamed "volition") and "moral responsibility", Strawson has foreclosed the possibility of such conceptual aberrations on purely logical grounds. <<br /><br />First of all, Strawson criticized determinism-based views of moral responsibility, but he is a compatibilist. So his position is not a problem for me (though I do not agree with some of his specific takes on moral responsibility). Second, his views are far from being universally accepted by philosophers. See:<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41914465089081102672011-12-11T21:21:19.156-05:002011-12-11T21:21:19.156-05:00"Great, so it ain't science we are talkin..."Great, so it ain't science we are talking about, excellent, we are making progress. And for the umpteenth time: alternatives have been given , you are simply ignoring them. And no, nobody gets to win by default"<br /><br />Indeed, it ain't. Insofar as you are concerned with the topics of "free-will" (pointlessly renamed "volition") and "moral responsibility", Strawson has foreclosed the possibility of such conceptual aberrations on purely logical grounds. The empirical findings of neuroscience are irrelevant (at least, to the now-belabored question of whether or not volition is free). Show me a two-stage model that escapes Strawson's analysis, and I will concede defeat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89801684355061026792011-12-11T19:28:55.921-05:002011-12-11T19:28:55.921-05:00@Sharkey, Massimo: I love it, y'all are getti...@Sharkey, Massimo: I love it, y'all are getting to root of the problem and Sharkey is correctly steering this to to the 'left' of dualism. Ya got yer physicalists on the right, saying everything is physical in nature. Your dualists to the left saying there is both a non-physical and a physical, and further to the left, the tables turn. Nothing is physical, numbers, tables, emotions, gods, same shit different clothing. <br /><br />Good stuff - keep going!DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64678607742141202482011-12-11T16:42:41.760-05:002011-12-11T16:42:41.760-05:00Massimo,
> Of course neurobiology is connecte...Massimo,<br /><br />> Of course neurobiology is connected to other sciences, but the claims based by individual sciences using their own methodologies and conceptual framework ought to be testable within those sciences, taking everything else as background.<br /><br />The claim is that neuroscience shows a weight of evidence for determinism, up to the background assumed by physics and the limitations of current experiments (due to technological and ethical factors). The sciences are not isolated; they rest upon each other. Your past as a biologist should make this clear: evolution rests upon geology, biology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry, etc.<br /><br /><br />> One more time: no. They are made *possible* by physical processes, but it makes no sense to say that, for instance, numbers are "physical processes," unless you have a concept of physical process that is highly peculiar, in which case you need to defend it.<br /><br />One more time: yes. Numbers are physical processes in human brains. For instance, there are systems of numbers that are linked to computation, which is the physical process I am referring to. Church numerals are a method of describing a "number" as a function, and includes the mechanisms for consistently combining the numerals in ways we would identify with addition, multiplication, etc. I doubt our brains use Church numerals, but a similar physical process occurs when dealing with numbers. And that is all "numbers" are: a useful physical process happening inside human brains that has a correspondence to reality.<br /><br />Where is your evidence that numbers are not a physical process? You're the one postulating a non-mystical but non-physical entity that exists but cannot be measured, how about you defend your position?Sharkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04175556830248883005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76410113553609668302011-12-11T16:08:46.583-05:002011-12-11T16:08:46.583-05:00Sharkey,
> I concede that you were talking abo...Sharkey,<br /><br />> I concede that you were talking about neuroscience in isolation. However, I don't believe neuroscience exists in isolation, so it is a false dichotomy to only talk about "just neurobiology". Neuroscience rests upon the pillar of accepted science; if underlying physics are accepted as deterministic, that will bubble up to neuroscience. <<br /><br />Sorry, but no. Of course neurobiology is connected to other sciences, but the claims based by individual sciences using their own methodologies and conceptual framework ought to be testable within those sciences, taking everything else as background. So the conclusion that neuroscience has nothing whatsoever to say about these matters stands.<br /><br />> Laws of logic, ideas, numbers, language, and all the other "weightless" things you call concepts, are shared physical processes occurring in human brains <<br /><br />One more time: no. They are made *possible* by physical processes, but it makes no sense to say that, for instance, numbers are "physical processes," unless you have a concept of physical process that is highly peculiar, in which case you need to defend it.<br /><br />Attlee,<br /><br />> For the umpteenth time, this is not an empirical question. -- since you advance no intelligible alternative by which any line of reasoning can ensue, there can be no rational justification for your claims. <<br /><br />Great, so it ain't science we are talking about, excellent, we are making progress. And for the umpteenth time: alternatives have been given , you are simply ignoring them. And no, nobody gets to win by default.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89988529769720534092011-12-10T19:20:42.948-05:002011-12-10T19:20:42.948-05:00"what sort of experiment or observation would..."what sort of experiment or observation would demonstrate (or falsify) the idea that the sentences I'm writing now where fixed from the Big Bang? Please, elaborate"<br /><br />For the umpteenth time, this is not an empirical question -- since you advance no intelligible alternative by which any line of reasoning can ensue, there can be no rational justification for your claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40481946974022531642011-12-10T13:23:23.921-05:002011-12-10T13:23:23.921-05:00@Massimo - Yeah, I did not see or hear the panel d...@Massimo - Yeah, I did not see or hear the panel discussion, but was aware that predictions may not cut it. As I understand it, we get around this by deleting all references to predictions, and just ask for evidence of stuff that can be proven to have been present very close to BB such that this stuff requires your sentences to exist yesterday. I would hope you allow some acceptable range of fuzziness that may not return the exact words due to problems inherent in information transmission. Anyway, would add two things. (1) Try proving the sentences in their 'original form' (whatever that means) even exist today. Move on to your toothbrush, your computer and anything else you like, if you feel this is getting too abstract (2) Re <i> ...is not possible now anyway, which makes my point that to claim *now* that the hypothesis in question is scientific is baloney</i> Hitch up your belt a bit, look determinism in the eye and inform it that our 'now' can easily be considered to start just a bit after the BB, and end with the destruction of the universe, so exactly what is the question your existence poses?<br /><br />Re your answer to Sharkey about the ontology of concepts being controversial, come on, man - the ontology allowing your toothbrush to exist is pretty controversial. I honestly do not understand why the same people who do buy the basics of QM they have managed to understand do not see there is a serious problem with objective reality. Luckily, there is nothing in the literature, popular or intellectual (other these Rationality movements? :) ) that suggest such ontologies are not fast fading. <br /><br />But will see what you have to say in your future post on existence today.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46805488221152665222011-12-10T13:16:48.632-05:002011-12-10T13:16:48.632-05:00The anticipatory strategies that make the universe...The anticipatory strategies that make the universe run are (so far mysterious) conceptions that allow for the operation of the functions that shape and evolve (what to some appear now as) material to reach the point at present where they sophisticatedly use strategic concepts to determine their best options for successfully selecting and directing their continuous path of anticipatory reactions to the probabilities they've early on discovered in chance. Or possibly not.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46171284782484632472011-12-10T11:23:25.468-05:002011-12-10T11:23:25.468-05:00Massimo, in order,
I remain agnostic on the quest...Massimo, in order,<br /><br />I remain agnostic on the question up to where the evidence lacks. Currently, the existing evidence points to determinism, but that's only a trend. I'm willing to argue based upon the trend, with the caveat that future study can overturn my position. If that's not a scientific position, then we have different definitions for that, too.<br /><br /><br />I concede that you were talking about neuroscience in isolation. However, I don't believe neuroscience exists in isolation, so it is a false dichotomy to only talk about "just neurobiology". Neuroscience rests upon the pillar of accepted science; if underlying physics are accepted as deterministic, that will bubble up to neuroscience.<br /><br /><br />Finally, you didn't answer my question. Is "lack of weight" your measure of a concept? If so, is a photon a concept? Are virtual particles concepts? Where were these concepts before humans? Where do they go when you sleep?<br /><br />Laws of logic, ideas, numbers, language, and all the other "weightless" things you call concepts, are shared physical processes occurring in human brains; physical processes that have a (useful) correspondence to reality. You refer to "laws of logic". You actually mean, "one set of patterns of symbol manipulation accepted by many members of the human mathematical community (and integrated into computer chips) that map to relationships commonly occurring in our perception of macroscopic reality at velocities much less than <i>c</i>".<br /><br />I would have thought a philosopher would be interested in knowing what words actually mean and how thinking actually occurs...Sharkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04175556830248883005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59721582594065415282011-12-10T09:03:06.596-05:002011-12-10T09:03:06.596-05:00Sharkey,
> I engaged the question. You just do...Sharkey,<br /><br />> I engaged the question. You just don't like the answer. ... Your insistence on "an empirical test of the claim that is being made - now" is petty. <<br /><br />It's not petty, it's science. The claim being made is that science tells us - now - that our exchange was foreordained at the time of the Big Bang. It's not a promissory note, so pay up or maintain a much more reasonable agnosticism, which is what I was suggesting as the most reasonable position in the post.<br /><br />> Roskies is referring to the epistemic limits of neuroscience, in isolation. He (rightly) elides a discussion involving a broader study of nature, where neuroscience is just one part. <<br /><br />She, not he. Of course neuroscience is just one part of science, but my claim was that neuroscience cannot settle the question, for the reasons Roskies elaborates on. The point remains valid, since I wasn't talking about science at large.<br /><br />> What would be the difference between something "that is only made possible via a physical process yet not a physical process", and a "complete" physical process? <<br /><br />Ever heard of concepts? Concepts are not physical objects (try to weigh a number), nor are they physical processes (what sort of processes anyway?). There is nothing mystical here, just the acknowledgment that not everything that exists - in a significant sense of "existing" - is physical. It really shouldn't be controversial, unless one is ideologically wedded to the idea (a concept, not a physical object!) that everything must be made of matter/energy.<br /><br />As you might know, the ontology of concepts, mathematical objects, laws of logic and so forth is still controversial. One thing that is clear, however, is that they are not physical objects.<br /><br />Dave,<br /><br />I don't think that comes even close to the mark. First, several people - including Jesse Prinz at the panel discussion - have made it clear that predictability is an entirely separate issue. We can make fairly accurate predictions even in an indeterministic universe (quantum mechanical theory gets twelve decimal points on their statistical predictions). Second, chaos theory shows that one can have a completely deterministic system and yet predictions become pretty much impossible because of high sensitivity from initial conditions. Third, what you are describing is not possible now anyway, which makes my point that to claim *now* that the hypothesis in question is scientific is baloney. Lastly, I don't even know where to go with multiverse scraping, given how far fetched it is at the moment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13765272636360502602011-12-09T22:45:34.547-05:002011-12-09T22:45:34.547-05:00And no-one so far has predicted to any exactitude ...And no-one so far has predicted to any exactitude an accident.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3474633863185634672011-12-09T22:30:11.975-05:002011-12-09T22:30:11.975-05:00Determinists tend not to worry about their logic. ...Determinists tend not to worry about their logic. If it's conceptually bad, that's only because it was long determined by a physical process to be so.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29914724768851640362011-12-09T21:39:06.059-05:002011-12-09T21:39:06.059-05:00So what sort of experiment or observation would de...<i>So what sort of experiment or observation would demonstrate (or falsify) the idea that the sentences I'm writing now where [sic] fixed from the Big Bang? Please, elaborate.</i><br /><br />An experiment would probably be more useful than observations, whether or not the observations were visions or statements. One way I would go about it is call it proven when multiple entities are regularly able to predict events like what you will write or even better and communicate the predictions to others. The predictions would be held to the same standards as today's predictions about weather, length of projects, or even an election. A better test might take on a more normative flavor, and ask the multiple entities to predict four strange things that will happen to you in the span of say a day or maybe a few days (2 of those events are considered strange by you and you alone, and two of those events are considered strange by you and most people.) <br /><br />Over the years, we have been able to predict more and more events regularly and independently, and with wider scope of event types. Predictive powers increase with technology, right? I think they do. When both Eastern religions and Western 20th c science tells you that time, space, and stuff are human constructs, then whether or not you are a fan of either, it might be a rational idea to heed two dissimilar streams saying the same thing (although to be fair, both of these streams are also sort-of human), fold arms and wait maybe 10 generations, maybe 100 generations, but it should get done, and by that I mean, the technology will exist so that someone should be able to go somewhere and take a picture of the stuff you put to paper way, way later. It might be a fuzzy picture, but if you could get one scraped off the inner wall of one of those holographic multiverses Greene likes and 'prove' this information is no different from any other bit you can scrape off, you should be good after proving that the info comes from your universe. <br /><br />The reason I would switch the test is that what you will write is a bit more predictable than an event that happens to you. I mean, that multiverse wall scraper might not be able to get to the sentences, but will have enough relevant info it could fake it. But name the strange events? An experiment done in the year 2211 by the standards of 50% you and 50% your fellow 2311ers? That would be pretty cool.<br /><br />You might be uncomfortable with a number of things here, including the fuzziness inherent in any prediction. This is not necessarily a time travel thing, it’s more about how predictions and memories of things get increasingly fuzzier with time. You may say, no, I want the exact words as written, this blog, that font, blah blah blah. We will get into issues of image reproduction, and all sorts of communications issues that distort the original goal, but will finally agree on a transmission medium and message. But there’s the falsification, because you are not going to get your words the way you transmitted them. The info retrieval process will introduce errors, any one of which can be claimed as a no-go<br /><br />But predictions should be doable.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87333154428509268352011-12-09T16:54:57.882-05:002011-12-09T16:54:57.882-05:00Massimo,
> I am simply asking for an empirical...Massimo,<br /><br />> I am simply asking for an empirical test of the claim that is being made - now - on behalf of science that this phrase was predestined to be written at the Big Bang. Please engage the question.<br /><br />I engaged the question. You just don't like the answer. There is no current test that can tell if determinism is true. There's just the weight of evidence now, and the expectation of future studies to buttress or weaken. Your insistence on "an empirical test of the claim that is being made - now" is petty.<br /><br />> Seems pretty clear to me [re: Roskies 2010].<br /><br />Roskies is referring to the epistemic limits of neuroscience, in isolation. He (rightly) elides a discussion involving a broader study of nature, where neuroscience is just one part.<br /><br />> Oh my. If you really think so you are missing so much of human experience that I don't know where to begin. Language is made possible by a collection of physical processes, it is not a physical process itself.<br /><br />Oh my, indeed. How do you think numbers and language are made possible by physical processes, yet are not physical processes? What would be the difference between something "that is only made possible via a physical process yet not a physical process", and a "complete" physical process? Where does "physical process" stop, and "number" begin?<br /><br />I think my human experience is pretty full, thank you very much. Perhaps that is what is biasing you, an expectation that a deterministic worldview is somehow experiencing less as a human. <br /><br />Take a step back.Sharkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04175556830248883005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62757665411017390972011-12-09T16:21:34.264-05:002011-12-09T16:21:34.264-05:00Sharkey,
> Are you implying that science is on...Sharkey,<br /><br />> Are you implying that science is only that which can be accomplished within the timespan of a human life? <<br /><br />That's a different discussion. I am simply asking for an empirical test of the claim that is being made - now - on behalf of science that this phrase was predestined to be written at the Big Bang. Please engage the question.<br /><br />> Moreso, I've read Roskie's paper and it seems to more nuanced than "neurobiology will never settle the issue". <<br /><br />From p. 112 of the paper:<br /><br />"Some neuroscientists seem to think that neuroscientific work is able to illuminate the truth or falsity of determinism, by identifying the neural manifestation of indeterminism in randomness, noise, or stochastic behavior of neural systems. This, I believe, is mistaken, for at least two reasons."<br /><br />Seems pretty clear to me.<br /><br />> And your "language as illusion" statement is revealing. Yes, "language" is an illusion; it is only a placeholder term for a collection of physical processes that occur between what we label "people", utilizing "air", "vibrations", "thinking" and "hearing". <<br /><br />Oh my. If you really think so you are missing so much of human experience that I don't know where to begin. Language is made possible by a collection of physical processes, it is not a physical process itself. Just like thinking about numbers is made possible by physical processes, but numbers themselves are not physical objects.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84171095770385950142011-12-09T12:43:34.141-05:002011-12-09T12:43:34.141-05:00Massimo,
Are you implying that science is only th...Massimo,<br /><br />Are you implying that science is only that which can be accomplished within the timespan of a human life? Among my suggestions, which were not empirical studies?<br /><br />I'm willing to acknowledge that certain questions won't be answered in my lifetime, but the lack of timely answer doesn't mean the question cannot be answered scientifically.<br /><br />Moreso, I've read Roskie's paper and it seems to more nuanced than "neurobiology will never settle the issue". For instance, what differentiates "endogenous action" from "exogenous action"? Is it the immediacy of external stimulation? If so, how 'immediate' is an exogenous action, and how 'delayed' is an endogenous action?<br /><br />And your "language as illusion" statement is revealing. Yes, "language" is an illusion; it is only a placeholder term for a collection of physical processes that occur between what we label "people", utilizing "air", "vibrations", "thinking" and "hearing". You seem to mistake the high-level terms we apply to gross properties of phenomena for actual objects. <br /><br />Similarly, "volition" seems to be a high-level term we apply to a complicated set of properties that a human brain performs in our common environment, but my contention is that it's all physics, and mostly-understood physics at that.Sharkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04175556830248883005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17064796626618335022011-12-09T12:40:50.259-05:002011-12-09T12:40:50.259-05:00Living in an ultimately indeterminate world allows...Living in an ultimately indeterminate world allows you to make an argument for determinism while, arguably, living in a determinate world would make such argumentation not only unnecessary but logically impossible.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.com