Freedomain Radio

please grab your WebCams, and set up an account on Oovoo, let's have the free will/determinism debate this Friday, February 13th, 2009.

I am available anytime after 11 AM EST, just right below what time you would like, and let's have an enjoyable exploration!

I'd love to participate, would prefer sometime after 6PM ET

I coincidentally planned on taking that day off from work, so my availability is wider the whole day in my time zone (gmt+1). I am a bit sceptical about how this is going to work, a debate between many people with mostly different views. W'll see how it goes. This is my modest take

                  hard atheism   hard anarchist   hard determinist

Ayn Rand       x                      -                           -

Stef                x                      x                           -

me                 x                       x                           x

 

the free will / determinism debate strikes me as the single most uninteresting thing on fdr.

its fun to listen to but it feels like fluff.. i think stef put it best when he said that even if determinism was true you would still act as if you were free so what difference does it make?

 

I'd have liked to join in on this and play determinist.  I'm going to be at work at that time though.

I would suggest this video series by Randy Helzerman for any determinist (or anyone at all) before you go into the debate.  It is one of the most fasinating things I have ever seen.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ztKlsAXBtE&feature=PlayList&p=2A800505A30B2809&index=0

At  some point in any free will/determinism debate, the free willist will wave his hand in the middle of a conversation to prove his unpredictability, thinking that if A can't predict B's behaviour this proves anything about his powers to change the cause effect flow of reality. Some determined free willist even go as far as to completely ignore you for a while or smash a flower pot and make a growling sound. I call this 'the act' and it is as certain in any free will/determinst debate as a statist saying "but what about the roads?" in a debate about anarchism.

I propose to skip this part this time, or for all determinist to prepare wearing a t-shirt saying "I knew you were going to do that Stef", which we wil expose from under the trench coats we wil wear at the beginning of the debate when 'the act' is performed.

I love this series. The rant he gives in video 11 reminds me of many of the choices I've made, both pre- and post- FDR.

I love the fact that this guy can actually smack down the "empirical" determinists with really solid math and biology. The introduction of evolution as a mechanism for non-deterministic math in a neuron was a stroke of genius.

But, two things:

1) It was absolutely bizarre to hear him lay out an amazingly scientific explanation for free will, but then make a highly impassioned and totally unecessary plea for the value of "faith" right at the end.

2) He completely misses the fact that he didn't even need to do all that work. He only needed to point out to the determinists that by asking him to change their minds, they're accepting the premise that their minds can be changed (i.e., that they can "elect" to believe otherwise).

 

 

Remember119104:

I would suggest this video series by Randy Helzerman for any determinist (or anyone at all) before you go into the debate. 

I would suggest that argumentors for both sides put out a resonable amount of information that should be read by the other side.

That would prevent the discussion to go around basics.

===

4 points i"d like to put into the debate:

- minds follow the laws of physics to the letter. Living entities dont get any special treatment by reality

- human minds are pretty easy hackable. There are many ways to influence a human being, and with improved technology it will become more

- human minds are very error prone. (Biases, illusions, limited perception, many more)

and of course: humans are awesome. despite all their limitations they managed to do alot of asounding stuff.

pcrs:

At  some point in any free will/determinism debate, the free willist will wave his hand in the middle of a conversation to prove his unpredictability, thinking that if A can't predict B's behaviour this proves anything about his powers to change the cause effect flow of reality. Some determined free willist even go as far as to completely ignore you for a while or smash a flower pot and make a growling sound. I call this 'the act' and it is as certain in any free will/determinst debate as a statist saying "but what about the roads?" in a debate about anarchism.

I propose to skip this part this time, or for all determinist to prepare wearing a t-shirt saying "I knew you were going to do that Stef", which we wil expose from under the trench coats we wil wear at the beginning of the debate when 'the act' is performed.

I've never seen that in any FDR determinism debate to my memory, and certainly I have never done that.

I'm interested to hear what the free-willers think about AI, and whether you can artificially create free will. I think this is key to the debate. The idea that there's something unique about the human brain seems quite a mystical theory to me, and i imagine it's one off the things which puts of determinists and compatiblists.

Seems like an interesting idea. Not sure I'll be able to participate this time but good luck to you all anyway. 

GregG:

He only needed to point out to the determinists that by asking him to change their minds, they're accepting the premise that their minds can be changed (i.e., that they can "elect" to believe otherwise).

In what way does that imply that their behaviour is fundamentally unpredictable?

Sorry, I don't understand the question?

Well I don't see how changing one's mind would be incompatible with determinism. Could you please explore that thought a little further?