Picture of the author
Topic :
Illusion Doctrin belongs in compatible camp.
Thread Created at Mar 25th 2012, 3:18:32 am | Started by theyogre
Number of Post in this thread: 6
Please Sign In to comment on this Thread
theyogre replied 11 years ago (Nov 16th 2012, 8:18:29 pm)
I like inverting the organization, and moving the whole thing to the Free Will heading. Then we can all agree that there is free will and argue about its definition and constraints. I can't support Libertarianism inasmuch as it claims to have disproven the deterministic universe. I don't think that is a logical claim. (I reject an absolutely deterministic universe on other grounds, but those grounds don't prove free will.)
theyogre replied 11 years ago (Nov 16th 2012, 8:12:31 pm)
The Illusion Doctrine fits in the incompatible camp, too. Possibly better. The conclusion is different--i.e. free will is completely illusion AND there is no free will--but it fits there, too. While there is overlap, I don't think you can just make it a subset. You could have it appear twice, and that might be useful. I like Compatibilism and Incompatibilism OR Free Will Is Real and Free Will Doesn't Exist as the super camps. In the second formulation, I could agree with Compatibilists that free will exists and that some formulations of free will are illusory and contrary to evidence, but not accept Determinism (or Determinism plus random quantum events) as the ultimate word on causation in the universe.
Brent_Allsop replied 11 years ago (Nov 14th 2012, 2:20:57 am)
Moral Theoreticians, I'd like to welcome theyogre as a contributor to this survey topic; it's exciting to see this topic grow. The early lead consensus is still saying compatibleism is the superior moral value, but it's great to see theyogre add significantly to the "it is real" camp. It'll be exciting to see where things go from here. The current structure seems mixed up and confusing to me. I think we could improve things by finally getting to the change originally proposed in this thread, and also making a similar change by moving Richwel's original "is real" camp and merging it with theyogre's new camp with the same name under the new [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/128/6 incompatible supper camp]. This would make a very nice and symmetrical structure that would be easy for everyone to understand, in a way that accurately represents everyone's beliefs. And I would like to support the illusion camp, like Mike is. * Compatible ** Free Will is an Illusion * Incompatible ** Free Will is Real Richwil, if you do the move of your "Free will is real" camp, before theyogre joins (abandoning his version of the camp), your change will go live instantly since you are still the only supporter. That way we won't have to wait for the 1 week review period. Would you be willing to do that, Rich? Otherwise one of us can do it, if we don't hear any objections. Same with you, Mike; if you move your "illusion" camp, before I join, it will take place immediately (and I'd recommend you remove your support from the super compatible camp before this change, as it should be illegal to 'stack' support in parent/child camps, and I can't remember how well the checking for that issue code to prevent such, works.) What are other's thoughts? If nobody gets around to these changes, and if nobody objects, I can just make the changes. Brent Allsop
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Mar 25th 2012, 7:06:12 am)
Hi James, Yes, the fact that that is the way it was done in Chalmer's and other primitive surveys is precisely the problem, and why we created Canonizer.com in the first place. Many experts want to join multiple camps (I would want to do this in this case, like Mike), and want to provide much more specific definitions of what they mean, and so on, when they did or didn't select a particular answer from any limited set. Primitive surveys like that are completely worthless. Everyone just argues over what experts really meant when they did or didn't check any of the check boxes, so you can't use it to convince anyone of anything, or to show any kind of consensus of any value, since anyone can believe anything they want about what any experts meant when they did or didn't check any particular box. I've experienced this with people many times. And, yes, I was hoping that moving this illusion doctrine into the compatible camp would include being more specific about definitions. For example, it must be explicit that the kind of free will already defined in the camp (getting that which is better) is not an illusion. I was hoping to also specify a different kind of free will than that, something like it 'seems' like some unitary "we" has all the power over the choice, and that there is no deterministic or programmed causes and effects, in some kind of indefinable and mysteriously culpable way. I think everyone in the compatible camp would agree with such, if the definitions were concisely specified in the right way. Also, I see evidence of you and most other people of thinking of Canonizer.com like a traditional survey in this and other ways, in other topics. This is completely the wrong way to think about it. Everyone should be working, as much as possible, to have the fewest possible camps. The goal of everyone, should be to have just one, easy for everyone to read, if not a single supper camp, that includes all doctrines agreed on by everyone, then having it all in the 'agreement statement' at the root. Any time there are differences of opinion such that it requires multiple camps, it should be specified exactly what would be required, or why anyone cannot be a part of competing camps, including lack of experimental evidence, or whatever. This to explain to experimentalists, what will be required, to win over everyone else, and so on. Primitive surveys are static, where Canonizer.com is meant to constantly improve, and increase the amount of consensus, especially about any natural sciences, or predictions about such. In many places, people have created way to many lonely camps, containing doctrines that many, if not most of the people in existing camps, would completely agree with. It is far better to assume you can improve an existing camp with more consensus, even if it appears to be significantly different, to be what you want it to be. There is a good chance that someone just started an existing camp, quickly, off the top of their head, and that they really wanted it to be like what you'd also like it to be. Only fork or create a new camp when it finally becomes clear that there is no way to achieve all "the improvements", you'd like to see. When I've talked like this before, you've pointed out that diversity of opinion isn't a bad thing. And I completely agree. In many still theoretical things, diversity of opinion is a good thing. We desperately need to have real motivated people to cover all possible bases, and to know who these people are. But, after this top priority, we should find as much, easy fore everyone to read, consensus, as possible. Brent
jlcarroll replied 12 years ago (Mar 25th 2012, 3:30:54 am)
The two are kept separate in most other philosophical survey's that I have seen so far. For example: http://philpapers.org/surveys/ The "illusion" thread says that there IS no free will. The Compatible camp says that there IS free will, and it is compatible with determinism. Which I would vote for depends on the definition of free will used. If you define free will in the strange way some do, then it doesn't exist, and is an illusion. If you define free will as "autonomy" (which I prefer) then it clearly exists, and is fully compatible with determinism. And it most certainly isn't then an illusion. It is quite real. To me these camps say slightly different things about how free will should be defined. So my choice between "illusion" and "compatible" has to do with my choice of preferred definitions. I recognize that. But the definitional distinction is an important one in my mind.
Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (Mar 25th 2012, 3:18:32 am)
Hi [http://canonizer.com/support_list.asp?nick_name_id=255 Mike], Welcome to the Determinism vs Freedom survey topic, and thanks for creating the new illusion camp. I noticed you are supporting both the compatible and illusion camp. I also agree with both. I bet everyone in the compatible camp would agree with the illusion doctrine. (If anyone in the compatible camp thinks otherwise, please speak up). In other words, would you mind merging these two camps and adding the illusion doctrine into the compatible camp? I'd even agree to (i.e. not object) changing the compatible camp name to "Compatible / Illusion" if you want. Brent Allsop