tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post866000402313597668..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: The free will dispute continues with...Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44860645668430940722012-04-08T06:39:39.341+10:002012-04-08T06:39:39.341+10:00» Russell:
Really, it's good that we can have ...» Russell:<br /><i>Really, it's good that we can have disagreements about these things and remain friends.</i><br /><br />I’ll say.<br /><br />» <i>Perhaps it’s because the differences are largely matters of semantics ... though they are important ones.</i><br /><br />Well, sadly, there are other topics that are largely semantic in nature (at least superficially) where things don’t work out that well… Different story, though.<br /><br />As far as the free will discussion at Jerry’s place goes, <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/free-will-sam-harris-vs-dan-dennett/#comment-204345" rel="nofollow">I think</a> the problem is that Jerry and Sam are in effect trying to monopolize the meaning of a term in favour of a definition that seems to be in clear opposition to what people actually believe (see the robot example in <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/free-will-sam-harris-vs-dan-dennett/#comment-204345" rel="nofollow">that comment</a>). In any case, they would have to bring some evidence to bear on the question whether their definition (viz. contra-causal free will) is indeed what appreciable numbers of people believe in. It’s an empirical question, after all, and I would expect Jerry and Sam of all people to be aware of the need to back up such a claim—the more so the more obvious they take it to be, actually.<br /><br />And as <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/free-will-sam-harris-vs-dan-dennett/#comment-204147" rel="nofollow">I also say over there</a>, even if lots of people held to a contra-causal free will concept, that alone wouldn’t compel us to give up <i>the term</i> altogether. So, I think it’s more a question of how to think about issues and how to conduct a rational discussion than semantics, narrowly construed.Peter Beattienoreply@blogger.com