ruby sparks;672866 wrote:
ruby sparks;672856 wrote:Sure, it goes right, because it opts right as its prediction for you.
Ok, but in that case you don't go left. L's D is just an assumed perfect predictor.
What you do may in fact just be unpredictable. It could still be fully determined (and/or random).
No the demon is not. It's assumed that it applies the physical stance such that it knows the state of the universe at T and is able to derive all future states from the physical stance.
Now, where you believe that there is unproblematic reduction and that the level of description is merely a convenience then the demon will be able to predict.
However, where reduction isn't possible, and Banach Tarski is indeed a case like that, then the demon will be blind. The demon doesn't have God like powers, it only knows all the rules of physics and the state of the universe at T from which it is supposed to be able to generate all future states.
Now I completely agree that to the demon and indeed to anyone else, this doesn't make us any more free than randomness does. It just blinds the demon.
That wasn't my point. My point was to use a mathematical example of irreducibility as you find the philosophical ones unpalatable. However, I deliberately used an example based in set theory because this is common to maths and logic.
Now, if taking the intentional stance was also something that followed laws that are not the laws of physics and I rather think it is, then that puts the logical work in exactly the right place, because irrespective of mechanism, Intentional System Theory allows us to predict our own behaviour, in complete ignorance of the processes that make us tick, and then act on those predictions. We act, rationally, that is logically, on our beliefs to bring about our desires. Meanwhile our biology does the same, predictably, based on non conceptualised and entirely predictable physical processes. What we actually do is a fusion of the two. Biology and intentionality. This explains why we have akrasia - our biology pulls in one way, our intentionality in another. You want the sugars and fats in yummy chocolate and yet you also want to conform with the current beauty myth, health advice and so on. Do you really think the word 'want' is being used in the same way here? [/quote]
That all sounds fine.
Other than that I think the intentional stance does follow the laws of physics, because there isn't, as far as we know, anything in the real world that isn't constrained to do that.
[quote=""subsymbolic""]So the self is a bicameral synthesis of the two aspects one nomological, the other normative. Now go back and look at your list of what you want from freewill...[/quote]
But what I want from free will is sort of irrelevant. Maybe I want something I can't have. That would certainly seem to be a common want.