Around 1:23:00 when addressing the guy's description that free will is somehow implied by indeterminism, with a slight modification it seems even weirder to me. Situation A: Suppose the universe is deterministic, and the reason someone robs a bank is that a particle moved left, and the particle was determined to move left, and the particle moving left was an antecedent cause together with the other background conditions that determined you to rob the bank. Situation B: Now something similar happens. The particle goes left, and the particle moving left was the antecedent cause that together with the other background conditions determined you rob the bank after the point it indeed went left. It's just the case that the particle moving left was a result of true randomness such that nothing, even yourself, had an influence on the particle's behavior. So your actions are equally completely controlled by the actions of that particle in both scenarios. It just so happens in one case that the particle's behavior was also causally determined and in another case it was a result of true randomness. But after the point that the paticle went left, it is was 100% guaranteed what you would do. Sounds like either way you aren't the one who's really in control! You're still like a machine who is determined by the inputs of things other than your will. But this is what his account that indeterminism implied free will implies. For the argument around 2:11:00 . Frequent real world example: Testing positive for Covid-19 one time raises the probability you have Covid and will soon have a fever (there's always the chance of a false positive,) but testing positive for Covid-19 doesn't explain how you got Covid-19 and why you will get a fever. That said, his conversation partner seems rather stubborn on seeing the point of his hypothetical and wants to pretend it only works for a narrow subset of situations. Nope! It's actually going to be ubiquitous.
1:56:29 this is also an empirical claim Danny is making on the folk that needs some citations/references of studies on it. I haven’t looked into the folk psychology a lot but Ik that some studies (like Eddy Nahmias) shows that the folk don’t have libertarian intuitions. This doesn’t help Danny’s point on contrastive explanations, it could be important to point out that people don’t start off or have these leeway type of intuition’s.
The guy also could of mentioned the fact that Danny is just assuming a contrastive explanation as if it’s the only type of explanation. When Danny says X doesn’t have an explanation, he should ask Danny for clarification on by explanation he means contrastive. If that’s what he means then he could just reject that notion of explanation.
I don't think there's been any clear resolution in that research about what nonphilosophers think about free will. I suspect they don't really have much in the way of views one way or another.
@@lanceindependent yeah it’s not clear that people have libertarian intuitions. Im bringing this up because libertarians generally bring up that their views are common sense or intuitive.
@@lanceindependent I also don’t see how Danny’s hurricane and animal case was supposed to help his point as well tbh. If the hypothetical has a epistemic constraint of only knowing about animals and about hurricanes (not being aware of tectonic plates or the weather), this would trivially apply to an explanation that’s also necessitating as well and it wouldn’t be a reductio.
1:26:30 rookie mistake here, even Libertarian free willers like Robert Kane and Kevin Timpe would argue that determinism doesn’t entail force or any type of coercion. Being “forced” or “coerced” would just mean going agains an agents natural disposition or against their will, preventing us from doing what we want. But determinism doesn’t entail any of that, if he thinks you need to do otherwise in order to have free will he needs to demonstrate that.
I’m not a libertarian but libertarians would disagree with Danny and reject that there needs to be contrastive explanations. This guy did pretty good pushing against Danny, a lot of times in free will debates we tend to assume certain positions when we try to do an internal critique for another view.
On the long conversation about explanations, I'm a bit unclear what the guest's view of explanation was. He said that explanation involves raising the probability of some outcome, but before that, he mentioned that he thinks that some events can be explained by their randomness. Maybe I'm missing something about his view, but that confused me
The last problem of evil talk was similar to a typical tjump debate, because arguing for an ideal world as the most moral has a lot of overlap with the problem of evil. "Why does god allow suffering?" "To teach us to overcome adversity." "Why does god allow adversity?" "..." First the theists need about 30-60 minutes to even understand the question which apparently never occurred to them. For the rest of the time they play dumb because they sense they are cornered. To be fair, there are further responses, like the soul-making theodicy. But it has problems such as animal suffering, the question what relevance human/soul virtues have to an after live without such adversities, and the question of human suffering without an opportunity for soul-making. Imo these problems are just inherent contradictions of an Omni god.
After the chocolade cake contemplation in your ((by me) greatly enjoyed) video: "Defending moral antirealism against three common objections", my brother spoke the words: "Is he autistic as well?" Made me laugh, he is funny,...POV...a fact that is sufficient to prove realism. ;0 I replied that at least some of his friends and family might think so. And more broadly, this might also be a judgement your predominantly male viewers receive. ;) But how easy it is to dismiss or categorize my divergent (moral) intuitions as merely a characterization of a disorder.
2:03:15 with Danny’s example of the hurricane. I’m not sure how that would be a counter example. The phenomena/explanadum (multiple waves hurricanes) being there doesn’t mean the explanan has to be some necessary entailment, the explanan could be due to the type of weather like that location is very stormy, that that could raise the probability of a hurricane coming about but wouldn’t need to be some necessary entailment. I’m not sure what not being epistemically aware of something means that an explanation needs to be necessary. Also I’m not sure how this wouldn’t just be trivial as this can also apply to Danny’s view of explanation.
38:59 The issue here is that you’re effectively saying God is not all-powerful. If God had to bring about this exact world to achieve the great good, then God is constrained by that outcome. That means God is limited by necessity, which directly contradicts the idea of being all-powerful.
2:15:40 if he dials down the hypothetical to just that, I’m not sure how this wouldn’t just trivially apply to an explanation that needs to be necessary. Also I’m not sure how it would be bite bullet, if he just puts this much constraint on the hypothetical I would just grant that animals going wild would raise the likelihood of an hurricane.
The Christian around 40:00ish kinda parrots WLC saying that you’d have to be able to show that it’s logically impossible for God to have a reason to allow evil, but what they don’t understand is that whether he has a reason or not, there’s a logical problem either way.
I have a mechanical keyboard. I'm not destroying it! (Though I am now using a new mechanical keyboard since I destroyed that one. In fairness, though, I had that one for many years).
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
1. What does it mean for something to "really matter"? And how do you know that the "ONLY thing that really matters" is someone's metaethical views? 2. You claim that you are not really concerned with what any particular person "BELIEVES" yet you ask if they consider democracy to be beneficial. Wouldn't this be a belief they have? 3. You are mostly not talking about metaethics, you are referring to normative and applied concepts. 4. The one thing you said that implies a metaethical notion is your statement that someone is "objectively immoral" if their views on the issues you offered, in your opinion, do not benefit society in any way. So, your position is that something is "objectively moral" if it benefits society? Why should anyone accept that claim? How would you substantiate that?
14:48 this was so based
Around 1:23:00 when addressing the guy's description that free will is somehow implied by indeterminism, with a slight modification it seems even weirder to me.
Situation A: Suppose the universe is deterministic, and the reason someone robs a bank is that a particle moved left, and the particle was determined to move left, and the particle moving left was an antecedent cause together with the other background conditions that determined you to rob the bank.
Situation B: Now something similar happens. The particle goes left, and the particle moving left was the antecedent cause that together with the other background conditions determined you rob the bank after the point it indeed went left. It's just the case that the particle moving left was a result of true randomness such that nothing, even yourself, had an influence on the particle's behavior.
So your actions are equally completely controlled by the actions of that particle in both scenarios. It just so happens in one case that the particle's behavior was also causally determined and in another case it was a result of true randomness. But after the point that the paticle went left, it is was 100% guaranteed what you would do.
Sounds like either way you aren't the one who's really in control! You're still like a machine who is determined by the inputs of things other than your will. But this is what his account that indeterminism implied free will implies.
For the argument around 2:11:00 . Frequent real world example: Testing positive for Covid-19 one time raises the probability you have Covid and will soon have a fever (there's always the chance of a false positive,) but testing positive for Covid-19 doesn't explain how you got Covid-19 and why you will get a fever. That said, his conversation partner seems rather stubborn on seeing the point of his hypothetical and wants to pretend it only works for a narrow subset of situations. Nope! It's actually going to be ubiquitous.
1:56:29 this is also an empirical claim Danny is making on the folk that needs some citations/references of studies on it. I haven’t looked into the folk psychology a lot but Ik that some studies (like Eddy Nahmias) shows that the folk don’t have libertarian intuitions. This doesn’t help Danny’s point on contrastive explanations, it could be important to point out that people don’t start off or have these leeway type of intuition’s.
The guy also could of mentioned the fact that Danny is just assuming a contrastive explanation as if it’s the only type of explanation. When Danny says X doesn’t have an explanation, he should ask Danny for clarification on by explanation he means contrastive. If that’s what he means then he could just reject that notion of explanation.
I don't think there's been any clear resolution in that research about what nonphilosophers think about free will. I suspect they don't really have much in the way of views one way or another.
@@lanceindependent yeah it’s not clear that people have libertarian intuitions. Im bringing this up because libertarians generally bring up that their views are common sense or intuitive.
@@lanceindependent I also don’t see how Danny’s hurricane and animal case was supposed to help his point as well tbh. If the hypothetical has a epistemic constraint of only knowing about animals and about hurricanes (not being aware of tectonic plates or the weather), this would trivially apply to an explanation that’s also necessitating as well and it wouldn’t be a reductio.
1:26:30 rookie mistake here, even Libertarian free willers like Robert Kane and Kevin Timpe would argue that determinism doesn’t entail force or any type of coercion. Being “forced” or “coerced” would just mean going agains an agents natural disposition or against their will, preventing us from doing what we want. But determinism doesn’t entail any of that, if he thinks you need to do otherwise in order to have free will he needs to demonstrate that.
I’m not a libertarian but libertarians would disagree with Danny and reject that there needs to be contrastive explanations. This guy did pretty good pushing against Danny, a lot of times in free will debates we tend to assume certain positions when we try to do an internal critique for another view.
On the long conversation about explanations, I'm a bit unclear what the guest's view of explanation was. He said that explanation involves raising the probability of some outcome, but before that, he mentioned that he thinks that some events can be explained by their randomness. Maybe I'm missing something about his view, but that confused me
1:53:20 if I was to devils advocates as a libertarian I would push back on this and question why it would destroy my agency.
In the free will literature you can totally have a probabilistic explanation, contemporary libertarians do this a lot.
The last problem of evil talk was similar to a typical tjump debate, because arguing for an ideal world as the most moral has a lot of overlap with the problem of evil.
"Why does god allow suffering?"
"To teach us to overcome adversity."
"Why does god allow adversity?"
"..."
First the theists need about 30-60 minutes to even understand the question which apparently never occurred to them. For the rest of the time they play dumb because they sense they are cornered.
To be fair, there are further responses, like the soul-making theodicy. But it has problems such as animal suffering, the question what relevance human/soul virtues have to an after live without such adversities, and the question of human suffering without an opportunity for soul-making.
Imo these problems are just inherent contradictions of an Omni god.
After the chocolade cake contemplation in your ((by me) greatly enjoyed) video: "Defending moral antirealism against three common objections", my brother spoke the words: "Is he autistic as well?" Made me laugh, he is funny,...POV...a fact that is sufficient to prove realism. ;0
I replied that at least some of his friends and family might think so. And more broadly, this might also be a judgement your predominantly male viewers receive. ;)
But how easy it is to dismiss or categorize my divergent (moral) intuitions as merely a characterization of a disorder.
2:03:15 with Danny’s example of the hurricane. I’m not sure how that would be a counter example. The phenomena/explanadum (multiple waves hurricanes) being there doesn’t mean the explanan has to be some necessary entailment, the explanan could be due to the type of weather like that location is very stormy, that that could raise the probability of a hurricane coming about but wouldn’t need to be some necessary entailment. I’m not sure what not being epistemically aware of something means that an explanation needs to be necessary. Also I’m not sure how this wouldn’t just be trivial as this can also apply to Danny’s view of explanation.
2:57:00 yikes this was nuts
“Why don’t you demonstrate how much you value human life by taking another human life?”
😂
how can i ever catch one of these?
These were recorded months ago. Not sure if I will do more.
38:59 The issue here is that you’re effectively saying God is not all-powerful. If God had to bring about this exact world to achieve the great good, then God is constrained by that outcome. That means God is limited by necessity, which directly contradicts the idea of being all-powerful.
2:15:40 if he dials down the hypothetical to just that, I’m not sure how this wouldn’t just trivially apply to an explanation that needs to be necessary. Also I’m not sure how it would be bite bullet, if he just puts this much constraint on the hypothetical I would just grant that animals going wild would raise the likelihood of an hurricane.
The Christian around 40:00ish kinda parrots WLC saying that you’d have to be able to show that it’s logically impossible for God to have a reason to allow evil, but what they don’t understand is that whether he has a reason or not, there’s a logical problem either way.
lol
Choices made 100% randomly = free will
Okay 🤦♂️
1:29:25 You need to mute yourself when typing (or stop destroying keyboards)
Ah, you are on top of it 2 minutes later. Phew :)
I have a mechanical keyboard. I'm not destroying it! (Though I am now using a new mechanical keyboard since I destroyed that one. In fairness, though, I had that one for many years).
When do you usually do this discussions on tik tok do you announce it somewhere i would like to participate if you do more ...
These were recorded months ago and I haven't done any new ones since then. Not sure if I will.
@@lanceindependentOk thanks anyways
@@guilhermedomingues6360 Sorry about that. I may do a call-in show and you'd be welcome to talk to me if I do over here on RUclips.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
These are not metaethical questions and its pretty weird you think it’s immoral to be gay.
Im not sure if I’m misunderstanding this comment because these are some HOT takes.
You're onto nothing except a projection of clownesss👍
@@PublicClassPhilosopher Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
1. What does it mean for something to "really matter"? And how do you know that the "ONLY thing that really matters" is someone's metaethical views?
2. You claim that you are not really concerned with what any particular person "BELIEVES" yet you ask if they consider democracy to be beneficial. Wouldn't this be a belief they have?
3. You are mostly not talking about metaethics, you are referring to normative and applied concepts.
4. The one thing you said that implies a metaethical notion is your statement that someone is "objectively immoral" if their views on the issues you offered, in your opinion, do not benefit society in any way. So, your position is that something is "objectively moral" if it benefits society? Why should anyone accept that claim? How would you substantiate that?