RE: Is Moral Responsibility Compatible With Determinism?
May 29, 2019 at 12:49 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2019 at 12:54 pm by Alan V.)
(May 29, 2019 at 10:20 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Simple property of material objects is an artifact of the laws of physics. It may be a complex emergent artifact of the laws of physics, but nonetheless directly outgrowth of those laws.
This is untrue because evolution depends on chance and large numbers. Evolution is not determined by the laws of physics, only limited by them. Again, determinism is not a law of physics.
(May 29, 2019 at 10:20 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Observing people making choices is nonsense. We interpret what we observe to be the making of choices. But the interpretation is untestable. The mechanism underlying the observed phenomenon is not understood, so the grounds for the interpretation is wholly absent. Furthermore it appears the concept of choices is part of a pre-wired cognitive framework, so our interpretation of what we observe may be a case of translation of an unknown script by assuming its contents must be the same as the only English passage we happen to have on hand.
Observing that human choices reduce to the laws of physics is nonsense. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation based on an argument from analogy. As you admit, appearances are on the side of free will. Interpretation or not, we actually observe ourselves and others make choices. That's why this is still an open issue.