19 thoughts on “Incompatibilism makes The New Yorker

  1. Hm. The question is what the cartoonist is trying to say by putting the incompatiblist claim onto the sign of a conspiracy nut. This could surely, intentionally or not, be read as poking fun at the claim that the environment controls us in the same sense as a shadowy conspiracy would control politics.

    (Does control matter to anybody, or does the term control even apply, if what ‘controls’ is not another intelligent agent like oneself, perhaps not even a thing?)

    1. Predetermined events appear random because they remain unpredictable to our limited faculties. Since the artist accepts the non-existence of free will, the sign rates at most one half of a Pinocchio.

      1. Contingencies are effectively random for the casual observer.

        The topic is consistent. because in the end it turned out that Pinocchio had no tree will.

    2. Indeed, there was nothing yesterday that was random…no miracles, no events outside physical possibilities, once examined.

      Random is the future, and only a tiny bit of that.

      1. Yeah, I get up every morning, eat, go to work, come home, read WEIT, go to bed. Not a whole lot of randomness going on.

      2. It might not be random, but it is chaotic. Chaotic systems can be entirely deterministic yet completely unpredictable.

  2. If events remain unpredictable, our limited faculties notwithstanding, then they cannot be said to be predeterminable [or predetermined]. That they appear random is because they are unpredictable.

Leave a Reply to Torbjörn Larsson, OM Cancel reply