I need a life—even if that is a life outside of writing for this website. That’s by way of informing you that posting here may be a bit light for about a week. I have a writing assignment, which is to answer Michael Shermer’s response to my own post on this site taking issue with his claim (also in his new book Truth) that we have a form of free will. (My response will appear at Skeptic.) I can do no other than answer a form of compatibilism that gives us free will simply by redefining the folk notion of free will in an un-refutable way so that that we do have free will even if all our behaviors and thoughts derive from and are compatible with the laws of physics. But I digress.
My second task is to go shopping for much-needed Chinese groceries (I ran out of everything during the cold spell), but, most important, to meet my friend origami master and engineer Robert Lang, who’s invited me for splendid dinner at Next. Next is a sister restaurant of Alinea—surely one of America’s most famous restaurants. Next is equally highly rated. Both Next and Alinea are run by the same chef, Grant Achatz (see a Facebook interview with him here). Robert’s in town for an origami convention, and the trip to Next is prompted by his rare appearance in Chicago and the felicitous fact that Robert’s niece happens to be the general manager of Next. I think that’s how we got reservations given that the site says, “On any given night, there can be 10,000+ guests on our waitlist.”
Next is so named because it changes menus to a new theme every few months. This most recent theme is Japan, and I have the menu, which has nine courses that look fabulous (Earlier, Robert provided some origami for the menu.) I’ll save the food experience for a post (with photos) tomorrow or Sunday. There will also be a wine pairing with the many courses, and I’m sure that a great and bibulous time will be had by all.
Stay tuned. As always, I’ll do my best, both at table and at this site. Oh, and don’t forget to set your clocks forward on Saturday night.
Oh man please thoroughly document the Next dinner. Normally those kind of restaurants aren’t my thing but you have me hooked.
Sounds like a worthy excuse for light posting!
OK, the pressure’s really on now!
The debate over “free will” is interesting.
In my opinion, it is trivial compared to the study and phenomenon of “will.” Formally and formerly known as “volition.”
After all, humans must think, choose, and act in order to sustain and make themselves prosperous and happy according to their personally-originated moral/ethical code of values.
It does not matter if the concept “free” is operative, or not.
I don’t agree. If our “wills” are simply the instantiation of the laws of physics according to our genes and our environments, and we cannot make real decisions, then the concept of “free” becomes important. It’s also vitally important in the law, where punishments are meted out under the false assumption that criminals are “free” to have done otherwise. With your definition, they should get punished retributively, because, after all, it was their “wills” (whatever that means) that were behind the crime.
As Sean Caroll has pointed out, there is no room in physics for a nonphysical “will” to affect what we do by interacting with physics.
I should have stipulated that my view does not include supernatural effect; i am not a dualist.
I disagree with your position, but will not engage in an argument here.
Suppose I decide to have tea rather than coffee. That “decision” (“computation” if one prefers) is indeed a result of the state of my physical brain, which itself is a result of the prior state of the system, and back in a causal chain. But it seems weird to say that that is not a “real” decision when it is the only form of decision-making that actually exists (and thus the only form of decision-making that is “real”), and to reserve the term “real” decision-making for decision-making that doesn’t exist and so is not “real”.
(But, as I’ve argued here before, the only real difference between a compatibilist determinist and a non-compatibilist determinist is in the language we decide to use; and we likely agree on the facts of what is happening.)
Well, there is one more difference: compatibilists are desperate too convince people that we really have a form of free will worth wanting (that is not just language), and they rarely if ever talk about the implicatiions of physical determinism because, after all, that could turn people into nihilists! People like me, on the other hand, do not care about convincing people that they have free will, but rather that determinism has important conequences for society. You do not see Dennett or Shermer making that argument. They just say that yes, determinism is true, forget about its consequences, and then move on to their tedious attempt to confect a nondeterministic free will.
Cheers PCC(E)!
🍻
Sounds like a perfect combination of intellectual work, friendship, and great dining. Enjoy!
I looked at the website, and the restaurant is fascinating. It offers ‘experiences,’ rather than mere meals. And this year, they’re offering three different experiences – Japan, Wall Street 1987 (why that year?*), and Fashion. I’m glad you’ll be part of the Japan experience, since I can’t imagine what diners will be served for Wall Street or Fashion. Sauteed stockbrokers? Salads garnished with buttons or shredded silk?
Anyway, I seriously cannot wait for your review.
*After I wrote that, I decided to google, “What happened on Wall Street in 1987,” and this was the answer:
That’s a bit alarming, actually.
Enjoy!
You deserve a break. Enjoy your meal and wine. All the best 🌹
Excellent. You do a great job, you deserve some time for different and fun pursuits.
Our food porn is soon to be served.
Kampai!
D.A.
NYC
Enjoy your dinner and your writing assignment! Yes, we all need a life and you are absolutely entitled to enjoy your life as much as possible. Can’t wait to read about your dinner.
Excellent break! Looks to be an interesting dinner. Glad that you can get together with Robert. I am not smart enough anymore to follow these free will discussions.
With respect to Shermer’s response, this is one of the rare occasions in which I am not at all impressed with his argument. He writes about not being able to “step in the same river twice” but ignores the core question: Given the state of the universe at a particular point in time, could one have made a different choice than one did?
Leaving aside quantum randomness, if you answer yes, than you’re assuming some form of dualism. If you answer no, then you’re aligning with determinism. What other possibilities am I missing?
Nothing. Shermer says: “In fact, billions of interacting neurons is exactly where self-determinism (or volition, or free will) arises.” And this free will — which is not governed by the laws of physics — determines your actions. That’s dualism. You might as well say, “At some point, God breathes a soul into the body.”
But even with some form of dualism and a “soul” you’d run into the same problem.
This “soul” is still an information-processing system that operates according to some laws/rules/regularities and thus any transition from one state to an other must (at least to some degree) depend on prior states. Considering this, I don’t see how any “will” arising from this environment is any freer than in a wholly natural world.
You are correct, Shermer just fudges this.
Enjoy your break!
It may well be true that the problem of free will is insoluble. However, the argument against free will based on determinism makes sense, whereas compatibilism is incoherent. What does it mean that we help “determine the future as it unfolds before us?”
Words mean something. To say that the problem of free will depends “on how one defines the problem itself” rules out any real discussion. I look forward to Jerry’s response.
Please enjoy your second life; as Prof. Ceiling Cat you are, I believe, entitled to a total of nine.