Let’s nip this line of thought in the bud right here. Yes, I think that all human actions are predetermined and not under some kind of dualistic control. Nevertheless we all, including incompatibilists like myself, act as if we have choices, for our feeling of agency is strong. So please don’t say that I shouldn’t make “should” statements because of that. I will act as though I have free choices even though I don’t. And of course you have to admit that what I say, determined or not, can influence the future actions of others.
And yes, Templeton had no choice, but I can still call him out, and maybe that will affect other peoples’ behavior.
Or would you prefer that I give up writing this website since I can’t express any opinions, criticize or praise others, and so on since everything (including my opinions) are all determined by the laws of physics.
Your line of thinking means that all determinists, even those who are compatibilists, have no right to express opinions about anyone’s behavior.Jerry, if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices. Acting is a volitional process of the very type you are denying. In your model there is no acting, there is only a differential equation of the universe cranking out its next time step.
He is so close! He admits that in his world-view everything is predetermined, but in the next breath he obfuscates that unsavory factoid by claiming that he can "act" as though he has free choices. He can freely choose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose. And Jerry can't, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined.
It don't work that way.
Jerry, you always amuse.
Tip O’ the hat: Shadow to Light.
I love how Christians always come up with the same simple-minded responses in any discussion on whether free will exists or not. What you write here is really the analog to the "but if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!" response in a discussion on evolution.
ReplyDeleteYes, spot on. That is exactly what it is. Very perceptive. Pointing out that Coyne says everything is predetermined any yet he acts as if it isn't and he affects the behavior of others--even though their behavior is predetermined... why yes, that is certainly analogous to asking "why are there still monkeys?" Absolutely. The same. You analogy is indisputably perfect. Best. Analogy. Ever.
DeleteI wouldn´t call it the best analogy ever, but it is certainly adequate. The Creationists who use the "why are there still monkeys?!" response think they are being really clever and original, although they are doing but demonstrating their complete and utter ignorance about the subject that is discussed, and they do it in the most unoriginal way imaginable.
DeleteWhich is completely analogous to what you are doing here.
Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. Evolution is established as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of species. To ask "why are there still monkeys" is to display one's complete ignorance of a scientific theory.
DeleteCoyne's "all is predetermined, but I can act, and I can affect behavior in others" is not even remotely a scientific theory. It is woo, total woo--masquerading (not very effectively) as rational thought. To attack it is not to attack a scientific theory out of ignorance, but rather to mock nonsense. Your analogy is a FAIL.
"To attack it is not to attack a scientific theory out of ignorance, but rather to mock nonsense."
Delete=> Indeed not an attack on a scientific theory, what you are doing instead is attacking a strawman of a philosophical position that you are completely ignorant about, using the most unoriginal attack imaginable.
is attacking a strawman of a philosophical position that you are completely ignorant about
ReplyDeleteI am not attacking o strawman, I am mocking Coyne's exact words. And I am not "completely ignorant" of philosophical arguments for free-will--I simply consider them woo. I have read, as one example, Dennett and his "consideration-generator." Unscientific gobbledy-goop. It is indistinguishable (as is Coyne's argument) from the religious position of offering a supernatural explanation for free will. Both are equally un-scientific. You can not test what Coyne assterted any more than you can test that "god gave us free will." The difference is, we don't pretend otherwise. We are more honest.
Your insistence on this analogy is starting to look like a complete ignorance of science.
"I am not attacking o strawman, I am mocking Coyne's exact words."
Delete=> I note at least three points in your post that have nothing to do with Coyne´s position:
1. "Jerry, if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices."
2. "He can freely chose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose."
3. "And Jerry can't, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined."
And these three points are a mixture of strawmen (particularly 2) and ignorance about Coyne´s position.
"You can not test what Coyne assterted any more than you can test that "god gave us free will.""
=> Fundamentally, Coyne´s position rests on nothing more than the claims that a) the human brain is a necessary component of the human decision-making process and b) that all processes that affect the human brain are either deterministic, or a mixture of deterministic and stochastic processes (afaict, Coyne is agnostic as to whether quantum indeterminism affects the human decision-making process - and if it does or not is completely irrelevant for his position). If both are true (which is testable), libertarian free will cannot exist.
You are wrong, wrong wrong.
DeleteYou state this has nothing to do with Coyne's position:
Jerry, if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices.
when Coyne wrote, "Yes, I think that all human actions are predetermined" and " Nevertheless we all, including incompatibilists like myself, act as if we have choices"
and this has nothing to do with Coyne's position,
He can freely chose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose
when Coyne wrote "I will act as though I have free choices even though I don’t."
and this has nothing to do with Coyne's position,
And Jerry can't, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined.
when he wrote
"but I can still call him out, and maybe that will affect other peoples’ behavior. "
I don't think your know what strawman means.
And no it is not testable. Tell me what experiment you would conduct that distinguishes between Coyne's theory of the free will and the religionists theory that it is a supernatural gift from god? By all means if you are correct, let's conduct the experiement.
And quantum indeterminacy does not help anyway. It would lead to a random component of the will.
Reply part 1
DeleteSo I guess I have to spell it out for you...
"Jerry, if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices."
=> Of course he can. Coyne considers free will to be an "illusion", the sense of having freely chosen between options is absolutely real and not denied by anyone (at least not anyone I would be aware of). Acting "as if" there is free will does not require that free will is actually real, for Coyne, it means nothing more than acknowledging that the sense of having freedom to choose between alternatives is indeed real and cannot be "turned off".
"He can freely chose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose"
=> Coyne suggested in no way, shape or form that he *freely chose* to do anything. This is completely your fabrication.
"And Jerry can't, as he suggests, affect the behavior of others when he has already admitted that all human actions are predetermined."
=> Have you thought about this for longer than a moment? I find it really amazing that so many people bring up this exact point and think they stated something really clever.
Lets take a very simple example - Jerry goes to Kansas City and has to decide where to go to dinner. Now we assume two alternative realities, one where a good friend told him "Oklahoma Joe´s Barbecue is a great place to eat" a few days before that and another one where that didn´t happen. Coyne does not believe that, if we would turn back time to the exact moment where he made the decision to go to any specific place for dinner, he could have freely chosen something different (he believes that he might choose something different if there is a stochastic component to the human decision-making process, but he obviously has no influence on that). But it is *obvious* (it really could not be any more obvious...), that his interactions with the world, including interactions with other people, shaped the way he thinks and do influence his decisions - this is true in any case, whether he can freely choose between alternatives or not.
"I don't think your know what strawman means."
=> Stating Coyne´s position as "freely choosing" something when he said no such thing, and then attacking the obvious contradiction to his actual position on free will, certainly looks like a strawman to me.
Reply part 2
Delete"Tell me what experiment you would conduct that distinguishes between Coyne's theory of the free will and the religionists theory that it is a supernatural gift from god? By all means if you are correct, let's conduct the experiement."
Has already been done. The Dirac equation is, as far as any relevant experiment that has ever been conducted is concerned, an accurate and complete description of the particles that our brain is composed of. "Complete" in the sense that every interaction that is not considered in the Dirac equation, like the weak nuclear force, is negligible under the physical conditions in which our brains operate. And for interactions with hypothetical particles that are currently unknown, we know that they either interact to weakly with ordinary matter to be detected, or are too massive to be produced or a variety of other reasons - all of which have one thing in common, they would make the hypothetical yet unknown particle negligible.
So, based on what we *do* know, we can say that the processes that affect our brain are either deterministic, or a mixture of deterministic and stochastic processes. Both alternatives do not allow for the existence of libertarian free will.
The burden of proof is on your side - you have to either demonstrate that the brain is in fact not absolutely necessary for the human decision-making process and / or that the brain is influenced by an unknown force that we have conscious control over (which amounts to demonstrating that the Dirac equation in fact doesn´t apply to the particles that our brain is composed of under the physical conditions in which our brains operate - despite all the evidence to the contrary).
But scientific matters aside - there are purely philosophical arguments against libertarian free will. Just one example: virtually all philosophers agree that doxastic voluntarism, the position that we have voluntary control over our beliefs, is false (the affirmation of doxastic voluntarism in fact leads to completely absurd consequences). And simply by not being able to choose our *beliefs*, a hypothetical freedom of choosing our *actions* would be very limited.
"Now we assume two alternative realities..."
DeleteBzzt. Error. Danger Will Robinson! Jerry's primary assumption is: everything is predetermined. If everything is predetermined then there are no "alternative realities." You can't sneak "two alternatives" in the back door and then theorize that Coyne's actions can cause the universe to go down one path rather than the other. That violates his premise that all is predetermined. In Coyne's view there is no chance that a person can be affected to choose C2 instead of C1--the choice of C2 was predetermined.
Regarding your experiment:
Absolute nonsense. You have not provided any experiment that distinguishes on e model over another. You spew something unintelligible about the Dirac equation (which you clearly know nothing about) and that's your experiment? Now I am certain you are scientifically illiterate.
Let me make it simple: what experiment (be specific) will have result A if Jerry's, or Dennett's, or any philosophical model of the free will is correct but will have result B if the religionist view of a supernatural will is correct. Don't BS about things you don't know, like the Dirac equation, give the experiment. Let's do it. If you have none (and you don't) then all models of free will are as unscientific as the "god gave it to us" model.
"Bzzt. Error. Danger Will Robinson! Jerry's primary assumption is: everything is predetermined."
ReplyDelete=> 1. Again, Jerry is actually agnostic as to whether determinism is true as he has said many times. But that is irrelevant for his position since a stochastic component due to quantum indeterminism changes nothing wrt libertarian free will.
2. This is a thought experiment genius, it requires in no way, shape or form that there could have been a different reality - the thought experiment merely illustrates his position, which is that he could not have *freely* chosen a different alternative, but is *obviously* influenced by his interactions with the enviroment, including his interactions with other people, when it comes to making a decision. And this is true whether or not libertarian free will exists.
Are you simply dishonest here or do you really not get this?
"You have not provided any experiment that distinguishes on e model over another."
=> Wrong.
"You spew something unintelligible"
=> Don´t blame me for your ignorance.
"about the Dirac equation (which you clearly know nothing about) "
=> Mere assertion.
"Don't BS about things you don't know, like the Dirac equation, give the experiment."
=> Has been done, and you are either too dishonest or too ignorant to follow. I can´t dumb it down further for you.
Me: "You have not provided any experiment that distinguishes on e model over another."
ReplyDeleteAndreas: "Wrong."
Not wrong at all. Here is your chance. Describe the experimental procedure and tell me what results Jerry's model (or your model) predict. Do you know anything about experimental science? I think not. Here's the deal:
Make as if you are applying for a research grant. They will not want hand-waving nonsense about the Dirac equation, they will want to know the specific experimental procedure you propose and your predictions.
If you can't do that, and you haven't (because you can't), then what you are talking about is as unscientific as religion. It doesn't matter if you cloak it in philosophical language or pontificate on the Dirac equation (which, btw, would not be the starting point for a model of the brain--for one thing--but not the only thing--there are, in the brain, not just fermions but also bosons) to make it all sciency sounding (but in reality making yourself look stupid.) What matters is:
Can you propose an actual experiment with real equipment that will test a prediction of your that distinguishes it from other models, including religion? IOW:
1) What is your hypothesis?
2) What is a unique prediction of your hypothesis?
3) What will you measure?
4) How will you measure it? (what equipment)
5) How will you analyze the data?
You can't answer because all you have is woo. Prove me wrong, answer those question with no obfuscating woo.
First of all, since you no longer try to defend the three points in your post which I described as a mixture of strawmen and ignorance about Coyne´s position, I take that as an acknowledgment that you realize that your post was indeed just that - a mixture of strawmen and ignorance.
Delete"Can you propose an actual experiment with real equipment that will test a prediction of your that distinguishes it from other models, including religion? "
=> Is this really so hard to understand? Libertarian free will is *incompatible* with what we *already* do know about the way decision-making processes work in humans.
It is uncontroversial, even among those that do affirm the existence of libertarian free will, that the brain is an *essential* component in making those decisions - where the disagreement is, is whether or not there are external (potentially supernatural) influences on the brain while, or before, decisions are made ("souls", "spirits", whatever you want to call it). Non-supernatural influences can be excluded, because we do know *all* non-negligible (under the physical conditions in which the brain operates) physical interactions that affect the particles that make up the brain (if they were *not* negligible, because they interact to weakly (or not at all) for example, we would have found them a long time ago already). Which immediatly shifts the burden of proof to your side, because there can be no *natural* explanation for free will - the processes of which we *do* know that they affect the brain are either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic and stochastic events (both possibilities exclude libertarian free will). And for all that we know, the scientific models which describe the behaviour of the particles that make up our brain, are accurate and complete under the physical conditions in which human brains operate (if you disagree, be specific. Example: is there any interaction (which is not negligible) missing in the Dirac equation if we want to describe an electron under the physical conditions in which human brains operate? If so which one? If you speculate on yet unknown particles, how come we never found any trace of them if their interactions are not negligible under these conditions?)
*You* have to demonstrate that there is a supernatural force which interacts with our brains (which must affect the brain in neither deterministic nor stochastic (or a mixture of both) ways, because we must somehow have voluntary control over it).
"I take that as an acknowledgment that you realize that your post was indeed just that - a mixture of strawmen and ignorance."
DeleteYes, that makes as much sense as your analogy. I replied several times and, you keep producing the same charge, and since I stopped the infinite loop, well that's tantamount to admitting defeat. You have accomplished a compelling prove by mantra. You must be so proud.
"*You* have to demonstrate that there is a supernatural force which interacts with our brains (which must affect the brain in neither deterministic nor stochastic (or a mixture of both) ways, because we must somehow have voluntary control over it)."
See, you don't understand science. I don't have to demonstrate anything because I admit my model of the free will is supernatural and therefore not science. You spout nonsense about the Dirac equation and pretend your view of the free will is scientific, but it is not any more scientific than mine.
You are the one making the claim that your view is based on science (the Dirac Eqn). Therefore the onus is on you to present your falsifiability experiment. I readily admit my "god did it" is not scientific. I got nothing to demonstrate. It's a feature, not a bug--but for you it's a bug.
"(if you disagree, be specific. Example: is there any interaction (which is not negligible) missing in the Dirac equation if we want to describe an electron under the physical conditions in which human brains operate?"
Are you insane? The brain is not made of electrons. If you want to model the brain from the ground up using fundamental physics you would not use the Dirac equation. For many reasons (such as, you would need a many body theory). And, as I already stated, the brain also contains (a whole zoo of) integral spin particles for which the Dirac equation does not apply. Period. It doesn't work.
But even if it did, repeating that the Dirac equation provides the correct description of all the particles and interactions in the brain is not an experiment. In fact we can agree with a similar statement (but, unlike your nonsense it is correct) that all the particles in the brain are governed by the appropriate quantum mechanical Hamiltonian. We can agree on that--and it says nothing. It is not an experiment. It does not distinguish models. It is simply saying that time evolution of interacting particles is governed by (the appropriate, which is not a Dirac Equation) quantum interactions and mechanics.
That says nothing about your model of free will. To make your view of free will scientific you have to:
1) Give your hypothesis -- maybe you have done this, maybe your hypothesis is "It's the Dirac Equation, all the way down."
2) Give a unique prediction of your hypothesis (*crickets chirping*)
3) Explain what will you measure (*crickets chirping*)
4) Explain how will you measure it (*crickets chirping*)
5) Explain how will you analyze the data (*crickets chirping*)
You got nothing.
You should just admit that your model, Jerry's model, Dennett's model--whatever-- not one of them is scientific. If you can't test it, it is not science.
Reply No.1
Delete"I replied several times and, you keep producing the same charge"
=> Ok, now you are just lying. You did not even *try* to defend those points, you merely copied the same quotes as you had in the OP without any further comments and completely ignored my refutations of your mixture of strawmen + ignorance (save for point No.3 which you briefly tried to defend and failed miserably).
,
"See, you don't understand science. I don't have to demonstrate anything because I admit my model of the free will is supernatural and therefore not science."
=> You don´t have a "model", you can´t even explain how your "free will" could *conceptually* work even if we assume that there was any such thing! You postulate the existence of something, which has no explanatory value (quite the opposite actually, since the alleged "free will" is not only completely unexplained itself, no one has ever even proposed any coherent idea for how it could work *conceptually* even if it would exist). Claiming "but it´s magic! So we obviously can´t explain it scientifically or even describe how it conceptually works" does not make your position in any way respectable or comparable to a position that explains just as much (or "just as little" if you prefer) without the superfluous and conceptually incoherent magic fluff.
"You are the one making the claim that your view is based on science (the Dirac Eqn)."
=> No, I claimed that it is based on everything we do know about human decision-making processes. I pointed out that science works without introducing a magic "free will" variable in *any* model and that, on a fundamental level, we do know that there can be no influence on the stuff that makes up our brains that is not either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic + stochastic processes. Your magic alternative means nothing less than that our models cannot possibly work for the stuff that makes up our brains - feel free to try to demonstrate that.
Reply No. 2
Delete"The brain is not made of electrons."
=> If by that you mean that there are no electrons in a brain then you are scientifically so illiterate that you quite literally have *no* idea what you are talking about. If you meant that the brain is not *only* made of electrons, congratulations for providing a new strawman (hint: I never said or implied this in any way, shape or form - I even used the prefix "Example:" FFS...).
"If you want to model the brain from the ground up using fundamental physics you would not use the Dirac equation. For many reasons (such as, you would need a many body theory)."
=> Completely and utterly irrelevant. All Coyne needs for his position, is that on a *fundamental* level, there is no process involved that is not either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic + stochastic processes. That´s it. Neither Coyne nor I ever claimed that we are even remotely close to a complete physical description of the brain, what we do claim is that we can confidently rule out that *any* process can affect the brain which is not either deterministic or stochastic (which effectively rules out libertarian free will for *any* model that is based on a combination of these processes).
Did you honestly believe that Coyne (or anyone else that doesn´t believe in libertarian free will) thought that we have a complete model of how the brain works? Did you really believe they are *that* stupid? Didn´t this make you a little curious as to whether they actually ever claimed any such thing?
"And, as I already stated, the brain also contains (a whole zoo of) integral spin particles for which the Dirac equation does not apply. Period. It doesn't work."
=> Irrelevant, see above.
"In fact we can agree with a similar statement (but, unlike your nonsense it is correct) that all the particles in the brain are governed by the appropriate quantum mechanical Hamiltonian. We can agree on that--and it says nothing. It is not an experiment. It does not distinguish models."
=> Oh it most certainly does. As you actually admitted, it rules out any non-supernatural version of libertarian free will. Which means that your "model" introduces a new entity that explains nothing, but is itself completely unexplained, and it is not even clear how it could even *conceptually* work even if it would exist. In other words, you loose by default.
Reply No. 3
DeleteAnd, to make matters even worse for libertarian free will - even if someone would come up with a conceptually coherent version of it, how exactly do you propose it interacts with the brain?
This is something you have to address, either you propose that this "free will" bypasses the brain completely (which would requires, as a first(!) step, refuting everything that is known about Neurobiology) or you propose that free will somehow interacts with the brain. And if it *does* interact with the brain, how is it possible that we never noticed that? Seriously, how could *any* subdiscipline of Neurobiology produce *any* meaningful results even though they don´t consider anything like this "free will" process *at all*?
Again, this is not based on the assumption that we have anything like a complete model of the brain, but what we do have is extremely accurate models of individual neurons (models that reproduce experimental results *exactly*) and we are close to modelling entire neuronal tissues. How can this be possible if supernatural "free will" exists and interacts with the brain?
"All Coyne needs for his position, is that on a *fundamental* level, there is no process involved that is not either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic + stochastic processes."
ReplyDeleteWell no, because of many reasons, but here it is in a nutshell. You statement would be much, much closer to true with one important correction:
All Coyne needs for his position, is that on a *fundamental* level, *is to show that* there is no process involved that is not either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic + stochastic processes.
He must show that, not say it. He has to model the brain from basic physics and show that he produces something that resembles the illusion of free will. He must show it. Do an experiment. That is how science works.
You do know (I suspect not, actually) that real scientists do not say: Bleh. All the strong interactions are governed by QCD. End of story. We win. If you want to prove me wrong tell me what is not governed by QCD. That is all. Game Over. No need for experiments.
No, they say: I think QCD is the correct model. It predicts this (cross-section, form-factor, whatever, will have value X). I want to measure that observable. I can do it with this accelerator and these detectors. If I am right our result will be Y. If I am wrong it will not be Y, and the model is in trouble.
I am waiting for your experiment... tick-tock, tick-tock,...
"All Coyne needs for his position, is that on a *fundamental* level, *is to show that* there is no process involved that is not either deterministic or a mixture of deterministic + stochastic processes.
DeleteHe must show that, not say it. He has to model the brain from basic physics and show that he produces something that resembles the illusion of free will."
=> Wrong. Also, didn´t you notice how you shifted the goalposts?
You start by claiming that this has to be shown on a *fundamental* level (which is correct) and then, just one(!) sentence later, you simply shift the goalposts to "he has to come up with a complete model of the brain that results in the illusion of free will".
Before you shifted the goalposts, your claim was correct (and this *has* already been demonstrated). What you demand *after* you shift the goalposts is not at all required for Coyne´s position.
Coyne can simply point out that, no matter how such a model would eventually look like, a model that allows for libertarian free will is *conceptually impossible* if such a model involves *no* processes that are not either deterministic or stochastic.
So, Coyne already has what he needs (a demonstration of what you asked for before you shifted the goalposts).
Also, just out of curiosity - since your blog says "reformed views" I presume you subscribe to reformed theology (if not, simply ignore this comment). Doesn´t that mean that you deny libertarian free will anyway? (at least in the sense that people cannot "freely choose not to "sin"" / "freely choose to obey God" etc.)
Delete"So, Coyne already has what he needs (a demonstration of what you asked for before you shifted the goalposts).,"
ReplyDeleteReally, Coyne has demonstrated that the brain and the illusion of free will can be explained by natural processes. Where did he publish this seminal work? Is he in Sweden relaxing in a hotel waiting for the mere formality of the announcement of his prize?
Still waiting for your experiment (or a reference to Coyne's demonstration, if he has already done it.) Tick-tock, tick-tock...
"Really, Coyne has demonstrated that the brain and the illusion of free will can be explained by natural processes."
Delete=> Did you even read the comment you replied to? If you did, why did you simply ignore what I said?
yes I did. You wrote:
Delete"Coyne can simply point out that, no matter how such a model would eventually look like, a model that allows for libertarian free will is *conceptually impossible* if such a model involves *no* processes that are not either deterministic or stochastic. "
Yes, which in fact is nonsense. I'll say it again, science is not saying, (or "simply pointing out") it is showing through experiment. I can "simply point out" that we have free will and the only way to get it is supernaturally, and that would have the same force as what you attribute to Coyne as a "demonstration." No science here. Tick-tock, tick-tock.
Let me briefly point out on what we mostly seem to agree on, you said:
Delete"In fact we can agree with a similar statement (but, unlike your nonsense it is correct) that all the particles in the brain are governed by the appropriate quantum mechanical Hamiltonian. We can agree on that--and it says nothing."
=> And I would agree with that, save for the last four words. It actually does say quite a lot. It says that, on a *fundamental* level, the processes that affect the stuff that our brains are made of are either deterministic or stochastic. So, this is something that you actually would grant Coyne.
What you don´t seem to realize is, that this really is *everything* he needs to support his position from a scientific point of view.
You seem to think that Coyne has to first come up with a complete model of a human brain, which has to result in a demonstration of free will being illusory. He doesn´t. With what you grant him, he already has proof that libertarian free will, if it exists, cannot have a natural cause, because anything like libertarian free will is *conceptually impossible* in a system that is, on a *fundamental* level, governed by *nothing* but deterministic or deterministic + stochastic processes.
No matter how a complete scientific model of the brain would eventually look like, based on what he already knows (and what you grant him!), he can already demonstrate that such a model cannot possibly allow for libertarian free will.
So all you are left with is proposing a supernatural cause for free will (which alone already means that Coyne wins, because he explains just as much / just as little as you do, with a more parsimonous model (not to mention the complete lack of any coherent idea of how libertarian free will could even conceptually work)). And beyond that, you face additional problems (which Coyne doesn´t have) - specifically that you either have to argue that "free will" bypasses the brain completely (incompatible with everything that is known about Neurobiology) or does interact with the brain, but no Neuroscientist ever found even the tiniest shred of evidence for this alleged interaction.
In summary - Coyne wins.
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Oh, and a brief addendum to the last comment - Coyne also faces none of the philosophical problems your position has (just one example: Since doxastic voluntarism is demonstrably false (if you disagree, try choosing to genuinely(!) believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, if you can do that - I´ll retract this point) what does it even *mean* if actions can be freely chosen, but beliefs, wishes etc. cannot?)
DeleteNot that it was necessary, but Coyne also wins on this field.
Andreas, Yeah I think it is time to end this. Diminishing returns, boredom etc. Thanks (sincerely) for stopping by but I have nothing I wish to add. As the guest I'll leave you with the last word.
DeleteI slogged through the comments, too. Interesting. Thanks.
Delete