How to Dissolve the Problem of Free Will and Determinism

[Shirtless Crackhead]

[exogen]

[Artdeux]

The video didn't seem to explain anything, rather it was trying to pull the audience away from the debate of Free Will or Determinism.

 

Of course, it could be that I just woke up. I'll try watching it again later tonight to see if I can graze some meaning out of it, Raor.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Yeah it's better if you are good and awake for a vid like that, hit it up again later and then we'll go from there. Edited May 27, 2011 by Enganacious

[exogen]

I got that the guy is saying that we need to change our language and interpretation to one that is more modern. Once we do that, the prior problem(s) will not longer exist because the concepts that generated the problem are not concistent with the modern interpretation of reality. so for example, by talking about the problem of free will and determinism in the language of modern neuroscience we will cease to see the problem as previously construed. this is what he means by "semantic migration".

 

It's the same point that Richard Rorty makes about philsophical problems being solved or disolved throughout diferent ages due to a change in vocabulary that is relative to a historical and cultural context.

 

The reason the video is trying to get people away from the debate is because the debate can only occur (accodring to the philsopher in the vid) if you hold certain conceptions of reality to be true. once you stop looking at reality through the lens of those concepts and adopt a diferent set of terms to use to interpret your experience, i.e. a modern "scientific" and accociated philsophical positions, you will no longer see the problem as a problem at all because it just wont be there.

 

I keep mentioning Rorty because his thesis is that ALL philsophical problems can be handled in this way. this concept of "semantic migration" that is presented in the vid is really just a rortian evolution of terms and fits squarely in with the notion of Historicism. Histicicism is the idea that all knoledge exists always in a historical and cultural context.

 

My contention with the guy in the vid is that he is basically saying that it would simply be more practical to adopt the interpretation he favors. but while it might be practical, it doesn't make it true and does not therefore get at the problem. I also think he is confusing parsinomy with practicality

 

It comes down to this in my opinion. either

 

1. he needs to give us a reason to "migrate" away from other interetations.

 

or

 

2. we move into a Rortian Historicism at which point all positions are arbitrary and there is no truth.

 

Edit: the thread should be renamed "how to desolve the problem of free will and determinism if your a materialist". hopefully that puts it in perspective.

 

at this point I see no need to talk about the topic further if that point is clear cause there is nothing left to argue- your either a materialist or your aren't and the rest falls into place from that starting point.

Edited May 30, 2011 by exogen