SAMUEL RATNAM

Free Will

written edited 56 nodes

·
  • Basic argument5
    • Your current actions are either determined by the circumstances of the action, or by you
    • Either this is random in which case you can't be responsible for your action, or it is dependent on your character in some way
    • But your character is determined either by circumstance, chance or your past actions
    • Infinite regress
    • Can't hold anyone morally responsible
  • Moral responsibility in practice6
    • We can't escape our reactive attitudes, I wouldn't want to
    • How do you stop feeling resentment without also stopping feeling gratitude
    • Resentment is not the same as moral responsibility
    • I can hate who you are in full knowledge of how you came to be that2
      • It does make it harder though, knowing that I would have been you1
        • You can hate yourself
  • Types of possibility:25
    • Quantum (probabilistic) possibility2
      • This is stupid criterion
      • Suppose that the quantum outcomes were generated by a pseudorandom generator, suppose it were written on an long piece of paper before the universe began, surely this shouldn't make a difference metaphysically speaking to whether an action was performed freely or not
    • Epistemic possibility - there exists no predictor5
      • Accounts for manipulation/coercion cases
      • "Freedom not in theory, but in practice"
      • This also seems kinda silly - predictability does not imply constraint1
        • If I have a choice between two options: one clearly better than the other, then I will predictably choose the one better for me, by virtue of it being a free choice
      • Perhaps the predictor needs to take advantage of their predictions to satisfy their values over yours
    • Black box algorithm - suppose we treat your brain as a black box algorithm taking in your sensory data as input, and outputting some action. It should be possible relative to this black box frame, for you to have $\phi$ed and not $\phi$ed4
      • Does not account for drug addict case2
        • Make the black box more narrow - treat addiction as fixed
        • But it's not - it can be changed, scope of black box is arbitrary
      • Predictors don't count
    • Libertarianism4
      • Adopt an agent-centred (teleological?) picture of causality
      • Why do rocks fall? Because they want to reach the earth
      • We are operating within the frame of "events must have mechanistic causes"
      • Time symmetry of physics?
    • Backwards causality1
      • My actions create the prior conditions necessary for them to occur.
    • Jason criteria:3
      • Knowledge of option set
      • Ability to choose from option set
      • Ability to execute
  • Agency as understanding2
    • meta awareness of the forces at play - reflective endorsement of values
    • you can understand the chains around you, this does not make you free
  • Agency as ability to enact your values in the world
  • When are people unagentic?2
    • Following the default, no reflective knowledge
    • Not realising what they can do
  • Test cases:9
    • Chess game1
      • Your first move is more free than a forced checkmate
    • Drug addict2
      • There is a sense in which the drug addict is free, their values have just been shifted
      • They lack reflective endorsement
    • Gun to head1
      • Similar to forced 3 move checkmate in some sense
    • Cult1
      • Similar to drug addict in some sense

Thoughts on Ethics

written edited 22 nodes

·
  • Given moral anti-realism, why be moral?7
    • Also given moral realism, why be moral?
    • Patrick - skullduggery pleasant, characters know that they are being brainwashed, but they don't care, because they are being brainwashed5
      • I am aware that morality is fundamentally arbitrary, but I am still subject to it, and therefore I hold on to it because it's the right thing to do under this arbitrary system1
        • floating circle
      • I can't escape the system because I am within the system and the system tells me not to escape
      • I really like this analogy
      • Surely there are some systems like this that we should escape (eg. a cult/brainwashing). What makes morality different?
  • Given anti-realism, what do we mean by morality?13
    • Moral values are not separate from/ in conflict with non-moral values. Morality is a fuzzy category which we use to categorise the values we already have6
      • doesn't feel completely right5
        • moral values are the ones I should do?
        • I happen to care about the taste of my food more than the suffering inflicted to a cow that produces the milk, evidenced by the fact I'm not vegan3
          • What do we mean by "care about"?1
            • How you act and why
          • I could be vegan but I don't want to be
    • Morality is caring about other sentient beings1
      • To care about a sentient being is not just to care about their pleasure and pain but also their flourishing
    • Morality is a system based on some hinge propositions3
      • "Suffering is bad" is an ethical axiom I take to be true
      • We try to create a system to fit our intuitions, but not overfit
      • Use moral intuitions as datapoints and extrapolate

Thoughts on Perception

written edited 12 nodes

·
  • When I look at the water bottle I can see a black and blue patch of colour in my visual field which I identify with a water bottle7
    • Is this a mental object?6
      • What is a mental object?5
        • Something that has properties???
        • But properties don't exist
        • Objects only exist in the mind1
          • Objects don't even exist in the mind- they only exist in models
        • Reality is both a whole and infinitely complex
  • Apparently we can subconsciously sense pheromones
  • Is hunger perception? Is imagination?
  • Blindsight
  • Colour constancy
zone of chaosnormalcy