If my schedule's so packed that I can't spare a couple hours, I'll wait until I can stream it.
I'm about 20 minutes away (each) from 3 different theaters, so watching a 30-minute chunk of movie is 70 minutes of my time (ignoring parking, unusual traffic, ticketing, etc). I'm not going to commit to doing that 3 times.
I'm not sure a lack of a standard interface representing meanings when they are clearly defined and used consistently within the context of a specific view is going to be the end of the world for people interested in philosophy and exploring concepts. Word's meanings matter, but words aren't the point per se.
That's not to say I disagree with the criticism to reuse free will. I don't feel things like coercion-less actions regardless of a casual environment is best represented by 'free'+'will' even if the original definition didn't pre-exist; even if it might present an argument for responsibility on a specific person to still apply.
Annoying? Perhaps. But personally I just don't believe most people see philosophy through such a monolithic lens that they would be like, "compatiblists did something annoying so Kant on another topic will have to go unread".
me? I don't understand, aren't there all sorts of different schools of philosophy and ways of looking at the world? Wouldn't studying philosophy help me find counter-examples that may expand my worldview? Compatibilism is probably my default position, but studying philosophy I may have that position challenged, isn't that the goal of studying any field of inquiry? To engage with new ideas?
What compatiblism is saying would be ok in an academic context if they define a new term like consistency instead of hijack free will to mean something else entirely. But even then, consistency of behavior in a deterministic world would not lead to the possibility of moral responsibility unless you also hijack that term and give it a different meaning.
> Why would anyone want to study philosophy further after hearing this nonsense?
Why should one single philosophical idea cause someone to reject the entire approach to understanding? Philosophy is full of different, sometimes competing, ideas of which this is just one.
Rejecting an entire field of study because of one hypothesis seems like rejecting all of literature because of a single book you didn't like.
I don't see how it shows that at all, but even if it does, I don't see how that counters what I said. Just because a person disagrees with one philosophical idea doesn't imply that all of philosophy is worthless.
> they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility
To my understanding:
1. We have something that we've come to call moral responsibility. If I punch someone, I'm considered morally responsible for that action and may be punished for doing so. Seems to me a useful social construct to discourage behavior detrimental to a collaborative society
2. We have a world that is, to all evidence we've observed so far, consistent with both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of physics. True that Copenhagen interpretation is the most prevalent and is non-deterministic - but I'd argue that's at least in part because it makes the math simpler opposed to physicists necessarily believing that a split between classical observers and quantum systems, with random collapses when the two interact, is actually how the universe works
If tomorrow new experiments somehow validated Everett's interpretation, that the whole universe is just one big quantum system evolving according to the Schrödinger equation, would it mean we've been wrong this whole time to talk about our moral responsibility? Would we have to upend laws based on supposedly realizing that we don't actually have moral responsibility? Personally, I don't see why it should have any real bearing on the concept of moral responsibility - or really anything in day-to-day life (else our observations wouldn't have been consistent with both interpretations for so long).
If free will does not exist, then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense. They should be isolated from society and rehabilitated if possible — just like people found not liable due to mental illness.
> then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense
I think all that's needed for punishment to make sense is for that punishment to have a deterrence effect, reducing frequency of the targeted behavior. I'm not seeing why whether or not punishment makes sense would hinge on whether our universe turns out to be deterministic or to be non-deterministic.
There is no deterrence effect in a deterministic universe without free will. Deterrence requires the individual to make a choice, which per your question they cannot make.
And if you remove moral responsibility from criminals (to the extent that makes sense as a term in a free-will-free deterministic universe), then those punishing criminals are also free of moral responsibility. They did not make a choice, it was made for them and they are merely moving per the rules of the deterministic universe.
> While a punishment in a deterministic universe can have a deterrence effect, it might not be the morally right thing to do.
I feel whether it's the morally right thing to do depends on your ethical framework, not really whether the universe is deterministic. For instance in terms of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, you'd want to punish when you estimate the suffering relieved by enacting the punishment (deterred crime, long-term precedents encouraging benevolence, etc.) outweighs the suffering caused by the punishment itself.
"If free will does not exist, then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense. They should be isolated from society and rehabilitated if possible — just like people found not liable due to mental illness."
I mostly agree with you but punishing people for wrong doing does make sense if it's aligned with your definition of rehabilitation - i.e. if you think it will have a deterrence effect.
But I guess, and maybe it's because I'm a compatibilist, I personally think it's morally wrong to punish people for for purely moral reasons.
Hmmm, I suspect that you and I may not agree as to what the purpose of philosophical studies is. It's a very different purpose than that of the sciences.
I personally don't agree with most of what compatibalism posits, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with philosophy as a field of study.
> they are trying to gaslight the general public
Who is "they"? And I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the general public have never even heard of compatibilism, so are hardly being "gaslit" by it.
Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. Scientists should stop pretending that it does.
Scientists who say they don't understand compatibilism should say what they really think about it (e.g., that it is nonsense or an attempt at gaslighting).
Science and philosophy are two entirely different fields. Very few people are both. Whatever scientists think about philosophical topics carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks about philosophical topics.
I don’t think you have ever written financial software. To take an example, you are not going to be able with a Chat GPT prompt to ask it to price a specific bond in a mortgage backed security. It’s hard enough to do it using structured pseudocode.
Well if it's a TV, the most expedient way would be to turn off the device at the first sign of a repeated commercial. Could be effective in more ways than one. Especially when mental health is a consideration :)
Power back on 24 hours later and see if the problem persists ;)
But soaps do, as do many Hollywood franchises, to some extent. That other successful strategies exist doesn’t mean other strategies cannot be successful.
Boxing does something different, yet similar, by, rather than looking for opponents of about equal strength, scheduling bouts for upcoming talent that they’re expected to win.
But why would viewers care about whether the champion will make a lot of money for the company given that the vast majority of viewers will not receive any of that money?
Because it's not about the money, it's about the conflict between the characters. Despite them talking about a real-world company, this still concerns the characters that the wrestlers are portraying.
Professional wrestling is by and large a scripted drama series about athletes, with scenes of interpersonal conflicts connected with stuntwork scenes of simulated competition.
What you're calling out is a plot point, even if it blurs lines with the real world. It's a storytelling property that modern wrestling employs, if not uniquely then distinctly; because the promotion knows that modern fans regularly argue over which wrestlers are most valuable to the promotion, the promotions use that to add heat to the character drama.
"Discovery" and "invention" can be fuzzy ideas. In the past I've framed this distinction as "science" vs "engineering" since it links directly to a student's classes and possible careers.
Typically I reach for material (or rocket) science and aerospace engineering as my analogy: "Do you want to build rockets or dream up better rocket engines?" What I like most about the analogy is that it gets people thinking about their options without implying that the choice they make today has to define their entire career.
After all, there are plenty of rocket scientists and aerospace engineers working in industry, just as there are plenty of both doing research at universities.
Side note: The super specific "novel game dev" thing is a little weird to me. There is as much invention happening outside of game development as there is regular ass work happening inside game development.
Stepping back a bit, looking at how Humanities Architecture (HA), Construction Science (ConS), and Engineering (EGR) works as bnf rules of lisp[1]. HA defines/enforces s_expressions. EGR provides/validates the atomic_symbol(s). ConS evaluates the HA directives using EGR atomic_symbol(s).
Less confusing visually if use Autolisp / Autocad framework.
---
CS ~ ConS; HA ~ Game Developer; EGR ~ CS/Game Developer depending at what hareward/software level working at.
reply