In Axiomatic Beliefs, I argue that certain premises are cornerstones of our thought and cannot be jettisoned or questioned. From this I argued that, in certain cases, these beliefs will conflict and that there is no way of meaningfully resolving such conflicts. Hence the best we can do is accept cognitive dissonance and keep on believing. That is why I believe both in free-will/personhood and in a deterministic universe*, despite arguing in Ghosts in the Machine that this is impossible.
Some argue that free will is indeed possible despite a deterministic world. They argue that free-will arises from our consciousness in some manner, or that we can transcend the limits of physicality to make choices un[constrained/explained] by cause and effect. In Nothing is Greater than the Sumnof it's Parts, I argue that this is impossible and akin to a belief in magic.
Let me be clear. At this point I think that people who believe in free-will because that belief is natural or useful to them are justified in doing so. On the other hand Philosophers who construct argument in favor of free-will, ignoring the impossible underlying tension between free-will and belief in an orderly universe universe, are mostly idiots.
*A probabilistic universe would also require disbelief in free will, but I'll leave this for another time as our own universe seems to be entirely deterministic (rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in favor of MW) based on current scientific knowledge. If it seems difficult to reconcile a deterministic universe with our everyday belief in probability, remember that probability is in the mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment