[FRIAM] falsifying the lost opportunity updating mechanism for free will

[∄ uǝlƃ]

8^D I can explain how it's not self-contradicting. There is a concept we call "free will". Sure, the radical extremists among us want to deny its target's existence or assert that it obviously exists. But none of us deny the fact that other people use the word and (assuming no philosophical zombies) it's meaningful to them somehow. So, if you use a simple form of Ramsey's technique, you can call that concept XYZ. People are running around talking about XYZ. We even use it in our laws and courts, whatever it is, however it arises.

Now, since it's a commonly used concept, *used* to mechanistic effect, there is something to which XYZ refers that is effective, has effect, composes with other mechanisms like handcuffs, hiking boots, or hammers. Since XYZ has mechanistic effect, it's reasonable to hypothesize it has internal structure and we can build machines that are structurally as well as functionally analogous [†] to whatever XYZ refers to.

Hence "mechanism for free will". (I admit it might be better with "of" rather than "for". I'm sloppy. So sue me.) It's no more self-contradictory than "mechanism for hammering".


[†] The *strength* of the structural analogy dictates whether the analog is merely a simulation or an emulation. The strength of the functional analogy dictates how coherent the concept is in the first place. If we can't find *any* way to simulate it, then it probably doesn't exist. If we can find a way to simulate it, but not emulate it, then it might be illusory or derivative.

On 6/18/20 11:43 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> This question is probably a distraction from Glen’s point of view, but, still, I am curious to know whether the words, “mechanism of free will” constitute an oxymoron for you. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ