Critique My Philosophy of Life?

The articles you cite do not in anyway support your statement about a scientific consensus on indeterminism. Not surprising since there is no such consensus. From the PDF from Indiana U:

Let me be clear from the outset about two tasks that I do not propose to undertake here. First, I will in no way attempt to argue or adduce evidence for the claim that the theory described actually applies to human action. (I will, however, briefly suggest what sort of considerations could count as evidence in favor of its applicability.) Nor will I attempt to address the epistemological question of whether it is reasonable to suppose, in the absence of strong, directly-confirming evidence, that the agency theory gives a correct schematic account of (a significant portion of) human activity,
I'm not going to evaluate the current state of arguments in quantum mechanics to figure out a philosophy for operating in the human sized world, and your attempting to do so is just annoying.
The articles you cite do not in anyway support your statement about a scientific consensus on indeterminism. Not surprising since there is no such consensus. From the PDF from Indiana U:
Let me be clear from the outset about two tasks that I do not propose to undertake here. First, I will in no way attempt to argue or adduce evidence for the claim that the theory described actually applies to human action. (I will, however, briefly suggest what sort of considerations could count as evidence in favor of its applicability.) Nor will I attempt to address the epistemological question of whether it is reasonable to suppose, in the absence of strong, directly-confirming evidence, that the agency theory gives a correct schematic account of (a significant portion of) human activity,
I'm not going to evaluate the current state of arguments in quantum mechanics to figure out a philosophy for operating in the human sized world, and your attempting to do so is just annoying.
I'll have more time to respond to this later, but you're taking that quotation out of context.
The articles you cite do not in anyway support your statement about a scientific consensus on indeterminism. Not surprising since there is no such consensus.
The main reason it's not surprising that the citations do not support the claim of a scientific consensus is the fact that none of them were intended for that purpose. That should be clear if you pay careful attention to the context.
From the PDF from Indiana U:
Let me be clear from the outset about two tasks that I do not propose to undertake here. First, I will in no way attempt to argue or adduce evidence for the claim that the theory described actually applies to human action. (I will, however, briefly suggest what sort of considerations could count as evidence in favor of its applicability.) Nor will I attempt to address the epistemological question of whether it is reasonable to suppose, in the absence of strong, directly-confirming evidence, that the agency theory gives a correct schematic account of (a significant portion of) human activity,
I'm not going to evaluate the current state of arguments in quantum mechanics to figure out a philosophy for operating in the human sized world, and your attempting to do so is just annoying.
You're annoying yourself with a straw man (thanks, George!). If you look for the information in the articles I cited while paying attention to the context of what I wrote (and when I cited it), you'll see that there's plenty of support for an approach using hypotheticals to explore our notions of causation, and an openness by some skeptics to doing that (one citation I chose for the contrast with George, and you can share it). There's no attempt to use quantum mechanics to justify LFW. Quantum mechanics provides the justification for obtaining openness by skeptics to considering types of causation that are not tailored specifically for use in a deterministic world, such as all those that require "sufficient" causes for events. Requiring "sufficient" causes for all events is the same as assuming causal determinism.
The articles you cite do not in anyway support your statement about a scientific consensus on indeterminism. Not surprising since there is no such consensus.
The main reason it's not surprising that the citations do not support the claim of a scientific consensus is the fact that none of them were intended for that purpose. That should be clear if you pay careful attention to the context. I don't know how much I could have read into a post that says "the scientific consensus is..." here's an article. Quantum mechanics operates at a level that we can't perceive. Connections from actions at that level to our thoughts have not been established. Anything you have to say on that is pure speculation and has no impact on this conversation.

Sorry this took a while. I get caught in arguments when maybe I should be focusing more on good ideas.
On free will, the only thing I don’t like is the word “impossible”. You’re saying this is a philosophy, but some people will take that as a stance. I would change the wording to say something like we can’t know everything that affected us, in the womb, some virus, a smell that triggered a memory, so we should act as if we don’t have complete free will.
After about half way through, you start talking about simpler lifestyle. This gets a bit ascetic for me. I’ve never quite worked out living in the present and your statement, “of course while living in the present one may still learn from the past and prepare for the future" indicates you haven’t either. I’ve concluded that working too much on living in the present, can take you out of just plain living. There is joy in reaching for goals and in remembering good times. You mention balance, but your focus is on living in the present.
The overemphasis can be seen in how you apply that. You handled grief and being offended, but I can be insulted by something that is an affront to my sense of what is right. I am offended by a degradation of the environment that will affect life. This is a motivation, not something that I would want to meditate about until I was at peace with it. I would want my actions to be in line with what others want and not retaliatory, but at some point they may be actions that others resist due to their short term desires. There are limits to how much I can work with that resistance.

The articles you cite do not in anyway support your statement about a scientific consensus on indeterminism. Not surprising since there is no such consensus.
The main reason it's not surprising that the citations do not support the claim of a scientific consensus is the fact that none of them were intended for that purpose. That should be clear if you pay careful attention to the context. I don't know how much I could have read into a post that says "the scientific consensus is..." here's an article. How could you better illustrate taking something out of context than with what you just wrote? The post is made up of two sentences, the second of which deals with what I've repeatedly said was the point: "The issue I’m addressing is how we apply the concept of causation to indeterministic phenomena]." You simply ignored the second sentence and assumed the URL was intended to support the first. That's not a very good argument that you had little choice in assuming what point the URL was intended to support. You'd have been better off with "Oops, sorry."
Quantum mechanics operates at a level that we can't perceive.
Right. And George wants me to create an illustration of indeterminacy out of things we can't perceive or else he won't take me seriously. That's perverse, isn't it?
Connections from actions at that level to our thoughts have not been established. Anything you have to say on that is pure speculation and has no impact on this conversation.
You may be right with respect to our conversation, since you've badly missed the point. Nobody here's suggesting (why do I actually have to repeat this?) that quantum phenomena explain free will. This is an exploration of our concepts of causation only. Your resistance to seeing that point is, in a word, annoying.

Thanks for reading the document and commenting, Lausten.

Sorry this took a while. I get caught in arguments when maybe I should be focusing more on good ideas. On free will, the only thing I don't like is the word "impossible". You're saying this is a philosophy, but some people will take that as a stance. I would change the wording to say something like we can't know everything that affected us, in the womb, some virus, a smell that triggered a memory, so we should act as if we don't have complete free will.
In fact, if the regress argument presented in the document is sound, then free will (in the way in which I define it) is indeed impossible. Therefore, if you believe that free will (in the way in which I define it) is not impossible, then the onus is on you to show that the regress argument is unsound.
After about half way through, you start talking about simpler lifestyle. This gets a bit ascetic for me.
Could you please provide a quote from the document that backs up your claim that my philosophy is "ascetic"?
I've never quite worked out living in the present and your statement, “of course while living in the present one may still learn from the past and prepare for the future" indicates you haven't either.
Actually, I'm pretty good at staying focused on the present. My point is that one may learn from the past and prepare for the future, as I do, without letting the past and the future disturb one's mind.
I've concluded that working too much on living in the present, can take you out of just plain living.
Why? I would argue that living in the present is "just plain living".
There is joy in reaching for goals and in remembering good times.
I see no "joy" in reaching for goals, but there can be joy in achieving them. That said, one can try one's hardest while still remaining focused on the present. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on the present is most conducive to trying one's hardest. I have nothing against remembering good times. In fact, I counsel doing exactly that when one is in physical pain (see page 10 of the document).
You mention balance, but your focus is on living in the present.
Where do I mention "balance" in a way that would be inconsistent with living in the present?
The overemphasis can be seen in how you apply that. You handled grief and being offended, but I can be insulted by something that is an affront to my sense of what is right. I am offended by a degradation of the environment that will affect life.
Then you clearly disagree with moral skepticism (see page 3 of the document). So, where do my arguments for moral skepticism go wrong?
This is a motivation, not something that I would want to meditate about until I was at peace with it. I would want my actions to be in line with what others want and not retaliatory, but at some point they may be actions that others resist due to their short term desires. There are limits to how much I can work with that resistance.
There is nothing in my document against taking action for pragmatic reasons. But according to free will impossibilism, retaliating for retributive purposes is irrational, as no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.
In fact, if the regress argument presented in the document is sound, then free will (in the way in which I define it) is indeed impossible. Therefore, if you believe that free will (in the way in which I define it) is not impossible, then the onus is on you to show that the regress argument is unsound.
You're apparently using Kane's definition of free will (albeit simplified). If you mean to represent Kane's conception of free will via that superficial similarity, then the regress argument doesn't work (fallacy of ambiguity). Kane says an agent must be in some manner responsible for self-forming actions. Strawson (the creator of the regress argument) specifies a particular type of responsibility for Kane's concept of LFW, one requiring an infinite regress. The question is whether Strawson rightly represents Kane's position. Kane, in effect, says he doesn't. Is it correct that you're not really interested in Kane's response to Strawson?
Quantum mechanics operates at a level that we can't perceive.
Right. And George wants me to create an illustration of indeterminacy out of things we can't perceive or else he won't take me seriously. That's perverse, isn't it?
No, that's basic burden of proof. Don't see the problem here.
Quantum mechanics operates at a level that we can't perceive.
Right. And George wants me to create an illustration of indeterminacy out of things we can't perceive or else he won't take me seriously. That's perverse, isn't it?
No, that's basic burden of proof. Don't see the problem here. Your lack of response to the conclusive proof you've been taking things out of context suggests you possess some skill at ignoring specific problems.
After about half way through, you start talking about simpler lifestyle. This gets a bit ascetic for me.
Could you please provide a quote from the document that backs up your claim that my philosophy is "ascetic"?
It starts under the examples of how to live a simple life. They include not even getting promoted into management. If you have the talent to motivate people, assuming you are working for something worthwhile, I would think it would reduce your peace of mind if you didn’t use those talents, despite the stress that might come with it. You go on to list activities that are peaceful, but aren’t likely to lead to anything new, anything creative. Raising a child involves lots of tedious, stressful activity, but when you reflect back on that accomplishment, the satisfaction and contentment with having done it is well beyond the satisfaction of a walk in the woods. At least that’s what I’ve heard. I agree with what you’re saying, but I think some people can understand all of this and maintain their inner peace while taking on some things that don’t appear peaceful at all. It's not anything you have here is wrong, but I think there is something missing. Something about creativity, the joy of the journey. It's partially in there, but look at your last sentence, you're saying it's better to just stay out of politics. I’ll be off the grid this weekend, but looking forward to continuing.
Your lack of response to the conclusive proof you've been taking things out of context suggests you possess some skill at ignoring specific problems.
You'll have to fix that sentence before I can respond to it.
Your lack of response to the conclusive proof you've been taking things out of context suggests you possess some skill at ignoring specific problems.
You'll have to fix that sentence before I can respond to it. What a marvelous example of self-stultification. :-)
Your lack of response to the conclusive proof you've been taking things out of context suggests you possess some skill at ignoring specific problems.
You'll have to fix that sentence before I can respond to it. What a marvelous example of self-stultification. :-) Really? You can't look at that and see that it is incomprehensible? You are claiming conclusive proof, based on what? That I can read your mind? It doesn't occur to you to say, "what I meant was", instead of saying I'm ignoring something? I agree that your article was more about your second sentence than the first, but you still said the first, you still haven't backed up the claim of that sentence. Instead you want me to cut you some slack when you do nothing of the sort for others. Are you going to make other claims, not back them up, then attack my character when I point that out? If you are going to continue doing that, then it might make more sense to you why I'm "ignoring specific problems".
Your lack of response to the conclusive proof you've been taking things out of context suggests you possess some skill at ignoring specific problems.
You'll have to fix that sentence before I can respond to it. What a marvelous example of self-stultification. :-) Really? You can't look at that and see that it is incomprehensible? It it's incomprehensible then you can respond to it by saying it's incomprehensible. Which, of course, contradicts your claim that you can't respond until it's fixed. Saying it's incomprehensible has the advantage of encouraging the creation of a version that you can understand. Chances are you understood what it meant but decided to play a rhetorical game.
You are claiming conclusive proof, based on what? That I can read your mind? It doesn't occur to you to say, "what I meant was", instead of saying I'm ignoring something? I agree that your article was more about your second sentence than the first, but you still said the first, you still haven't backed up the claim of that sentence.
And you still haven't admitted failing to properly consider the context when you charged that the supporting URLs did not support the claim. For what am I proclaiming conclusive proof? Any idea? If you have no idea then I can't make sense of your question. I've stated repeatedly what I meant, both before and after you starting taking my comments out of context. Like you, George unaccountably struggled to understand what I was talking about (even after I repeated myself on that point). It's fine with me if you don't believe that indeterminism is the consensus view among scientists. You've said (it appears) you don't know the truth of the matter wrt to whether random quantum phenomena are deterministic. That should be adequate for the reasonable person to engage in thought-experimentation regarding our conception of causation. It's not reasonable to insist on examples of indeterminism that specifically describe what you claim we cannot perceive (it's contradictory to describe the imperceptible except to say it is imperceptible).
Instead you want me to cut you some slack when you do nothing of the sort for others.
Baloney. I don't want you to cut me some slack. I want you consider context when you read and keep your accusations realistic (clean up your act).
Are you going to make other claims, not back them up, then attack my character when I point that out?
Who's attacking your character? We have three clear examples of you avoiding a point. That's indicative of some skill without delving into your character. The assessment is based purely on your performance.
If you are going to continue doing that, then it might make more sense to you why I'm "ignoring specific problems".
I'll back up any claim that I expect you to take as true. And as for you, you've accused me of attacking your character. Will you back up that accusation? I'm afraid I can't resist commenting on the hilarity of your excuse for ignoring specific problems. You ignore them because of the supposed character attack I made after you ignored the problems. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Very illuminating.
After about half way through, you start talking about simpler lifestyle. This gets a bit ascetic for me.
Could you please provide a quote from the document that backs up your claim that my philosophy is "ascetic"?
It starts under the examples of how to live a simple life. They include not even getting promoted into management. If you have the talent to motivate people, assuming you are working for something worthwhile, I would think it would reduce your peace of mind if you didn’t use those talents, despite the stress that might come with it. I do not advise against taking on a managerial position. Rather, all I say is that such a move complicates one's life, and the costs of such complication (in terms of long-term happiness) should be weighed against the benefits of being a manager.
You go on to list activities that are peaceful, but aren’t likely to lead to anything new, anything creative. Raising a child involves lots of tedious, stressful activity, but when you reflect back on that accomplishment, the satisfaction and contentment with having done it is well beyond the satisfaction of a walk in the woods. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
As with taking on a managerial position, I do not advise against having children. Additionally, I do not advise against new or creative activities.
I agree with what you’re saying, but I think some people can understand all of this and maintain their inner peace while taking on some things that don’t appear peaceful at all. It's not anything you have here is wrong, but I think there is something missing. Something about creativity, the joy of the journey.
Again, I do not advise against creative activities, and there is nothing in my philosophy that advises against or prevents one from simply enjoying life. I know that I enjoy life.
It's partially in there, but look at your last sentence, you're saying it's better to just stay out of politics.
Yes, and for good reason. As discussed in the document, being involved in politics may disturb one's mind, and there is usually no compensating benefit, since one person can rarely make a significant difference.
I’ll be off the grid this weekend, but looking forward to continuing.
I look forward to continuing our discussion as well.

Has anyone ever wondered how to be in two places at the same time? What, you didn’t know it’s possible? In my model I’d like to show how the same green ball can be both in Paris and in New York at the same time. Ah, forget it, just read this:

Has anyone ever wondered how to be in two places at the same time? What, you didn't know it's possible? In my model I'd like to show how the same green ball can be both in Paris and in New York at the same time. Ah, forget it, just read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Ever wonder if George will cut out the ill-considered mockery and actually deal with the issue of the way we understand causation (instead of falsely implying that I'm somehow illicitly mixing classical physics with QM)? Ah, forget it, just read this: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/191326/

Sorry I was away for a while.
First George’s point. It is a complete false understanding of what Bryan is doing in his posting about the coloured balls. Bryan is just trying to convey a concept with a visible example. The question at hand is what he means with determinism, indeterminism and causation. His flying balls are just an illustration, if you want, a didactic device, nothing more. Many scientists use the same kind of device when explaining some of the exotic phenomena in QM: coins that fall on both sides, balls changing colours when another ball is observed, fish that are in a pond because it is not in the other one, etc. etc.
It is used to explain ideas with simple but non-existing events, before applying the conveyed concepts to the real stuff, like photons, wave functions and so on.
The example would be useful if Bryan can show that his concept of indeterminism

  1. is relevant to the problem of free will,
  2. really exists at the basis of human behaviour.
    But Bryan does nothing wrong when he illustrates what he means with indeterminism using an unrealistic but clear example.

I don’t mind the ball analogy at all; I have done it myself before. It’s what he is after that is wrong. Were he to leave QM out of it, I wouldn’t have said a thing. None of us here has the slightest idea how indeterminism is relevant to QM and what he is doing is simply laughable. So why not add another joke? My model of being in two places and referencing QM is exactly the same thing as him implying that free will is possible because of QM.