CPBD 084: Eddie Tabash – Engaging Religion in Politics and Debate

by Luke Muehlhauser on January 9, 2011 in Podcast,Politics

(Listen to other episodes of Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot here.)

Today I interview Eddie Tabash about how to get atheists into office, and how to debate religionists on college campuses.

Download CPBD episode 084 with Eddie Tabash. Total time is 26:44.

Eddie Tabash links:

Note: in addition to the regular blog feed, there is also a podcast-only feed. You can also subscribe on iTunes.

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }

Leomar January 9, 2011 at 7:20 am

Oh Great Luke, Tabash, downloading.

  (Quote)

PDH January 9, 2011 at 7:53 am

Can’t wait to listen to this. I really enjoyed his debate with WLC.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher January 9, 2011 at 9:38 am

I have always enjoyed Tabash’s debates. You can tell he has a judicial doctorate because he is slick.

  (Quote)

Rob January 9, 2011 at 10:00 am

Glad this guy’s on my side.

Also, looking forward to Marcel Brass. IMO, developments in neuroscience have falsified Christianity.

  (Quote)

cl January 9, 2011 at 11:48 am

IMO, developments in neuroscience have falsified Christianity.

LOL! Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  (Quote)

Rob January 9, 2011 at 11:54 am

No problem cl. Since there is no contra-causal freewill, you can’t help being a dipshit.

  (Quote)

Taranu January 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm

ROFLMAO

  (Quote)

Ralph January 9, 2011 at 1:26 pm

IMO, developments in neuroscience have falsified Christianity.

Hahahahah!!!

  (Quote)

Kyle Key January 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm

@Rob:
Brilliant. (not sarcastic)

  (Quote)

Ralph January 9, 2011 at 4:41 pm

This wasn’t what I wanted to quote.

IMO, developments in neuroscience have falsified Christianity.  (Quote)

I wanted to quote this:

No problem cl. Since there is no contra-causal freewill, you can’t help being a dipshit.  (Quote)

  (Quote)

Ralph January 9, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Sorry Rob…wrong quote.

  (Quote)

Mike Young January 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Rob, what you said about freewill is false. Alfred Mele wrote a book about this, you should read it. Besides, the defeat of your argument is in your own sentence. If you lose freedom of the will you lose agency and also reason because you cannot help your beliefs. If that is the case then all your beliefs are believed because you have to believe them true or not. Which mean your own sentence you believe regardless of whether or not it is true. If you cant see the problem with that then you have a problem.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser January 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Mike,

I disagree with this. An artificial intelligence can have agency and reliably true beliefs, even though they are deterministic from the ground up. An AI can even discover that its beliefs are false and correct them on the basis of new data. The human mind is no different in this regard.

  (Quote)

Patrick January 9, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Not to mention, even if we have no agency, that doesn’t defeat the statement that we have no agency. That doesn’t even make sense. You can’t get to that conclusion from that premise.

  (Quote)

Jeb January 9, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Eddie is cool and all, but that picture is creepy.

  (Quote)

Sly January 9, 2011 at 8:49 pm

No problem cl.Since there is no contra-causal freewill, you can’t help being a dipshit.  

Owned.

  (Quote)

Silver Bullet January 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm

“An artificial intelligence can have agency and reliably true beliefs, even though they are deterministic from the ground up.”

Luke, can you point me to where I may learn that this is true?

  (Quote)

cl January 10, 2011 at 3:37 am

First I was a “racist,” [faithlessgod] then a “sophist,” [Alonzo Fyfe], after that a “troll” [Luke], and now a “dipshit” [Rob]. Oh yeah, I forgot “idiot” [Kip]. Congratulations Luke! You’ve managed to attract a growing number of “rationalists” who debate like teenagers taking bong rips to South Park. So, while your commenters laugh at me, I simply lament as the integrity of this site plummets further and further.

Rob,

Well, I gotta hand it to ya: that was good. I award you two points. Alas, entertainment only goes so far, so, now that you’ve presumably bolstered your own sense of self-worth by putting me down, and we’ve all had a good laugh at my expense, would you care to actually provide some evidence and/or explanation for your statement? You might wish to clarify as well: Christianity is a collection of hundreds if not thousands of premises. To simply assert, “neuroscience has falsified Christianity” is to argue with the precision of 2×4 when a sharpened pencil is needed. You’re supposed to be the “rational” one here, step your game up!

Silver Bullet,

If Luke actually answers your request for evidence — as opposed to, you know, whining about lack of time, patience, etc. — I suspect it will involve significant redefinition of the word agency, much like the redefinition of moral terms to mount the desirist case. We’ll see. I actually hope he proves me wrong because I’m pretty tired of semantic sidesteps.

  (Quote)

Rob January 10, 2011 at 4:20 am

cl,

Are you familiar with the school-yard phrase that begins “sticks and stones”? What about the the proverb in Matthew about living by the sword?

Let’s wait and see what Brass has to say, and see how it applies to your deeply held beliefs.

  (Quote)

Luke Muehlhauser January 10, 2011 at 7:52 am

Silver Bullett,

AIs are regularly programmed to act on the basis of what might be called beliefs and desires. There are several ways to do this. They can also continuously update their beliefs on the basis of new data, as in a Bayesian network.

  (Quote)

Justgreatthanks January 10, 2011 at 8:16 am

cl:

First I was a “racist,” [faithlessgod] then a “sophist,” [Alonzo Fyfe], after that a “troll” [Luke], and now a “dipshit” [Rob]. Oh yeah, I forgot “idiot” [Kip].

Yeah, that all does sound unflattering, so I’m sure you’re just disappointed that they don’t quite fit with the theme of your blog’s “feedback” area. Don’t worry, I’m sure someone soon will come up with a new quote about you that you can add to your blog’s left column o’ self-fellation.

  (Quote)

Tommykey January 10, 2011 at 9:46 am

Justrgreatthanks, elsewhere he has been referred to as “douchebag”, though not by me.

  (Quote)

Mike Young January 10, 2011 at 10:23 am

Strong AI of the type that you are talking about is not actually possible. Again, Read “rediscovery of the mind by John Searle

  (Quote)

Mike Young January 10, 2011 at 10:33 am

To make the point a little more clear, I am not making an empirical claim, I am claiming that it is conceptually impossible to have strong AI. See the Chinese Room argument. Any experiments that claim to show otherwise are using an outdated behaviorist intuition

  (Quote)

Welsh January 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm

Strong AI of the type that you are talking about is not actually possible. Again, Read “rediscovery of themind by John Searle  

Would you mind taking a stab at summarizing the relevant arguments? As a computer scientist who has had a few stabs at ai programming I’m not convinced strong AI is impossible. Upon introspection, I witness nothing that couldn’t be mimicked/simulated/modeled in a computer. Though we have been convinced strong AI is 20 years away for the last 50 years. Perhaps, that is the greatest indictment of Strong AI.

To make the point a little more clear, I am not making an empirical claim, I am claiming that it is conceptually impossible to have strong AI. See the Chinese Room argument. Any experiments that claim to show otherwise are using an outdated behaviorist intuition  

Now I am familiar with the Chinese Room argument and find it unconvincing. A summary of the argument I’m responding too:

You have a room whose occupants know no Chinese. Slips of paper written in Chinese are deposited in the room. The occupants carefully follow a set of rules written out for them which instruct them how to create a response which they then send out of the room. To all those outside the room, it appears that the room knows Chinese which we know is not the case. The argument then suggests that any AI program is just a Chinese Room.

The reason I am unconvinced is that it seems to me that Searle is suggesting that because no physical part of the system can be said to know Chinese, you can’t argue that the system knows Chinese. Which misses the point, if a room can convince all people then who is to say it doesn’t know Chinese, regardless of the occupants. To bring the argument closer to home: I don’t think many people would regard a neuron to be intelligent. However many would regard a collection of neurons as intelligent.

And if you regard intelligence and/or the mind to reside outside of observable space then you’ve set us up to fail. But likewise, you could not then prove that any system did not have intelligence either.

  (Quote)

Rob January 10, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Rob, what you said about freewill is false. Alfred Mele wrote a book about this, you should read it. Besides, the defeat of your argument is in your own sentence. If you lose freedom of the will you lose agency and also reason because you cannot help your beliefs. If that is the case then all your beliefs are believed because you have to believe them true or not. Which mean your own sentence you believe regardless of whether or not it is true. If you cant see the problem with that then you have a problem.  

Your claim then is that contra-causal freewill is a pre-condition for rationality.

That is false. Here’s why:

If an agent has contra-causal free will, then it can act, make choices, and acquire beliefs for no reasons at all. It’s freely chosen beliefs will have no causal connection to the universe. For example, you could freely choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese. Since your beliefs are free-floating and acquired for no reason, then they have been acquired in an unreliable fashion. This is a hopeless situation, and thankfully is not the situation we are in.

  (Quote)

cl January 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Tommykey!

Been a while. I hope the new year finds you well. FWIW, I liked Philly’s “crazy uncle cl picks his ears with a carrot and starts taking his pants off” remark the best. The whole “douchebag” thing just isn’t that creative, and I know Philly’s a creative guy.

Justgreatthanks,

Yeah, that all does sound unflattering, so I’m sure you’re just disappointed that they don’t quite fit with the theme of your blog’s “feedback” area. Don’t worry, I’m sure someone soon will come up with a new quote about you that you can add to your blog’s left column o’ self-fellation.

Are you kidding? I thrive on the unflattering. If you would but look for two seconds, you’d find that faithlessgod’s “racist” smear is right up at the top! In fact, that sidebar is probably 40/60. I love haters. I love that so many of you get your little panties in a wad when I challenge your arguments. Besides, are you sure you’re not just lashing out because I called you for making two claims without evidence in Luke’s post This Is What It’s Like To Debate A Christian?

Rob,

If an agent has contra-causal free will, then it can act, make choices, and acquire beliefs for no reasons at all.

Hence, the LOL. That an agent with CCFW might be able to act, make choices and acquire beliefs for no reason at all does not show Mike Young’s claim to be false. You’ve not even supported your claim. Try using a syllogism, some evidence, some clinical data, or something. Don’t just spout an ill-thought-out argument and then have the audacity to say I’m the dipshit, especially after you busted O’Reilly’s balls the way you did. You can do better.

For example, you could freely choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese.

LOL! Talk about giving one’s own “argument” short thrift! Could you “freely choose” to believe you have a third arm? As an aside, I’ve heard many an atheist argue that no matter how hard they try, they simply can’t force themselves to believe in something like God. There are so many possible avenues of objection to your “argument” that I seriously question how well you’ve thought it out.

Anyways, would you care to clarify and support your “neuroscience has falsified Christianity” assertion? Of course, presuming you’re actually interested in supporting your assertions.

  (Quote)

Rob January 10, 2011 at 4:46 pm

cl,

What the hell? Can you even read?

  (Quote)

Ryan M January 10, 2011 at 4:52 pm

CL, can you give evidence for your assertion that your sidebar probably has a 60/40 ratio of hate/praise remarks? I think some posters might want some evidence to think that is probably the case.

I assume we want evidence for every assertion made by persons on this site, not just particulars.

Also, Cl, it seems to me Rob did not assert the following is a true proposition: Developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity.

Rather, it looks like Rob stated this as an opinion, not a fact. I don’t think claiming something as an opinion is identical to claiming something is a fact.

Maybe you think differently, but I tend to not think that people claiming something as an opinion is worthy of asking for evidence.

  (Quote)

cl January 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm

Rob,

What the hell? Can you even read?

Yeah. You said it was your opinion that neuroscience falsified Christianity. So, I’m asking you to clarify and support your opinion. If you don’t want to, or can’t, or aren’t going to, just say so. Like I said, we’ve probably both got better things to do.

Ryan M,

CL, can you give evidence for your assertion that your sidebar probably has a 60/40 ratio of hate/praise remarks?

How nice of you to completely reverse my numbers! What steadfast attention to the facts! I actually said, “In fact, that sidebar is probably 40/60.” Big difference, isn’t it? As for the evidence, it’s been there: 22 / 54 = .40740. You could’ve found it if you weren’t so eager to get a gotcha. Count ‘em up and do the math yourself if you don’t believe me.

I assume we want evidence for every assertion made by persons on this site, not just particulars.

…and, I agree. That’s exactly why I’m asking Rob to provide the evidence for his assertion.

Maybe you think differently, but I tend to not think that people claiming something as an opinion is worthy of asking for evidence.

Maybe you think differently, but if I’m at a party and somebody says, “It’s my opinion that President Obama is a blustering fool,” I’m going to be inclined to ask them why, i.e., for the evidence or facts or arguments that led them to their opinion.

  (Quote)

Garren January 11, 2011 at 12:35 am

I disagree with the message of this episode. We’re being asked to vote based on someone’s religious beliefs in order to support First Amendment rights.

Doesn’t that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

  (Quote)

Ryan M January 11, 2011 at 1:49 am

Cl, I could have found it myself, however, just as you claim against other posters, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for their assertions. So, you failed to provide evidence initially for the claim 40/60 claim (Sorry for mixing the numbers up, I ought to have double checked). I’m not going for a simple gotcha point, rather, I think sometimes you fail to do the same thing you claim people such as justfinethanks are at fault for doing (i.e. Not providing evidence for an assertion). It just seems ironic to me that you would some posters are failing to meet an obligation they have (Provide evidence for assertion) then do the same thing yourself. Also, would justfinethanks be justified in responding to your claim that he did not provide evidence for the ’20 – 1′ assertion by saying “If you weren’t too busy going for a gotcha point, you could have found this yourself if you had checked”? I don’t see a difference between what you did, and what justfinethanks could have done. So were you simply going for a ‘gotcha point’ against justfinethanks?

Also, asking someone for evidence or argument concerning the development of an opinion is fine. But, consider this scenario: 1. Person X claims the following ‘Developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity’. 2. Person Y claims the following ‘In my opinion, developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity’. Do both persons X and Y have the same burden of proof? I’m wondering that, and I think that they do not, as it seems to me that person Y is not making the assertion that developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity, rather, the claim is that in her opinion developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity. So perhaps I’m wrong, but does an opinion carry a burden of proof, or do you think that people simply ought to provide evidence and argumentation for their claim if you ask for it? Personally, like you, I might be inclined to ask for evidence and argumentation that led to the development of person Y’s belief, but I do not think person Y’s claim counts as an assertion that carries a burden. If I’m wrong in some way about anything I’ve said, please tell me, I may be missing a lot more than I can tell.

  (Quote)

Ryan M January 11, 2011 at 1:52 am

Perhaps I should quadruple check what I’m writing, as I see some sentences in my last post that clearly do not make sense :(

  (Quote)

Kyle Key January 11, 2011 at 9:06 am

cl: “Could you “freely choose” to believe you have a third arm?”
It seems I could if my beliefs weren’t arrived at deterministically. What’s to stop me, given that on the contra-causal free will view, beliefs and reasons for action can apparently arise completely independent of anything else? Am I wrong to take the phrase “contra-causal” that way? Note that I’m not saying they necessarily arise completely independently (i.e. not 100% of the time, as they could certainly coincide with the reasons, evidence, environmental/biological factors, etc. that give rise to beliefs and desires on a deterministic account), but that it seems that they would most of the time–or at least rarely.

  (Quote)

cl January 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Ryan M,

By “get a gotcha,” I simply mean to reveal an error or inconsistency in what one is saying and/or doing. When you told me,

I assume we want evidence for every assertion made by persons on this site, not just particulars.

…your use of “we” would seemingly imply that you are among the subset of those who want evidence for every assertion made by persons on this site, not just particulars [to be clear, I don't think we need evidence for literally every claim made in a discussion].

However, when you dug into your keyboard, the only thing you managed to spew out was a request to me. Did you ask Rob to support the claims from his comment January 10, 2011 at 4:10 pm, which clearly fall outside the realm of “opinion” and qualify as assertion of true proposition? Since the answer is an unemphatic “no,” why shouldn’t I take this blatant inconsistency as suggestive of being overly eager to get a gotcha? Can you admit that you didn’t hold others who made truth claims accountable, and that you singled out a particular claim of mine for whatever reason?

You state:

So, you failed to provide evidence initially for the claim 40/60 claim (Sorry for mixing the numbers up, I ought to have double checked). I’m not going for a simple gotcha point, rather, I think sometimes you fail to do the same thing you claim people such as justfinethanks are at fault for doing (i.e. Not providing evidence for an assertion).

I can see how you would think that, and why you would ask those questions. I have no problem admitting to the fact that I have – and will – make mistakes. That said, I don’t think that’s the case here, and I offer the following as the salient differences between the cases:

Justgreatthanks shot from the hip, then went and did only partial research to back up the claim. Who’s to say the joke/serious ratio from October to the present is an accurate represention of the joke/serious ratio from the inception of CSA to today? Justgreatthanks simply did a half-assed research attempt, after the fact, and then proceeded to assume it was an accurate representation of the remaining two years or so. So – and partially in a spirit of jest, as that post was in the context of – I called it out. The subtext was, “How different debating the Santa Claus proponent from debating some of CSA’s regular commenters?” Strict rational rigor wasn’t the driving focus. Rather the take-home point was that errors in argumentation are human fallacies, equally indulged by atheists and skeptics, as atheists and skeptics are equally human.

You ask:

…would justfinethanks be justified in responding to your claim that he did not provide evidence for the ’20 – 1′ assertion by saying “If you weren’t too busy going for a gotcha point, you could have found this yourself if you had checked”?

No. At least, not in my opinion. Consider the scope of Justgreatthanks’ claim: it would take sufficient effort for an interlocutor to do the math themselves when the scope of the claim is the joke/serious ratio of the entire set of over 1000 posts at CSA. To contrast, I made a claim about the sidebar of my own blog – to which a link was provided – and I’d actually researched my claim before. If you really wanted, I could probably even dig up the specific comment indicating the last analysis, when the ratio was somewhere around 35/65 [I've been blessed with new "negative" material by Luke and many of his cronies since the last analysis]. The point is, any Joe ProveIt can quickly check my claim for themselves. I wouldn’t require evidence if someone claimed there were 34 comments in this thread at the time of this comment. Would you? So, again, no: I don’t think I did the same thing I claimed Justgreatthanks did. My main gripe against Justgreatthanks was what I referred to as the “claim first, research later” strategy [or something to that effect]. I had researched my claim before I made it, and even if I hadn’t, it was a claim any interested party could easily verify for themselves in under 5 minutes. Further, I didn’t do “partial research” and then use extrapolation to assume my conclusion.

So were you simply going for a ‘gotcha point’ against justfinethanks?

Yes, I was going for a gotcha. Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to get a gotcha. That’s one of the main uses of critical thinking, along with apprehending the implications of nuance for any given argument. However, I do think being overly eager to get a gotcha can impede clear analysis of the facts, but I don’t see that such happened in this instance. It has happened to me before; I know that much. Anyways, it’s good that you’re thinking critically. It’s good that you’re at least paying enough attention to what I say that you can attempt to hold me accountable. I like that, and I’m not speaking to you sarcastically.

Do both persons X and Y have the same burden of proof? I’m wondering that, and I think that they do not, as it seems to me that person Y is not making the assertion that developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity, rather, the claim is that in her opinion developments in neuroscience falsify Christianity.

Well, in my opinion, that’s just semantics. In general, and when possible, I think conclusions ought to be justified. While I might admire their concern for clarity, the person who says Y is simply a person who states X accurately. Both of them have come to a conclusion about some claim. Therefore, both are fair game for inquiry.

Personally, like you, I might be inclined to ask for evidence and argumentation that led to the development of person Y’s belief, but I do not think person Y’s claim counts as an assertion that carries a burden.

I didn’t say anything to Rob about a burden. I simply asked him to clarify and support his terribly imprecise statement, and, he declined, and proceeded to focus on the side-issues instead. Of course I’ve heard the “sticks and stones” mantra! His name-calling didn’t hurt me. It actually humors me. Hasn’t Rob heard what folks say about those who call names, i.e., nothing better to say? As far as living by the sword, give me a break. Way to take a verse out of context and apply it where it’s not even relevant.

And I’m the dipshit. Yeah, okay.

Kyle Key,

I don’t see anything in CCFW that would “suddenly enable” an agent to form beliefs “for no reason at all.” I think of CCFW as the position that, “in a situation as it actually occurred, you could have done otherwise but chose not to.” [cf. Tom Clark] In any given situation, that one could have done otherwise but chose not to doesn’t seem to entail that one could suddenly believe they have a third arm – or that the moon is made of green cheese – for no reason at all.

Consider Luke’s last comment to Silver Bullet. Updating beliefs on the basis of new data constitutes acquisition and/or transition of belief for a reason, which seems at odds with Rob’s unsupported assertion that with CCFW, an agent “can act, make choices, and acquire beliefs for no reasons at all.” It seems to me that prior knowledge would still constitute a “reason” given CCFW or not, in other words.

  (Quote)

Ryan M January 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Cl,

Good response. And I think I may agree regarding the ’40/60, 20 – 1′ claims, considering the amount of effort required to verify both statements.

  (Quote)

Kyle Key January 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm

“in a situation as it actually occurred, you could have done otherwise but chose not to.”
Of course, the crux of the issue is at defining “could have done otherwise.” Re-winding the state of the universe until the millisecond (or whatever unit of time you’d prefer) before the decision was made, every given state of the universe prior to that decision is still exactly the same as it was before you decided the first time, which seems to raise the question, “What would now make this a situation wherein you’d choose a different option?”
The sole solution, from my seat, is some kind of spontaneous selection mechanism, undetermined by the things that you might’ve used to support the choice of the original selection (if the new choice is still based on exactly the same criteria as before, there’s certainly no way for the choice to be different.) Barring evidence for an undetermined ability to choose, I don’t yet have any reason to assume that the instantiation of counterfactuals is a nomological possibility.

  (Quote)

James Onen January 11, 2011 at 11:50 pm

Guys, can’t we just stop giving cl the attention he’s looking for? This thread is dying.

  (Quote)

cl January 12, 2011 at 1:52 am

James Onen,

Cry me a river! As if I’m striving for the type of “attention” lavished indulgently upon me from the likes of Rob, Sly, Taranu, Ralph, et al. I’m looking for discussion, and, as I’d think you can see, once people drop the whole “let’s call names and make unjustified claims” gambit, discussion tends to ensue. Cases in point:

Kyle Key,

Let me see if I can accurately paraphrase your question with a little humorous jaunt into the thread. Take Rob and James Onen for examples. For whatever reasons, Rob is obviously the type of person who believes in denigrating other human beings with whom he disagrees. I mean, we have evidence enough of that already. Likewise, for whatever reasons, James Onen is obviously more interested in whining about his disapproval of me and making assumptions about my motives than adding anything of value to this discussion. So, if we were to rewind time just prior to the moment of decision, the question is, could Rob have declined to denigrate another human being given all prior conditions being exactly the same? Could James Onen have decided to actually add something productive or insightful to the thread?

Along these lines, you write:

The sole solution, from my seat, is some kind of spontaneous selection mechanism, undetermined by the things that you might’ve used to support the choice of the original selection…

Yet, if Rob had in fact chosen to refrain from denigrating another human being, or if James Onen had in fact chosen to add something productive to the thread instead of the “attention” he ostensibly decries, what – if anything – would lead you to believe that these alternative choices were undetermined by prior conditions? IOW, I’m skeptical of the notion that “could have done otherwise” necessarily entails “undetermined ability to choose.”

Ryan M,

Good response.

Thanks, although, it was your desire to hold me accountable that ultimately led to the effort I put into it. You forced me to apply my critical thinking to myself. You had me sweating, albeit only for a moment, whereas Rob and the others had me laughing. I take our exchange as suggestive of the idea that respectful inquiry takes us farther than juvenile name-calling ever can.

  (Quote)

James Onen January 12, 2011 at 4:25 am

*Sigh*

  (Quote)

ildi January 12, 2011 at 6:01 am

*Sigh*  

It usually takes people a couple of circuits on the personality disorder merry-go-round before they figure it out…

  (Quote)

Kyle Key January 12, 2011 at 6:36 am

“what – if anything – would lead you to believe that these alternative choices were undetermined by prior conditions?”

The prior conditions are exactly identical to what they were the first time. Given the exact same prior conditions, how could a different choice emerge from those conditions, barring an ability to make a choice on some basis other than the initial prior conditions? If such an ability exists–which I don’t think it does–it certainly wouldn’t fall under the domain of the “will,” as remember, in this situation, we’ve rewound time to the millisecond before the decision is arrived at. Can you will yourself to choose something different based on exactly identical prior conditions in a millisecond?

If the inclination is to say, “Why a millisecond? Why can’t I wait a few minutes and think over the possibilities again to make a different choice?,” the response is going to be, “Because the prior conditions of the situation resulted in you NOT waiting a few minutes the first time, and given that nothing has changed, what, except a seemingly random, undetermined ability to choose is going to make you wait to choose this time?”

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment