A topical post:
@
Kai and @
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, I have been following your exchange at times very closely and at times more casually. As you would expect, I sympathise with Kai, and I think a lot of his points are very apt, however, I also feel that he has unfortunately to some extent "fallen into Paul's trap". What is this trap? The false dichotomy between that which is "deterministic" versus that which is "utterly random". This is particularly apparent in the ongoing Presidential Choice example. Kai has to some extent been forced into defending the independent existence (or at least the independently
conceptual existence) of a genuinely random "choice module" which in some sense has no other role than to insert openness into an otherwise deterministic decision-making process. This allows Paul the opportunity to express bemusement at how genuine randomness could be compatible with genuine choice. It is not, though, in my view, the right way to look at free will choices. It is too reductive. In reality, there is no sharp, categorical distinction between some "deterministic aspect of our choice-making which is necessitated" - and in some sense forced upon us - and some "utterly random, indeterministic part of our choice-making". There is simply a free choice-making process which
overall is not necessitated - it cannot be split into this neat little dichotomy of "deterministically necessitated" and "indeterministically utterly random"; it has its own "inner logic" which is both meaningful and free, but which is, more importantly, an expression/outcome of the agent's genuinely free volition.
I have no idea whether this is a helpful or even welcome comment, I just wanted to put in my two cents. Keep up the good fight, Kai.