How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

I was not talking about taste. Taste is about what flavour of ice-cream you like. I am talking about what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. I think that murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, robbery, theft, fraud, etc, are evil and wrong. I think that saving lives and improving lives are good and right. These are my thoughts.

What’s the difference? You dislike murder. You dislike certain vegan flavors of ice cream. How is your dislike for murder any different than your dislike in ice cream? Sure it’s about a different subject, but it’s still just a difference, no objectively better or worse than someone else’s thoughts and tastes.

[Compassionist]

I was not talking about taste. Taste is about what flavour of ice-cream you like. I am talking about what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. I think that murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, robbery, theft, fraud, etc, are evil and wrong. I think that saving lives and improving lives are good and right. These are my thoughts.

What’s the difference? You dislike murder. You dislike certain vegan flavors of ice cream. How is your dislike for murder any different than your dislike in ice cream? Sure it’s about a different subject, but it’s still just a difference, no objectively better or worse than someone else’s thoughts and tastes.

I didn't claim it was objectively different. All of my claims are subjective, e.g. I am a sentient being is a subjective truth, not an objective truth. I can't prove to you that I am a sentient being and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.

The qualia of flavours of ice-cream is a simple experience. The qualia of being kidnapped or being raped or being tortured or being murdered is much more intense and complex and involve multiple senses, strong emotions, etc. Unless you have first-hand experience with these things, you are not going to understand. There is also the concept of harm. As long as the ingredients of the ice-cream are vegan, no harm is being caused by choosing one flavour of ice-cream over another. However, much harm is being caused when sentient organisms are kidnapped or raped or tortured or murdered.

[The Tanager]

I didn't claim it was objectively different. All of my claims are subjective, e.g. I am a sentient being is a subjective truth, not an objective truth. I can't prove to you that I am a sentient being and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.

I used the word “taste” and you said that’s not taste, that taste is about the flavor of ice cream, and that morality is about good and evil. If there is no objective difference between the two, then this is just semantics. You should be rationally fine calling disliking rape and liking rape different tastes in exactly the same way you are rationally fine calling liking one vegan flavor and disliking another different tastes.

“I am a sentient being” is an objective claim about who you are. It’s not 100% certain, but it is objective. “I feel like a sentient being” (or something like that) is a subjective claim about your feelings, not your actual identity. That can be 100% certain, but it is subjective.

The qualia of flavours of ice-cream is a simple experience. The qualia of being kidnapped or being raped or being tortured or being murdered is much more intense and complex and involve multiple senses, strong emotions, etc. Unless you have first-hand experience with these things, you are not going to understand. There is also the concept of harm. As long as the ingredients of the ice-cream are vegan, no harm is being caused by choosing one flavour of ice-cream over another. However, much harm is being caused when sentient organisms are kidnapped or raped or tortured or murdered.

I am making no pretense that I have first hand experience of these kinds of atrocities and they are true injustices, but that doesn’t mean I can’t rationally analyze them. Complexity is irrelevant in the sense that all that would mean is that we have complex tastes and simpler tastes. They are both rightly called “tastes” in a very real and comparable way.

I’m with you, I get much more emotional over moral atrocities than people liking pistachio flavored ice cream. On certain forms of theism, this makes rational sense. On atheism, I don’t see how this makes rational sense. Emotional sense, sure, but not rational sense.

To say we need to consider harm is just (unintentional) semantics. It’s really just being used as a synonym for evil. Something is evil because it is harmful. Why is harm bad?

(1) Is it just defined that way? Synonym, then.
(2) It just is? Question-begging then.
(3) Logical support…? Please share.

[Compassionist]

I didn't claim it was objectively different. All of my claims are subjective, e.g. I am a sentient being is a subjective truth, not an objective truth. I can't prove to you that I am a sentient being and not a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream or a philosophical zombie.

I used the word “taste” and you said that’s not taste, that taste is about the flavor of ice cream, and that morality is about good and evil. If there is no objective difference between the two, then this is just semantics. You should be rationally fine calling disliking rape and liking rape different tastes in exactly the same way you are rationally fine calling liking one vegan flavor and disliking another different tastes.

“I am a sentient being” is an objective claim about who you are. It’s not 100% certain, but it is objective. “I feel like a sentient being” (or something like that) is a subjective claim about your feelings, not your actual identity. That can be 100% certain, but it is subjective.

The qualia of flavours of ice-cream is a simple experience. The qualia of being kidnapped or being raped or being tortured or being murdered is much more intense and complex and involve multiple senses, strong emotions, etc. Unless you have first-hand experience with these things, you are not going to understand. There is also the concept of harm. As long as the ingredients of the ice-cream are vegan, no harm is being caused by choosing one flavour of ice-cream over another. However, much harm is being caused when sentient organisms are kidnapped or raped or tortured or murdered.

I am making no pretense that I have first hand experience of these kinds of atrocities and they are true injustices, but that doesn’t mean I can’t rationally analyze them. Complexity is irrelevant in the sense that all that would mean is that we have complex tastes and simpler tastes. They are both rightly called “tastes” in a very real and comparable way.

I’m with you, I get much more emotional over moral atrocities than people liking pistachio flavored ice cream. On certain forms of theism, this makes rational sense. On atheism, I don’t see how this makes rational sense. Emotional sense, sure, but not rational sense.

To say we need to consider harm is just (unintentional) semantics. It’s really just being used as a synonym for evil. Something is evil because it is harmful. Why is harm bad?

(1) Is it just defined that way? Synonym, then.
(2) It just is? Question-begging then.
(3) Logical support…? Please share.

Sentience by its very nature is subjective. "I am a sentient being" is not an objective claim. It is a subjective experience that cannot be proven to anyone else. I can't prove to you that I am not a philosophical zombie and you can't prove to me that you are not a philosophical zombie.

All of my experiences, knowledge, tastes, morality, and preferences are subjective and cannot be proven objectively. The same goes for other sentient beings if they exist. I am an agnostic. By the word agnostic, I mean "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." Please see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic

I don't know the answers to all your questions and it's not my fault that I don't know them. You don't know the answers to all of my questions and it is not your fault either. I am a prisoner of causality doomed to suffer and die. No God saved trillions of other apparently sentient beings from suffering and death and no God will save me. If you believe in God that's fine by me. I guarantee that God will not save you from suffering and death.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #94]

What you’ve done in that latest post is simply restate what you’ve already said; you aren’t responding further to the reasoning I’ve already offered in response to what you’ve already said. You have offered no rational reason that it’s 100% certainty or bust. You have offered no rational reason to treat moral tastes/thoughts differently than your tastes/thoughts about ice cream, yet you do just that in your critique of God. You’ve offered no rational reason for the truth of determinism. You’ve offered no rational reason to think morality can’t be objective with some versions of theism.

Or at least that I can see. Perhaps you think you have and I am wrong. I could be wrong. But with you saying nothing new and not responding to my latest reasoning, I have nothing new to add to this discussion. I do thank you for the thoughts you've shared and the kindness in which you've done it.

[boatsnguitars]

No, I think it's possible that if Atheism is true, there could be Objective moral values. I'd argue that in the same way someone argues for the sudden and inexplicable existence of an Omni-Being, I'd argue the same could be the case for Moral Values. I see no reason to discount that our Universe popped into existence and, for no reason other than it could happen, it has Objective Moral values. They could be completely unknown to us, but they could be "written" in the very nature of Reality and embodied in us, or some other creature that is capable of enforcing them, even if they don't understand why. A kind of Karma.

Can you lay out your argument more clearly? Are you just saying it could be an unexplainable brute fact? There is just this thing called goodness out there that some things have and others don’t? It sounds like you might just be saying “such could be the case, but we have no reason for thinking it is the case”. If so, I don’t see why that is a rational position. To hold.

Yes, it could be a Brute Fact. I don't hold that position (as I am a Compatibalist, as far as I understand the discussion), but if it's true that no God exists AND Objective Morals exist, we'd have to explain it somehow, no?
Since we all don't know what actual state of affairs obtain, nor could we prove one view right or wrong, this is a discussion, not an opportunity to fill the Gap with whatever we feel.
However, the experts seem to have some fairly good insight in how we should view the topic. I'll trust them, provisionally.

You say, under atheism, "morality can’t be objectively good". Well, under one view, not only can't they be Good, Morals can't be Bad either, and, more importantly, the very concept of Good and Bad is irrelevant. So, to say there is something bad (or good) about not having objective morals is incoherent. (I believe you agree).

There is a difference between saying something is morally good/bad and rationally good/bad. But, in saying that, I’m not saying subjective morals are rationally worse than objective morals. I’m saying atheists need to act consistent with their beliefs; to not do so is rationally worse than to act consistent with one’s beliefs.

Why ought people act consistently with their beliefs? Why is it worse? What is "worse" to you? And, who is to say they aren't consistent with their beliefs?

However, that doesn't change our feeling about what is good and bad, and doesn't - necessarily - remove our obligations to act certain ways. Clearly, stabbing people randomly in a crowd works counter to their goals as human beings. Calling it Good or Evil is less important than the actual affect it has on an individual. (After all, a religious zealot could be doing it because they think it's Good, and how would we know if it is or not?)

It’s not an obligation, though, it’s a personal choice. If someone thinks their goals are better served by stabbing a random person, then why ought they not do that (if atheism is true)?

Because they can understand that they live in a society in which it's better that people don't stab them if they feel it's in their interest. For the most part you have been fairly rational. This comment makes me wonder if you understand morality.
I'll tell you why I, an atheist, don't stab my boss (for example): because I don't want to go to jail, I don't want to clean up the mess, I don't want to be wrong about something I can't change, I empathize with living people, it's against the law of a society in which I benefit from those laws, etc.
There are many reasons I don't stab people, even if it would seem to benefit me in some way.
I have to wonder, why doesn't a Theist stab someone? Because God says not to? Religious texts are full of examples of God telling people to kill people. How does one know if it's God or madness?
How do you know God is telling you not to stab people?

2. Moral Realism is not agreed on by Philosophers. Since they are the professionals who do this every day, we'd be unwise to pick a position and presume we're right:

We’ve already had this discussion and I’ve shared why I would disagree with this statement. Philosophy is not an area where a consensus should be expected and, therefore, we’d be unwise to wait on such a thing before trying to pick and (tentatively hold) a position on the issues. I haven’t seen a response to you about why we should still wait on a consensus here.

We should wait on consensus because there is no other reason to choose a side. I am not agreeing that in all cases, specifically this one, that we should simply choose a side. Sure, you can choose - but to claim it as fact is committing a fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.
Especially, if you've chosen a distinct minority view.

Under your view it appears you can simply dismiss any expert and claim your view is more rational, because you choose it to be.
That's my definition of irrational.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #94]

What you’ve done in that latest post is simply restate what you’ve already said; you aren’t responding further to the reasoning I’ve already offered in response to what you’ve already said. You have offered no rational reason that it’s 100% certainty or bust. You have offered no rational reason to treat moral tastes/thoughts differently than your tastes/thoughts about ice cream, yet you do just that in your critique of God. You’ve offered no rational reason for the truth of determinism. You’ve offered no rational reason to think morality can’t be objective with some versions of theism.

Or at least that I can see. Perhaps you think you have and I am wrong. I could be wrong. But with you saying nothing new and not responding to my latest reasoning, I have nothing new to add to this discussion. I do thank you for the thoughts you've shared and the kindness in which you've done it.

Your reasoning does not make any sense. You have called faith-based entities e.g. the existence of Gods to be metaphysical truths. They are not truths. They are things people believe even though they can't prove they exist. Have you watched the following videos? If you have not watched them, please do. Then let me know what you think about them. Thank you.



and



and

[The Tanager]

Yes, it could be a Brute Fact. I don't hold that position (as I am a Compatibalist, as far as I understand the discussion), but if it's true that no God exists AND Objective Morals exist, we'd have to explain it somehow, no?

Sure, but you haven't offered a rational line of reasoning to get us both that atheism is true and that objective morals exist. That’s not an argument for it being a brute fact or that it’s reasonable to believe it is a brute fact. Without that, there is no rational support for saying atheism (if true) can give us objective morality.

Since we all don't know what actual state of affairs obtain, nor could we prove one view right or wrong, this is a discussion, not an opportunity to fill the Gap with whatever we feel.
However, the experts seem to have some fairly good insight in how we should view the topic. I'll trust them, provisionally.

What expert consensus?

Why ought people act consistently with their beliefs? Why is it worse? What is "worse" to you? And, who is to say they aren't consistent with their beliefs?

If they don’t act consistently, then do they really believe it? I think it’s rationally worse to believe falsehoods than truths. Perhaps you don’t. Okay. It does seem weird to say it’s true that one should act inconsistent with their beliefs because then you’d be saying to act inconsistent with this belief and, therefore, not act inconsistently with one’s beliefs. Even saying one should act inconsistently with some beliefs but not all seems a problem because how would we know which ones?

I’ve argued for the inconsistency. If atheism can’t lead to morality being objective, then atheists are rationally inconsistent in positing objective morals and treating competing moral tastes differently than competing flavor tastes. If you have arguments to the contrary, please share them.

Because they can understand that they live in a society in which it's better that people don't stab them if they feel it's in their interest. For the most part you have been fairly rational. This comment makes me wonder if you understand morality.

But some people work that system and think their goal is better served by being a part of such society, but stabbing someone else to get something they want in a way that minimizes their ability to be caught and some get away with it. So, why was that a wrong action if atheism is true?

I'll tell you why I, an atheist, don't stab my boss (for example): because I don't want to go to jail, I don't want to clean up the mess, I don't want to be wrong about something I can't change, I empathize with living people, it's against the law of a society in which I benefit from those laws, etc.
There are many reasons I don't stab people, even if it would seem to benefit me in some way.
I have to wonder, why doesn't a Theist stab someone? Because God says not to? Religious texts are full of examples of God telling people to kill people. How does one know if it's God or madness?
How do you know God is telling you not to stab people?

I don’t stab someone because I want to seek their good and I believe they have inherent worth as being made in the image of God. So, even if I knew I could avoid jail, get someone else to clean up the mess, knew I’m not wrong, could justify why they need to die, even though some people who won’t do anything to me say there is this law, etc. I would still not stab them.

We should wait on consensus because there is no other reason to choose a side. I am not agreeing that in all cases, specifically this one, that we should simply choose a side. Sure, you can choose - but to claim it as fact is committing a fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.
Especially, if you've chosen a distinct minority view.

Under your view it appears you can simply dismiss any expert and claim your view is more rational, because you choose it to be.
That's my definition of irrational.

That is not what I’ve said at all. I haven’t claimed it is a 100% certain fact. The claims I make, I view them as the most reasonable position to take. I haven’t said one can simply dismiss an expert and choose to claim my view is more rational. In saying what one thinks is the most reasonable, consensus is not the only reason to choose a side and it’s not a very good one. If the Nazis won the war and overtook the ideology of humanity to where the consensus was that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, etc. were sub-human, one should still reject that nonsense.

[boatsnguitars]

Yes, it could be a Brute Fact. I don't hold that position (as I am a Compatibalist, as far as I understand the discussion), but if it's true that no God exists AND Objective Morals exist, we'd have to explain it somehow, no?

Sure, but there isn’t a rational line of reasoning to get us both that atheism is true and that objective morals exist. That’s not an argument for it being a brute fact or that it’s reasonable to believe it is a brute fact. Without that, there is no rational support for saying atheism (if true) can give us objective morality.

1. If There is No God, and Objective Morals exist, then Objective Morals must be explained by Brute Fact.
2. There is no God and Objective Morals exist.
Therefore, Morals exist by Brute Fact.

There is your rational argument for it. You are free to disagree with Premise 2 - according to your feelings - but I can only say 'I don't know'.

Since we all don't know what actual state of affairs obtain, nor could we prove one view right or wrong, this is a discussion, not an opportunity to fill the Gap with whatever we feel.
However, the experts seem to have some fairly good insight in how we should view the topic. I'll trust them, provisionally.

What expert consensus?

The consensus is that they don't agree on a consensus. Where is your logical argument that you can rationally decide what is true based on your feelings?

Why ought people act consistently with their beliefs? Why is it worse? What is "worse" to you? And, who is to say they aren't consistent with their beliefs?

If they don’t act consistently, then do they really believe it? I think it’s rationally worse to believe falsehoods than truths. Perhaps you don’t. Okay. It does seem weird to say it’s true that one should act inconsistent with their beliefs because then you’d be saying to act inconsistent with this belief and, therefore, not act inconsistently with one’s beliefs. Even saying one should act inconsistently with some beliefs but not all seems a problem because how would we know which ones?

I’ve argued for the inconsistency. If atheism can’t lead to morality being objective, then atheists are rationally inconsistent in positing objective morals and treating competing moral tastes differently than competing flavor tastes. If you have arguments to the contrary, please share them.

1. If Atheism is true, then how have you arrived at an Ought? If Atheism is true, why ought Atheists be consistent? You've just argued that Atheists would have no obligation to follow any moral code? You are being inconsistant.
2. I see no reason why people have to act consistently as a rule. I wouldn't want a person with a murderous rage to act consistently with their beliefs.
3. There are many arguments that show how Morals are real, and that we ought to follow them, even under Atheism.
4. I've shown how Morality under Theism makes no sense, and doesn't help in any way. It's incoherent. How do we know God is moral? By definition? Well, then I can simply define the Universe this way and be done with God.
5. At this point, maybe you can define "Moral"? To me it's our interactions with other sentient beings and how it affects them. If you are arguing some platoic or Divine understanding, please do so, and then demonstrate this situation obtains in reality. (I don't think I need to show that sentient beings exist, right?)

In fact, Stanford defines it this way:

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either:

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Do you disagree with this definition, because if you do - where is God, or "Objective" in this description. (BTW, "Objective Moral Values" is a Christian invention. They claim OBV's exist only through God then claim they exist. It's a trick. It's not philosophy.)

So, let's get our usage of the word "Moral" out of the way. I've presented mine.

Because they can understand that they live in a society in which it's better that people don't stab them if they feel it's in their interest. For the most part you have been fairly rational. This comment makes me wonder if you understand morality.

But some people work that system and think their goal is better served by being a part of such society, but stabbing someone else to get something they want in a way that minimizes their ability to be caught and some get away with it. So, why was that a wrong action if atheism is true?

Under my definition of morality, it's because you are harming another sentient creature for purposes that, on balance, are unequal to the good you receive. (I don't see how adding God to the mix helps).

I don't see why your default assumption is that we always need to work towards our own self interest. What rule is that?

I'll tell you why I, an atheist, don't stab my boss (for example): because I don't want to go to jail, I don't want to clean up the mess, I don't want to be wrong about something I can't change, I empathize with living people, it's against the law of a society in which I benefit from those laws, etc.
There are many reasons I don't stab people, even if it would seem to benefit me in some way.
I have to wonder, why doesn't a Theist stab someone? Because God says not to? Religious texts are full of examples of God telling people to kill people. How does one know if it's God or madness?
How do you know God is telling you not to stab people?

I don’t stab someone because I want to seek their good and I believe they have inherent worth as being made in the image of God. So, even if I knew I could avoid jail, get someone else to clean up the mess, knew I’m not wrong, could justify why they need to die, even though some people who won’t do anything to me say there is this law, etc. I would still not stab them.

You haven't shown that God exists, that God is moral, or that God doesn't want you to stab people. Quoting the Bible is quoting the writings of Men. Your feelings about where they got those ideas is irrelevant.

We should wait on consensus because there is no other reason to choose a side. I am not agreeing that in all cases, specifically this one, that we should simply choose a side. Sure, you can choose - but to claim it as fact is committing a fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.
Especially, if you've chosen a distinct minority view.

Under your view it appears you can simply dismiss any expert and claim your view is more rational, because you choose it to be.
That's my definition of irrational.

That is not what I’ve said at all. I haven’t claimed it is a 100% certain fact. The claims I make, I view them as the most reasonable position to take. I haven’t said one can simply dismiss an expert and choose to claim my view is more rational. In saying what one thinks is the most reasonable, consensus is not the only reason to choose a side and it’s not a very good one. If the Nazis won the war and overtook the ideology of humanity to where the consensus was that Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, etc. were sub-human, one should still reject that nonsense.

So, even if there is no God, you could still choose to be moral according to your religion. You'd be wrong to attribute those morals to a God, but you'd act morally without a God.

as for Nazis, and I've seen slavery used, your argument is that "If they won, we'd think killing Jews is OK".

Yep, and if Abraham won, we'd think slavery is right for 6000 years - which is what happened. Now, suddenly, Christians have decided it's wrong (sometime after the Age of Enlightenment that began a societal shift as we questioned the Church).

That's what's so bizarre. You feel that "If there is a God we'd have clear Moral values" (paraphrasing), but history has shown that we don't have clear moral values, or understanding.

Why, it's almost as if we are Apes trying to understand things the best our Ape brains can... Today, it's perfectly morally acceptable to eat animals. 1000 years from now, you might argue that eating animals is Objectively wrong and attribute it to God.

The problem you have is you haven't shown that OMV's exist... or God, or that He's Moral, or that you know what he thinks is moral or immoral. You simply chose a religion and declare it true, and that we are all wrong for not coming to the same conclusion.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #97]

Video 1: Sapolsky argues that for free will to exist, one needs to show a neuron firing without any physical signature. Why? The physical signature traces what physically happens, it doesn’t comment on if there is anything non-physical going on. If a free will makes a decision for a being that is composed of mind/spirit/soul/whatever term you want to use and matter, then there will be a physical signature as that decision plays out. Sapolsky doesn’t show that the actual decision is something that comes later in the line, being triggered by neuron 756 or anything like that.

He then talks about how some factors affect the decisions we make (around the 4 minute mark, the part about walking by a church, etc.) according to studies. Assuming those studies are reliable (and I mean it in the sense of how it was conducted, how many people were involved, what kind of people, not that they are lying about the results), this is a weak philosophical (not scientific) argument. It’s all about the likelihood of doing A or B because of that factor. Notice that he doesn’t say doing A is always the case. If so, then he might have something. As of now, what that shows is that many people don’t really think through their decisions, not that one can’t have more control over their decisions.

He even admits that science can’t show us what the determined choice will be (around 15:20), but if it was clearly determined physically, why not? This lack shows that it’s not as clear as he presents it. Could science one day get us here? Perhaps. But it’s not there now so to act like it is is to simply hope in faith that one is right. Don’t you reject things that rest solely on faith?

In response to that critique, he says but science has progressed so much, so why not think that will just continue? Sure, but that this progress can get us truth here assumes determinism to be true in the first place. If it’s not, then science won’t get us there. So, one must assume determinism to use this line of reasoning as support for determinism. It’s circular.

The rest of the video seems to be questions that follow these beginning points being true, so they seem irrelevant to our part of this discussion. If I’ve missed an important point, please bring it up.

Video 2: Hossenfelder’s claim is that free will is incompatible with laws of nature and meaningless

Hossenfelder says “you are here to hear what the science says” at mark 0:19 and then goes on to make philosophical claims! She brings science in, but uses it to make philosophical claims. Her philosophical argument seems to go like this:

P1. If you have initial conditions in a situation, then any future result will be determined by the laws of nature
P2. You have an initial condition to any situation
P3. Therefore, any result will be determined by the laws of nature

That’s philosophy not science. But this argument does not rule out that free agency is not a part of the initial conditions. She offers no scientific evidence that free agency is not part of the initial conditions here.

She then goes on to make good points about some of the philosophical moves that try to get around this, but those critiques all assume that the above argument is sound, which I don’t think is true for the reason above. She’s right; those are bad philosophical arguments, but she doesn’t deal with my critique above.


Video 3: I’m not sure why you think this video critiques anything I’ve been saying.