Re: Varieties of compatibilism 1 (to be continued)

Lance wrote:
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
In that case none of us should care at all what scientists believe. But
we do.
>
We don't. We care what scientists show that they've established through
experiment. What they believe is immaterial.

Recently I read an obit of William Shockley - the man who invented
transistors. But his behaviour and proclomations in the latter part of
his life did his reputation serious harm. Of course you are right - we
don't think transistors will stop working as a result - but much less
credance is placed on his ideas as a result of his cantankerous
proclamations.

This is common, I agree. We do weight things according to how likely we think the source is to be right. However this should only be a weight, the soundest authorities can often be wrong.

Is it some 'metaphysical theory'? Surely you agree that what we perceive
as a constant visual field is an illusion created by our visual system?

Do you think everytime we blink the computer in front of us disappears?
We have an illusion of continuous perception, true, but is it true that
we are wrong about what we see?

As you know perfectly well, yes, sometimes we are wrong, but we are usually right. To rely on always being right in what we see is, thus, because it is an illusion, unsafe.

Earlier you were objecting that what was see is what is, bugger the
metaphysics, now you argue that what was see isn't what is, bugger the
evidence.

I don't think so. Our experience IS evidence. We can of course be
fooled by many things, but we need compelling evidence to disregard our
experience. Metaphysical claims based on a vast generalisation of the
tool nature gave us to help us manipulate our immediate world seem to
me to be very speculative and thin compared with our experience that we
do indeed have reason and judgement. And the more so since we could not
even propose a theory of determinism and offer reasons for it were we
not creatures capable of reason and judgement.

Yes, our experience is evidence, I agree. I'd include the learning of mathematics and physics and the considerations of philosophy as part of our experience.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ultra-simple discrete 10W audio power stage for guitar use - would this work?
    ... transistors as neither can tolerate 70 volts as your schem requires. ... ** You are clueless about the requirents for driver transistors. ... Only it will, almost certainly, drop the rail voltage when heavily ... And maybe I decide, for some insane reason, to use a 4 ohm ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: NTE2320 CROSS? (Any IC w/ 2NPN & 2 PNP)
    ... Franc Zabkar wrote: ... > Is there any reason why you don't just use discrete transistors? ...
    (sci.electronics.components)
  • Re: Can I use one base resistor for several transistors?
    ... I am needing to drive four transistors (NPN, NTE123, 2N2222, etc), which ... Is there any reason not to just use one base resistor for all four ... transistors, or am I missing something really obvious? ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Consciousness: whats the problem?
    ... don't appear to want to look at the evidence. ... the size of the brain, its power consumption, and its functionalty. ... Yes, yes, fine: transistors only. ... A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: tuned 40W 40MHz RF power amplifiers
    ... For some reason I can't see my own post on this thread. ... transistors where my old Motorola favorite simply vanished. ... If the budget allows to simply buy the amps, ... Regarding FETs, we did drive them hard a lot. ...
    (sci.electronics.components)