Interesting conversation. Brian mentions the issue Neitzsche has with language structure presupposing free will has on our concept of it. Given that our language works against a correct conception of will why does he not temper his own use of language against the conception of free will that he is arguing against.
If there is no free will then how does one change their mind about of the evidence presented here? Can there be such a thing as evidence. Is it just luck and happenstance that Brian has come to a place where he is being recorded in an interview that purports to explain there is an illusion of free will? For knowledge to exist it seems to presuppose some way to choose to investigate and uncover truth etc.
Interesting conversation. Brian mentions the issue Neitzsche has with language structure presupposing free will has on our concept of it. Given that our language works against a correct conception of will why does he not temper his own use of language against the conception of free will that he is arguing against.
If there is no free will then how does one change their mind about of the evidence presented here? Can there be such a thing as evidence. Is it just luck and happenstance that Brian has come to a place where he is being recorded in an interview that purports to explain there is an illusion of free will? For knowledge to exist it seems to presuppose some way to choose to investigate and uncover truth etc.
also the language came subsequent to the belief in free will and thus it reflects in the syntax. not vice versa
also the language came subsequent to the belief in free will and thus it reflects in the syntax. not vice versa