A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[specious_reasons]

I think that we functionally have free will, even though we don't. You could probably predict the actions of any individual at any point in time provided you knew enough about that person's past and current experience.

The trouble as I see it, is knowing enough. The more universal the behavior, the easier it will be to predict. A simple example: If I'm taking with a person, and I point at something, I can predict with a reasonable confidence that a person will look at where I'm pointing.

Yet, there's a small chance that the person won't. Maybe that person knows that I have a habit of pointing to people's plumber cracks, dead things, or other unhappy occurrences. Maybe they just didn't happen to be looking at me when I was pointing, or maybe they have some form of social disfunction.

Unless I know all of this, I can't predict with 100% certainty. I generally treat free will as an information problem.

This is a reason why I have a problem with Lessans. Understanding that I don't really have free will generally doesn't affect how I behave, because I can't always predict how my actions will affect others. I have some idea, because I can predict based on reasonable assumptions, but I can't possibly eliminate all risks.

...and sometimes, I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm not always a nice person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I think that we functionally have free will, even though we don't. You could probably predict the actions of any individual at any point in time provided you knew enough about that person's past and current experience.

The trouble as I see it, is knowing enough. The more universal the behavior, the easier it will be to predict. A simple example: If I'm taking with a person, and I point at something, I can predict with a reasonable confidence that a person will look at where I'm pointing.

Yet, there's a small chance that the person won't. Maybe that person knows that I have a habit of pointing to people's plumber cracks, dead things, or other unhappy occurrences. Maybe they just didn't happen to be looking at me when I was pointing, or maybe they have some form of social disfunction.

Unless I know all of this, I can't predict with 100% certainty. I generally treat free will as an information problem.

This is a reason why I have a problem with Lessans. Understanding that I don't really have free will generally doesn't affect how I behave, because I can't always predict how my actions will affect others. I have some idea, because I can predict based on reasonable assumptions, but I can't possibly eliminate all risks.

...and sometimes, I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm not always a nice person.

Specious_reasons, with all due respect you have no idea what this discovery is about. Please go back and reread the last few posts I gave. I explained very clearly that this has nothing to do with the conventional definition, so why are you harping on this? I have no clue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all move in the direction of GREATER satisfaction, which leaves us only one choice at each moment in time. What are you so in disagreement with to conclude that this is all bullshit?

You have not established that "we all move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a fact. You haven't defined your terms nor explained how "greater satisfaction" is measured or determined.

As I have stated, it is not possible to prove that. You can assert it, you can whole-heartedly believe that is what is happening, others may agree with you, but that is ultimately not a position that can be proven.

[Adam]

Yes, this "discovery". It's not a discovery. It's a tautology and an idiosyncratic definition.

Kael, I like Daniel Dennet's take on free will in Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free WIll Worth Wanting, and his more recent views in Freedom Evolves, although it's been quite a while since I read them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have not established that "we all move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a fact.

Granted, I checked out of the other thread a long time ago, but I thought the whole Greater Satisfaction thing, as presented in the book, was tautologically true. As far as I could tell, once you get through the blather and distill what he's saying, it all boils down to "whatever you choose is, by virtue of your having chosen it, your preference, therefore you cannot choose anything other than your preference."

[LadyShea]

What I saw was proof by self referencing definition with an illicit "must" thrown in, tautological yes. True? Not so sure, me, because I don't know how greater satisfaction is determined. After the fact, before the fact? Also I think "what we did" is actually true, but not necessarily true (thank you davidm for the link to Swartz which laid that out clearly)

As I have stated, I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Is that some kind of determinism? I don't know. Does it matter to me whether this can be defined as free will or determinism? Pragmatically speaking, not a single bit.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Speciouis_reasons, with all due respect you have no idea what this discovery is about. Please go back and reread the last few posts I gave. I explained very clearly that this has nothing to do with the conventional definition, so why are you harping on this? I have no clue.

No?

Originally Posted by Lessans, page 121

As a consequence of knowing what it means that man’s will is not free, all carelessness is automatically removed because to hurt someone who will not blame you for doing what you know could have been prevented had you not been careless, gives you no choice.

I'm saying there's an information problem which Lessans can't contend with. I can't reasonably foresee all the consequences of my actions, so I focus on the outcomes I can surmise. Otherwise, I'd be paralyzed into inaction. I take reasonable precautions, but I understand that I may cause harm to others through some fault of my own, sometimes unknowingly.

Beyond that, I was really more interested in presenting my own views on free will and determinism. I'm afraid I generally fall into the pragmatic camp.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have stated, I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Agreed. I wonder if there's been an attempt to formalize these concepts into philosophy. I am entirely out of my depths when it comes to philosophical study.

[LadyShea]

Ask Mr. Munny

[erimir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What I saw was proof by self referencing definition with an illicit "must" thrown in, tautological yes. True? Not so sure, me, because I don't know how greater satisfaction is determined. After the fact, before the fact? Also I think "what we did" is actually true, but not necessarily true (thank you davidm for the link to Swartz which laid that out clearly)

As I have stated, I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Is that some kind of determinism? I don't know. Does it matter to me whether this can be defined as free will or determinism? Pragmatically speaking, not a single bit.

I think there's also an element of people behaving very predictably in certain situations - however, we have some ability to control the situations we're put in.

It's like if you are on a specific diet, you might not want to go to the all-you-can-eat buffet full of disallowed items and say to yourself that you'll only eat the items that fit into your diet... that's a risky proposition, because it might be that you don't have the willpower to resist those items when they're right in front of you. But it's generally easier to simply choose not to put yourself in that situation and instead eat at places that don't present such options.

And people vary in what particular things they're good at controlling in the moment.

Anywho, I don't believe in libertarian free will at least. I'd probably be a compatibilist, although I don't compatibilist free will to be as interesting of a concept - it seems more like an issue of trying to tease out what we actually mean by free will, and how we decide to attribute responsibility in practical terms (i.e. ignoring the issue of whether God would have responsibility for our actions). I guess that's mainly because more of my reading on free will has been theological in orientation and I think that compatibilist free will doesn't do very much work for the theistic perspective. Libertarian free will, if I didn't find it incoherent, would certainly do a very good job of deflecting certain critiques of theism.

[Clutch Munny]

The short version is that it depends what you thought "free will" meant in the first place. If you think it means just that your actions are caused by your desires, then if it turns out that your desires just are brain states, neurology won't limit your free will -- it'll manifest your free will.

If you think free will means that your actions should depend on your will in a way that is not determined by the wider causal order of events in the world, then the fact that brains cause behaviour will certainly seem a puzzle.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained that this has nothing to do with the conventional definition.

The conventional definition is what is understood by everyone else or is easily looked up, Lessans idiosyncratic definitions are not known by anyone and are unacceptable. Say it in plain English, or don't say it at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have not established that "we all move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is a fact. You haven't defined your terms nor explained how "greater satisfaction" is measured or determined.

You can't measure "greater satisfaction". You can only observe it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have stated, it is not possible to prove that. You can assert it, you can whole-heartedly believe that is what is happening, others may agree with you, but that is ultimately not a position that can be proven.

As I have stated, you're completely wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The conventional definition is what is understood by everyone else or is easily looked up, Lessans idiosyncratic definitions are not known by anyone and are unacceptable. Say it in plain English, or don't say it at all.

My choice not to answer any of your posts is giving me greater satisfaction. So you'll have to get your "plain English" responses from somewhere else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Granted, I checked out of the other thread a long time ago, but I thought the whole Greater Satisfaction thing, as presented in the book, was tautologically true. As far as I could tell, once you get through the blather and distill what he's saying, it all boils down to "whatever you choose is, by virtue of your having chosen it, your preference, therefore you cannot choose anything other than your preference."

That's true, but that is not the proof that Lessans offered, otherwise it would appear nothing more than circular reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What I saw was proof by self referencing definition with an illicit "must" thrown in, tautological yes. True? Not so sure, me, because I don't know how greater satisfaction is determined. After the fact, before the fact? Also I think "what we did" is actually true, but not necessarily true (thank you davidm for the link to Swartz which laid that out clearly)

How many times have I stated that our choices are necessarily true after the fact, not before?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As I have stated, I think our "will" is constrained by our own unique neural makeup...the pathways our experiences and cognitive processes have created that makes us who we are and do what we do.

We can't make decisions against the decision our brain makes (tautology, I know) however we can feed the brain and add information- by thinking about something, reading something, discussing with others- which allows decisions to be changed right down to the time they are acted upon.

Have I ever suggested this? I have continually stressed that up until the moment you make a decision your options are open.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is that some kind of determinism? I don't know. Does it matter to me whether this can be defined as free will or determinism? Pragmatically speaking, not a single bit.

Pragmatically speaking, it might not matter to you, but it will matter to the world when it is recognized that this knowledge has the power to change the direction our world is going.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My choice not to answer any of your posts is giving me greater satisfaction. So you'll have to get your "plain English" responses from somewhere else.

Ah, the dodging, evasion, start early, clearly you haven't got a clue what the book is about, it's just a meal-ticket for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Agreed. I wonder if there's been an attempt to formalize these concepts into philosophy. I am entirely out of my depths when it comes to philosophical study.

So why can't you listen for a change, instead of talk?

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, you have stated that agreement indicates understanding, so in your mind, since everyone is disagreeing with you, you don't believe they understand, therefore you have failed to explain, even the most basic ideas, in the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have continually stressed that up until the moment you make a decision your options are open.

Then what is done cannot be necessarily true, only actually true.

For it to be necessarily true, there cannot be multiple options open

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why can't you listen for a change, instead of talk?

When I said "out of my depths," I meant it to say that I do not have the depth of experience regarding knowledge of philosophical studies. I am strictly a layman. However, I'm open to learning and understanding new concepts and areas of study, and my post was an implicit invitation for those more knowledgeable than me to point the way.

[Thanks] Clutch Munny.

I'll be perfectly willing to read your counter to the claim that Lessans' free will argument contains a modal fallacy, but you only scolded me for suggesting it, so I took up my own topic of conversation. "Sometimes, I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm not always a nice person."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then what is done cannot be necessarily true, only actually true.

For it to be necessarily true, there cannot be multiple options open

It is actually true that there are many possibilities before the fact. It is necessarily true that there is only one possibility after the fact.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't measure "greater satisfaction". You can only observe it.

How can one observer greater satisfaction?

Demonstrate that I am wrong and explain exactly how I am wrong, don't just assert it

It cannot be proven or disproven because there is no way to test or measure it. Just like "God exists" cannot be proven or disproven, only subjectively concluded one way or the other.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is actually true that there are many possibilities before the fact. It is necessarily true that there is only one possibility after the fact.

Then you do not understand what necessarily true means. If there is more than one option before the act is done, then there is no necessary element.

[LadyShea]

Pragmatically speaking, it might not matter to you, but it will matter to the world when it is recognized that this knowledge has the power to change the direction our world is going.

Argument from adverse consequences.