His friend said that he can prove Lessans wrong by first discovering (via introspection) which of the two options he prefers the most and then choosing the other one. He said “I want to eat the yellow more than the red but I’m going to eat the red one instead. See? I am eating the red one. In other words, I chose to do what I did not want to do the most.”
Lessans responded by saying “No, you actually wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow one. And you did because it allowed you to prove a point.”
Lessans is basically saying that his friend had an incentive to prove a point that was strong enough to make the choice of eating the red apple more preferrable in spite of its negative consequences (allergic reaction.). But how does he know that it was that strong?
He wanted to show that this type of experiment cannot prove him wrong.
I don’t remember the story perfectly (and don’t want to read it again) but didn’t the friend agree with him afterwards? -saying “you’re right”? It doesn’t really matter - the point is taken.
I don’t think he was wrong about that one issue - for whatever reason you choose to do something your own perceptions of hopes and threats will dictate your response. To me that isn’t the relevant issue - that aspect can be proven by other means - but is irrelevant to the final conclusion to the narrative.
I just meant the changing of the decision to eat differently.
The whole thing is just as I first suspected and mentioned - it is just a communist ploy - remove all incentives for doing anything and paradise will come - [size=85]along with stagnation and death.[/size]
The real outcome - proven over and over again - is that a selfish dictatorship is setup (the CCP) in order to maintain order and gain luxuries for themselves because no one else matters (anymore).
I believe Lessans was trying to show that no instance of this type of experiment can prove him wrong. Thus, whether or not his friend admitted that he was wrong about what he wanted the most is not particularly relevant.
He’s using that belief (that what men do is always what they think is the best thing to do) in order to prove that [incompatibilist / libertarian / contra-casual] free will does not exist. Personally, I can accept that that sort of free will does not exist but I can’t accept his reasoning.
I can easily skip this part but I am of the opinion that, if I don’t think that an argument is a clear or good one, that I should bring it up to the author’s attention (instead of turning a blind eye to it.)
I don’t think that what humans choose to do is always what they think is the best thing to do. On the other hand, that’s a definitional issue. If you stretch the meaning of “what someone thinks is the best thing to do” far enough, you’d be able to claim that everyone always and necessarily does what they think is the best thing to do. But in that case, you won’t be able to use that as a proof that libertarian free will does not exist.
Then there’s also the danger of drawing conclusions that don’t follow; conclusions such as “There is no such thing as irrational decisions” and “Other people can’t force you to do something against your will”.
In a way, it is removing certain extremely useful concepts from our language.
Yes I could see that you were picking at the details - and an author should be informed of any such errors - but especially in this case - once presented - any continued argument is like trying to argue with iambiguous or PK - endless denials, distractions, and excuses.
I think “what they think is best” is the wrong phrasing - “what satisfies them most” is better - but not perfect either. I prefer James’ - “perception of hope and threat” (provably true).
It isn’t merely removing useful concepts - those are patently false conclusions.
If you skip this part of the arguing - the final conclusion is patently false also - and has nothing to do with “being in a freewill society” as you assess it (except maybe that in a non-freewill society you would not be allowed to deny it - the current situation in China).
Peacegirl: Why not? Thinking it is the best thing to do is what each person bases their choices on. It may turn out in hindsight that it was not the best thing to do. So the next time the person makes a better choice based on new information. Libertarian free will does not exist no matter how you make it appear. Furthermore, nothing in this world could make you talk, not even the laws of matter, if by talking your family would be killed. That’s proof enough that you cannot be made to do something against your will if you choose not to do it.
Obsrvr524: I think “what they think is best” is the wrong phrasing - “what satisfies them most” is better - but not perfect either. I prefer James’ - “perception of hope and threat” (provably true).
Peacegirl: Language can be a problem but he used moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Isn’t that what satisfies them the most? I’ve said that sometimes greater satisfaction can mean losing your own life to save someone else. Not a great choice but the best one in that person’s eyes.
Obsrvr524: Then there’s also the danger of drawing conclusions that don’t follow; conclusions such as “There is no such thing as irrational decisions” and “Other people can’t force you to do something against your will”.
Peacegirl: Making irrational decisions according to whom? It may not be irrational coming from the person making the choice. Their choices may even appear maladaptive. A person may be mentally incapacitated to the point where he may decide to jump off a bridge thinking he’s a bird, or he may decide to take on a dare (like teenagers often do). Our choices may be based on faulty or incomplete information. That doesn’t change the direction we are compelled to go, which is what’s at issue here. Cultural beliefs play a huge part in the choices made, and many of those beliefs are false. That alone does not negate our movement toward greater satisfaction.
Obsrvr524: In a way, it is removing certain extremely useful concepts from our language.
Peacegirl: What patently false conclusions? I understand the compatibilist position as a useful concept. It justifies the status quo of blame. I am asking people to temporarily step back long enough to follow the corollary that goes along with no free will. To repeat: The position that if someone isn’t being forced by external events, then that is enough to charge him with wrongdoing, may be a useful justification to punish him as a partial deterrent. But we are talking about a new world where punishment is no longer necessary. Would it not be better to prevent these acts of crime than to deal with the devastation after a crime takes place? Punishment is all we have in our arsenal at the moment, but it is just a bandaid.
Obsvr524: If you skip this part of the arguing - the final conclusion is patently false also - and has nothing to do with “being in a freewill society” as you assess it (except maybe that in a non-freewill society you would not be allowed to deny it - the current situation in China).
Peacegirl: What is patently false? You can deny anything you want. That does not make this knowledge false. You have no idea the kind of freedom that will exist. The only barrier to this freedom will be the desire never to hurt anyone in the process of doing whatever it is you want to do in your life. You’re not being a good observer Obsrvr524 because you’re pooh poohing this knowledge prematurely by jumping to all kinds of false conclusions.
At any given point in time, each one of us is faced with the task of determining which one of the many actions we can possibly perform we should actually perform. The goal of that task is to establish which action leads to the most desirable consequences. The result of that task is “what we think is the best thing to do”. I believe this is otherwise known as “will”.
What I’m disputing here is the idea that every single human being, in every situation, acts in a way that aligns with what they think is the best thing to do. The argument put forward is that, by demonstrating that the universe is deterministic, we also demonstrate that every human act is fully determined by what one thinks is the best thing to do. The thing is that, proving determinism merely proves that human actions are determined by something rather than nothing; it doesn’t prove that they are determined by something specific e.g. by one’s beliefs.
Your body is not necessarily governed by your mind. The message sent by your mind to your body must reach the body and must do so in its original, undistorted, form. If no message reaches your body, your body is not governed and is thus left to its own devices. If a different message reaches your body, then your body is governed by something other than your mind. If you insert an artifical device next to, or inside, someone’s brain, and if you make sure the device is fully in charge of the body, then that person is no longer in control of themselves. Their will is no longer free. Their mind is no longer governing their body.
The fault does not even have to be between your mind and your body; it can also lie between different parts of your mind. Since your mind can be broken down into individual components that are connected to each other via inputs and outputs, if any of these components fail to properly communicate with any other, the resulting thought regarding what’s the best course of action to take won’t be your own. It would be a thought generated INSIDE you but it wouldn’t be YOUR OWN thought. If one part of your brain concludes that “All philosophers are men” and sends it to another part of your brain, but that other part of your brain receives a distorted message such as “All philosophers are women”, then the output of that part, that “Socrates is a woman”, will not only be wrong but will also not be your own (except in the superficial sense that it was generated within you.)
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a matter of changing your mind in response to new information, resulting in a realization that what you previously thought was the best thing to do was not in fact the best thing to do. It’s a matter of realizing that your prior beliefs were not generated by you but by something or someone else. It does not matter whether they were right or wrong. What matters is that they weren’t your own.
If the brain is not working properly then a person’s ability to think through a situation to determine the best choice for himself may be compromised. Traumatic brain injury is one example. They may not have the ability to analyze or contemplate; they just act without any thought at all. Regardless of the limitations imposed by a brain that is not fully functioning does not negate the fact that we are always moving from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. It isn’t always what we believe to be the best choice. It may be the least dissatisfying choice because there’s no better option available. Even animals move in this direction. It’s an immutable law.
If you’re not acting according to what you think is the best choice, then you’re acting against your will. Your will is no more than a reference to what your brain thinks is the best choice. If your brain isn’t functioning properly, or if your brain has no influence over your body, then your will isn’t being obeyed.
If I take your brain as a whole, together with everything that’s inside it (memories of your past experiences, various solutions to problems stored as recipes, etc), and replace it with an artificial brain that has different memories, different solutions, etc, would you still be you? Most importantly, since you’re claiming that noone can act against their will [citation], will your will still be obeyed?
And how can you say that I’m acting in accordance with my will if the message sent by my brain to my body is modified? If I decide to move to the left and send that message to my body, but something or someone modifies it causing my body to move to the right, how can you say the resulting action aligns with my will? My will was to move to the left, it wasn’t to move to the right.
The only way you can say such a thing is if you define the word “will” to mean “anything anyone does”. And that’s cool and all, but it’s not a revelation, it’s a definition that is moreover very different from the standard one.
People identify with a series of memories and experiences.
Later in life they realize that who they are as a person has been changing.
And it will continue to change for as long as they live.
Unless they are tards and can’t tell who they are personally.
The body cannot kill someone unless someone or something instructs it to do so. And that someone or something need not be the mind that is attached to it. It can be an implanted device that is being controlled remotely. Moreover, the mind does not have to permit the device to take charge. The device can be installed regardless of whether or not the mind permits it. If you vaccinate everyone with vaccines that aren’t really vaccines, but nanotechnology, and if people accept it on the ground that these are your regular vaccines that are meant to help you gain immunity against various diseases, then how can you say that their minds permitted it? At what point did their minds go “Hell yeah, we want to be chipped and remotely controlled by Bill Gates”? And what mind actually desires to be rid of its memories?
Free will isn’t seen best when you choose between red & yellow. C.S. Lewis wrote well about how the moral law in our hearts encourages weak or dampens strong impulses… so that we will then want… higher level wants. Strong impulse that sometimes needs dampening: mother’s “mama bear” impulse. Weak impulse that sometimes needs encouraging: loyalty to wife. There is a desire in us that is higher/deeper than impulse. It’s iambiguous’ hole. Only God fills it. He’s always there… even if we tune all our impulses to drown him out.