TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- free choice?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

free choice?

I know a lot of you think this is bullshit, but to neglect this would be stupid IMO.

Free choice - By me

This is what most of the modern world is built upon, but what is really free choice? Does it really exists? I state it does not, not really.

Free choice exists in a way, because every man takes his/her own decisions. But the problem is that every decision already has a given outcome. No one in this world controls his/her decisions.

A decision is based either upon a person's environment or upon a person's own brain (his knowledge and genetics). I can not see how the individual can in any way change this. We are born with our brain and we are placed in an environment, so where is the choice?

Now you are thinking, �no that is not true, we do have a choice�, but then please tell me how else can we take our decisions? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!

Examples:
A person is in a store, he is going to buy some tomatoes, the store has 2 kinds, one that is cheap (but not the best) and one that is delicious (but expensive). If this person is rich (he knows that --> knowledge) and/or love tomatoes (genetics) he will buy the expensive one. He had a free choice, but where were the free choice, really? It was already given what he would take.

There is an election, every person vote what they think is the best for them/society. First of all some only think of themselves and others think of the whole (this depend of their raising, environment and their genetics, but still they do not control if they are ego or not.). Secondly everyone does not have the same knowledge (some persons knows a lot (want to learn, gen/environmental thing), some do not, nothing you can affect). There is no other ways you take your decisions in an election. So everyone has a free will to vote on whatever they want in the election, but the decision is already given based upon the things i just mentioned

Another example of this is that most middle classers continue to be middle class, most over class continue to be that, and working class continue to be that, etc. This is clearly NOT a coincidence.

I could take endless of more examples but i hope you got my pint now.

So how do i think we should apply this in society? Make everyone irresponsible for the actions? No that would not make sense. We still have to punish murders as a deterrent example (for the ones with knowledge and genes/raised that follow god and bad). BUT we should take care about this people, we should not let them rotten in some dark prison, they should also have the right to a decent life, even though they are murderers. This apply to all kind of people that are disadvantaged of todays society (poor, less smart, sick etc). Everyone should have the right to a decent life, nothing really is their fault. Though the problem is that everyone could not have a perfect life without doing anything because in that case no one would want to be a doctor, CEO or something else that would take up a lot of your time of their lives. It is all about to find the perfect balance and to make everyones raising/environment as good as possible.

So a person's failure is not really the persons fault, it is the society's fault.

Take some time think of it, there is no free choice.

It may be true that the decisions we make are a result of our brains, anatomy, and environment - but there is a distinct missing link in your logic between the notion that our decisions are predetermined and the ideal that everyone has the right to a decent life.

Why should everyone have the right to a decent life?

Everybody wants something for nothing. Nobody has the "right" to a good life.

There are many people who do nothing but good deeds and still have shitty lives. If they don't have the right to decent lives, why should murderers?

Punishing murderers isn't just about deterrent - it's about keeping them away from society long enough not to do it again until they can learn from their mistake (which in some cases, might be for the rest of their lives). It's for the safety of the people. If you call it "choice" then those murderers will learn to make better "choices" - if you call it "brain chemistry", then seeing the consequences of their actions should alter their "brain chemistry" enough so that their "automatic" reaction next time is not to kill anyone.

You see, even if choices are predetermined, it still means we're responsible as a society to "induce" people to make the right choices, which is governed by the same system of reward and punishment that's always been used. It's been thoroughly tested and proven on all other animals, and we are no different - reward encourages, punishment discourages, and people, just as animals, can be conditioned to act a certain way by doing just that.

Our responsibility is not to ensure their happiness. It is impossible to ensure the happiness of everyone, because eventually one man will want something that makes another man unhappy. A system must be in place to determine who gets his way, even if that system is anarchy and survival of the fittest.

Bottom line - you can define "choice" however you like, but if you redefine "choice" then you have to redefine "society" too, because society is formed by choice. "No free choice" is pretty much a dead-end philosophy that doesn't work in practice, it's basically communism.

Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I know a lot of you think this is bullshit...

Ahh. A philosophical topic for once. Lovely

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew A decision is based either upon a person's environment or upon a person's own brain (his knowledge and genetics). I can not see how the individual can in any way change this. We are born with our brain and we are placed in an environment, so where is the choice?

I see no flaws in your logic, but, assuming that you are right, I would like to reverse the argument and ask: Are there such things as "individuals"? Or, equivalently, do each of us possess an essence? If our decision making is merely a function of previous experience and some constant factor defined by the brains we are born with, then how do we become individuals?
To me, an individual is something with its own preferences and which is distinguishable from other individuals by its acts. But, as we just established, these preferences and choices are deterministically related to our biological starting point and experiences, so how can we in any way claim them to be "ours"? We are as little individuals as we have free choice.

Now, I do not believe that we have no essence nor that we are not individuals. I believe that we have such a thing as a percept, which allows us to interpret experiences and initiate reflection on our own acts. This percept would be something like that advocated for by Kant - a non-physical interface between the storage and computing unit of the brain and our sensors and actuators (eyes, hands, etc.).
It doesn't really do a lot for the case of free choice, as you can simply say that free choice is then a function of experiences, initial brain structure, *and* the percept, but it makes me feel better to be a deterministic machine of non-secular make, than a deterministic machine produced by biology and experience.

Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Now, I do not believe that we have no essence nor that we are not individuals. I believe that we have such a thing as a percept, which allows us to interpret experiences and initiate reflection on our own acts.

'soul' ?

I think where our minds stops and our ability to comprehend is exhausted is the question of the *origin* of "it" if "it" (indivudalism, "soul", identity, life) exists at all. It's the micro version of the "how did the universe 'start' and what was there before?" problem. Same thing basically. Meant to be left unanswered since everything which might answer it, is part of the problem. WE, who are the very mystery, are supposed to solve it. Running in circles. Solving an equation with an unknown variable. In fact this variable is the equation itself.

I do think, however, that we aren't destined for simply following an unescapable clear line of action-reaction. It's the biggest achievements that has been reached by geniously breaking the cycle, doing the "unexpected", risking, fulfilling creativity.
"cogito, ergo sum", anybody? I think therefore I am. We think ABOUT thinking and therefore surely are. This makes our existence absolute and complete for the very moment instead of the mere sum of our past.

I make no point whatsoever, but it's good to write a few lines off my chest. At least I tried to convey a feeling

Btw: Ou might wanna read this thread that deals with a similiar topic http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&threadid=76609

St. Andrew, it almost seems as if you're debating whether making an educated decision removes one's ability to free choice. I think these are two seperate issues. I would hope that when one makes any choice, s/he thinks of all possible outcomes before they fully commit. I would also hope that the person makes the choice that is most beneficial for what they are trying to accomplish (within reason, e.g. not killing someone for your gain). This said, the person always has the option of making a decision that goes against what a rational individual would do in that circumstance (children and criminals do it all the time). Therefore, I would say that just because many of our choices are obvious based on looking at the outcome, we are in no way "forced" to take that path.

My blanket approach to the free will debate is that because we do not have the ability to read the future, whether or not we have free will or a predetermined course of actions is not relevant. Because we are not able to see decisions before we make them, we at least have the illusion of free will, and no way of telling whether this illusion is in fact free will, or just our inability to see the "set path" already laid out before us.

Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew So how do i think we should apply this in society? Make everyone irresponsible for the actions? No that would not make sense. We still have to punish murders as a deterrent example (for the ones with knowledge and genes/raised that follow god and bad). BUT we should take care about this people, we should not let them rotten in some dark prison, they should also have the right to a decent life, even though they are murderers. This apply to all kind of people that are disadvantaged of todays society (poor, less smart, sick etc). Everyone should have the right to a decent life, nothing really is their fault. Though the problem is that everyone could not have a perfect life without doing anything because in that case no one would want to be a doctor, CEO or something else that would take up a lot of your time of their lives. It is all about to find the perfect balance and to make everyones raising/environment as good as possible. So a person's failure is not really the persons fault, it is the society's fault. Take some time think of it, there is no free choice.

Now, while I do agree with the first part of your post, I certainly disagree with the second part. Diginut has already expressed most of my opinions on this matter, so I won't have much to add to that. Free choice has nothing to do with reward or punishment. Whether you like to call people's decisions free choice or conditioned response, in both cases they'll consider the consequences of their actions, and in both cases will the principle of reward and punishment lead to the same results. That principle is therefore in no way connected with the free choice agenda. Now, we can move on to what the punishments for unwanted actions should be. The best solution would be that if someone is a serious threat to the society, that person should be removed from it. Smaller crimes are not a serious threat, so they can freely be dealt with in terms of short prison sentences. But, as far as the big crimes go (mass murder, genocides, serial killers...), there should be no way such people should ever be reintroduced into the society. The very actions those people took show that they are not rational and sane beings. There is usually no cure for them, as those people will murder again when they come back from the prison, and there's definitely no reason why those people should be funded by the society to spend the rest of their miserable lives in a cell. A simple fact is that the needs of the many usually outweight the needs of the few, so it's a choice between two lesser evils. On one hand, we have a poor poor murderer who won't experience the thrills of freedom/life, and on the other hand we have a society where murder goes almost unpunished, something that can lead to desasterous results. Now, regardless of whether you look at these people as conditioned automatons or free willed individuals, there's no reason whatsoever to keep them alive. If their actions are the product of their free will, then it is obvious we are talking to someone who enjoys killing, regardless of the possible consequences. If we are talking about actions that are a conditioned response, we have a person whose genes and society have conditioned him/her to do the very same ting, to kill for pleasure regardless of the consequences. In both cases the solution is the same.

Is this a spinoff of our political differences discussion?

Re: free choice?

In my opinion, this is a pretty weak paper. Not because your thesis is necessarily bad, but moreso because you really don't say/argue anything. That which you do argue is incredibly thin.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Free choice - By me This is what most of the modern world is built upon, but what is really free choice? Does it really exists? I state it does not, not really. Free choice exists in a way, because every man takes his/her own decisions. But the problem is that every decision already has a given outcome. No one in this world controls his/her decisions.

I'm trying to remember...did this first part come from The Matrix? It's an oversimplified argument that only exists in a vacuum given only 1 variable such that A+B=C, however the real world has nearly infinite variables and consequences to every action. Some are readily identifiable, some aren't. For example, in Chaos Theory it has been surmised that the result of a butterfly flapping it's wings in China could somehow result in a Tornado in the Midwestern U.S. (Don't ask me how, go read the theory). Even then, doesn't every choice in essence open up a myriad of potential new choices resulting from the initial choice, in essence giving potentially countless other longer term outcomes? There aren't just 2 possible outcomes in any decision(I could choose to go take a plane or take a train, or I could choose to take a boat, or I could choose to simply not go at all, forfeiting the chance of meeting a future business partner, which would open a whole new window of pursuant choices). Bottom line, it's an overly simplistic argument that doesn't seem realistic to me.

quote:

A decision is based either upon a person's environment or upon a person's own brain (his knowledge and genetics). I can not see how the individual can in any way change this. We are born with our brain and we are placed in an environment, so where is the choice?

You are born with a brain, but it is undeveloped. How you choose to condition it will have a large impact on your approach to decision making. You may choose to sniff glue, kill your brain cells, and then be rendered a vegetable, depending on others to make all of your choices for you. You may also choose to do something else--again, there is always more than 1 alternative which always adds more uncertainty.

quote:

Now you are thinking, �no that is not true, we do have a choice�, but then please tell me how else can we take our decisions? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!

Not so sure why you're so emphatic here. I don't see how the argument makes sense.

quote:

Examples: A person is in a store, he is going to buy some tomatoes, the store has 2 kinds, one that is cheap (but not the best) and one that is delicious (but expensive). If this person is rich (he knows that --> knowledge) and/or love tomatoes (genetics) he will buy the expensive one. He had a free choice, but where were the free choice, really? It was already given what he would take. quote: Not so. It might depend on what the tomatoes look like, how much money he has on him, etc. He may just decide not to purchase any tomatoes. Maybe he buys some tomato seeds and plants a tomato garden when he gets home. You just can't simplify life down to an either/or equation. [quote]There is an election, every person vote what they think is the best for them/society. First of all some only think of themselves and others think of the whole (this depend of their raising, environment and their genetics, but still they do not control if they are ego or not.). Secondly everyone does not have the same knowledge (some persons knows a lot (want to learn, gen/environmental thing), some do not, nothing you can affect). There is no other ways you take your decisions in an election. So everyone has a free will to vote on whatever they want in the election, but the decision is already given based upon the things i just mentioned Surely you can't believe that an election would be that predictable? If that were the case we could've avoided the whole Florida Recount issue and Chad would still be a cool name. quote: Another example of this is that most middle classers continue to be middle class, most over class continue to be that, and working class continue to be that, etc. This is clearly NOT a coincidence. Plenty of people are able to move from one class to another--it depends on a lot of their decisions, as well as plenty of other variables such as timing, and even other intangibles that they have no control over (like luck). quote: I could take endless of more examples but i hope you got my point now. Do go on, I have yet to get the point/see a convincing example that proves that choice does not exist and that a specific set of outcomes must always accompany a particular choice. quote: So a person's failure is not really the persons fault, it is the society's fault. Sounds like typical leftist victimization in order to avoid personal responsibility. Certainly this can't be how you actually think? [quoteTake some time think of it, there is no free choice.

Sure there is. I just chose to write a scathing review. Possible outcomes: I could get flamed, I could get a sensible reply, I could get no reply, I could get banned, or nothing might happen. I certainly can't predict what you'll say in response, though I have a good idea since we've debated before and I know your stance on several issues. There is plenty of free choice.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It may be true that the decisions we make are a result of our brains, anatomy, and environment - but there is a distinct missing link in your logic between the notion that our decisions are predetermined and the ideal that everyone has the right to a decent life. Why should everyone have the right to a decent life?

why not? if they are born into a life, why should not everyone at least be born into a decent life?

quote:

Everybody wants something for nothing. Nobody has the "right" to a good life. There are many people who do nothing but good deeds and still have shitty lives. If they don't have the right to decent lives, why should murderers?

everyone should have the right to a decent life, also those people who does good for society.

quote:

Punishing murderers isn't just about deterrent - it's about keeping them away from society long enough not to do it again until they can learn from their mistake (which in some cases, might be for the rest of their lives). It's for the safety of the people. If you call it "choice" then those murderers will learn to make better "choices" - if you call it "brain chemistry", then seeing the consequences of their actions should alter their "brain chemistry" enough so that their "automatic" reaction next time is not to kill anyone.

true true, but in prison they should be treated as humans and also they should be rehabilitated, i'm not sure if they understand what's wrong all times and many of them will never be rehabilitated and therefore they should get e decent life i prison.

quote:

You see, even if choices are predetermined, it still means we're responsible as a society to "induce" people to make the right choices, which is governed by the same system of reward and punishment that's always been used. It's been thoroughly tested and proven on all other animals, and we are no different - reward encourages, punishment discourages, and people, just as animals, can be conditioned to act a certain way by doing just that.

yes of course, but i think it's better to stake on awards than on punishments (which is also proven to work on animals). also it's societies task to make everyones environment as good as possible in the first place (equal schools etc).

quote:

Bottom line - you can define "choice" however you like, but if you redefine "choice" then you have to redefine "society" too, because society is formed by choice. "No free choice" is pretty much a dead-end philosophy that doesn't work in practice, it's basically communism.

Partly true, society is formed by choice, my theory is that we cannot steer choice, nor do i think that we can steer society in whole... i can't see how those two has to contradict each other. and no i DO NOT support communist.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono St. Andrew, it almost seems as if you're debating whether making an educated decision removes one's ability to free choice. I think these are two seperate issues. I would hope that when one makes any choice, s/he thinks of all possible outcomes before they fully commit. I would also hope that the person makes the choice that is most beneficial for what they are trying to accomplish (within reason, e.g. not killing someone for your gain). This said, the person always has the option of making a decision that goes against what a rational individual would do in that circumstance (children and criminals do it all the time). Therefore, I would say that just because many of our choices are obvious based on looking at the outcome, we are in no way "forced" to take that path.

everyone try to make the choices as good as possible for them, some just don't know what's good and what's bad etc, that's why there is "bad" choices.

and no, i'n not saying that education removes ones ability to make choices (there was no ability before either), i say it affect the way we take them. there is no such thing as free choice, so after school, we just have more to base our decisions on so in a way school help us to take some decisions...

Re: Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

I see no flaws in your logic, but, assuming that you are right, I would like to reverse the argument and ask: Are there such things as "individuals"?

Who knows. I don't think its important because the majority of society believes there are and I dont think theres really anyone who could really comprehend and accept us all being numbers. We have to live under the assumption that there are individuals regardless of whether or not it is correct.

Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Now, while I do agree with the first part of your post, I certainly disagree with the second part. Diginut has already expressed most of my opinions on this matter, so I won't have much to add to that. Free choice has nothing to do with reward or punishment. Whether you like to call people's decisions free choice or conditioned response, in both cases they'll consider the consequences of their actions, and in both cases will the principle of reward and punishment lead to the same results. That principle is therefore in no way connected with the free choice agenda. Now, we can move on to what the punishments for unwanted actions should be. The best solution would be that if someone is a serious threat to the society, that person should be removed from it. Smaller crimes are not a serious threat, so they can freely be dealt with in terms of short prison sentences. But, as far as the big crimes go (mass murder, genocides, serial killers...), there should be no way such people should ever be reintroduced into the society. The very actions those people took show that they are not rational and sane beings. There is usually no cure for them, as those people will murder again when they come back from the prison,

agree with that

quote:

and there's definitely no reason why those people should be funded by the society to spend the rest of their miserable lives in a cell. A simple fact is that the needs of the many usually outweight the needs of the few, so it's a choice between two lesser evils. On one hand, we have a poor poor murderer who won't experience the thrills of freedom/life, and on the other hand we have a society where murder goes almost unpunished, something that can lead to desasterous results. Now, regardless of whether you look at these people as conditioned automatons or free willed individuals, there's no reason whatsoever to keep them alive. If their actions are the product of their free will, then it is obvious we are talking to someone who enjoys killing, regardless of the possible consequences. If we are talking about actions that are a conditioned response, we have a person whose genes and society have conditioned him/her to do the very same ting, to kill for pleasure regardless of the consequences. In both cases the solution is the same.

I think there is a reason why these people should be founded by society, you said by yourself that there is no thing as free choice, but yet you want to kill this people who didn't have any choice? if society has failed with those persons lives, they shouldn't be killed. society should take care about them. and no, i don't think it is less deterrent just to take away their freedom than if you should kill them. all people want their freedom (not a life in a prison) so most people won't commit crimes anyway.

Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In my opinion, this is a pretty weak paper. Not because your thesis is necessarily bad, but moreso because you really don't say/argue anything. That which you do argue is incredibly thin.

and still most people understood my point and agreed - there is no free choice.

quote:

I'm trying to remember...did this first part come from The Matrix? It's an oversimplified argument that only exists in a vacuum given only 1 variable such that A+B=C, however the real world has nearly infinite variables and consequences to every action. Some are readily identifiable, some aren't. For example, in Chaos Theory it has been surmised that the result of a butterfly flapping it's wings in China could somehow result in a Tornado in the Midwestern U.S. (Don't ask me how, go read the theory). Even then, doesn't every choice in essence open up a myriad of potential new choices resulting from the initial choice, in essence giving potentially countless other longer term outcomes? There aren't just 2 possible outcomes in any decision(I could choose to go take a plane or take a train, or I could choose to take a boat, or I could choose to simply not go at all, forfeiting the chance of meeting a future business partner, which would open a whole new window of pursuant choices). Bottom line, it's an overly simplistic argument that doesn't seem realistic to me.

it doesn't matter if there are 2 outcome in a decision or if there are 2000000000, we still chose what seems to be the best alternative, and what we think is the best alternative is based upon our experiences / knowledge / genetics, so whether there is 2 possibilities, or 200000000 the outcome is still given.

and no i don't think that's from matrix?!

quote:

You are born with a brain, but it is undeveloped. How you choose to condition it will have a large impact on your approach to decision making. You may choose to sniff glue, kill your brain cells, and then be rendered a vegetable, depending on others to make all of your choices for you. You may also choose to do something else--again, there is always more than 1 alternative which always adds more uncertainty.

but how do you chose? why do we choose something when our brain is "undeveloped" (i don't believe that the brain is undeveloped from the beginning, but still)? when you have a choice, you try to make it as good as possible for you, right? everyone tries that, based on their knowledges and abilities. or can we make choices in any other way than based on our current knowledges and what feels best?

quote:

Not so. It might depend on what the tomatoes look like, how much money he has on him, etc. He may just decide not to purchase any tomatoes. Maybe he buys some tomato seeds and plants a tomato garden when he gets home. You just can't simplify life down to an either/or equation.

yes of course! but still he takes all those things into consideration when he takes the decision!

quote:

Surely you can't believe that an election would be that predictable? If that were the case we could've avoided the whole Florida Recount issue and Chad would still be a cool name.

hmm, how could the florida recount have been avoided if we knew how people made their choices? people's knowledges changes, and so does the election results.

quote:

Plenty of people are able to move from one class to another--it depends on a lot of their decisions, as well as plenty of other variables such as timing, and even other intangibles that they have no control over (like luck).

yeah, a lot are, but most people stay, why is that?

quote:

Do go on, I have yet to get the point/see a convincing example that proves that choice does not exist and that a specific set of outcomes must always accompany a particular choice.

if you still not understand, i will take some more complex examples.

quote:

Sounds like typical leftist victimization in order to avoid personal responsibility. Certainly this can't be how you actually think?

you shouldn't try to avoid personal responsibility, personal responsibility is good for the ones that fix it, but the ones that cannot have to be taken care of. if everyone was born equal, and there was such thing as free choice, then i would probably think like you, but now, that's not the case.

quote:

Sure there is. I just chose to write a scathing review. Possible outcomes: I could get flamed, I could get a sensible reply, I could get no reply, I could get banned, or nothing might happen. I certainly can't predict what you'll say in response, though I have a good idea since we've debated before and I know your stance on several issues. There is plenty of free choice.

you didn't choose to write this review because you knew how i would answer, you chose to do that for many reasons. probably you like to argue (gen/env thing), you answered as you did probably because you have grown up in a family with parents that support a right government, your family is probably rich, you attended good schools, you have meet most right supporting people in your life etc etc.

Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I see no flaws in your logic, but, assuming that you are right, I would like to reverse the argument and ask: Are there such things as "individuals"? Or, equivalently, do each of us possess an essence? If our decision making is merely a function of previous experience and some constant factor defined by the brains we are born with, then how do we become individuals? To me, an individual is something with its own preferences and which is distinguishable from other individuals by its acts. But, as we just established, these preferences and choices are deterministically related to our biological starting point and experiences, so how can we in any way claim them to be "ours"? We are as little individuals as we have free choice.

for me, a individual is a person with unique properties. even though you do not _really_ have free choice, you still are a unique person, a individual.

Re: Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I think there is a reason why these people should be founded by society, you said by yourself that there is no thing as free choice, but yet you want to kill this people who didn't have any choice?

Well, diseases and natural disasters don't choose whether they'll appear or not, but we still try our best to eliminate them.

quote:

if society has failed with those persons lives, they shouldn't be killed. society should take care about them.

It's not always the society. It is often the genetics that make people agressive and violent. And the society shouldn't pay for someone's corrupted genetic code.

quote:

and no, i don't think it is less deterrent just to take away their freedom than if you should kill them. all people want their freedom (not a life in a prison) so most people won't commit crimes anyway.

It is a milder deterrent to take away someone's freedom than it is to kill that person. Freedom always exists, but in different amounts. You can't do anything you want, but you do have some choices. Imprisoned people have their choices reduced, but they can still make some. If a person is killed, there's no more choice ever again.

I think you also have to pay attention to the fact that "free/freedom" is a relative term.

No matter how much freedom there is, you can always take it to a greater extreme. I think it was Skinner that described true freedom as an unattainable ideal, you'd have to be living in a vacuum, you'd have to be free from any environment or surroundings - in effect, you'd have to be living outside reality.

But who wants that kind of freedom? I suppose the closest you could come to that is to be the last surviving man on earth after a nuclear holocaust. I'm sure everyone agrees that society would come to a screeching halt if we tried to attain that kind of "free choice."

St. Andrew, the problem with your philosophy as that you're looking at the choice of an individual in hindsight. There is never any choice, never any randomness after something's already happened. Even though a person's actions may be the result of their environment and their brain, the action they take is completely unpredictable until after the fact. And I do mean truly unpredictable, because the set of variables governing an individual's behaviour is infinite. And that, I argue, is choice, simply defined a different way. If other people can't predict our actions in foresight, then in hindsight we made a choice.

The postmodernist philosophy of free choice is mostly a form of philosophical and intellectual masturbation that doesn't have much practical use. If "true" free choice is an unattainable ideal, then we have to redefine "choice" to reflect something that is a physical reality in order to form a coherent argument that has any practical use. The no-free-choice argument as a lead-in to the extreme left liberal laissez-faire philosophy is not very logical and has been debunked in the past. We can talk about it philosophically, but trying to apply it politically is basically a dead-end street.

hehe...you said intellectual masturbation

I think you're correct about B.F. Skinner, though I don't remember that clearly some of what I took in philosophy.

Is making a decisiion based on the action of something random(flipping a coin, rolling a die) free choice? It's not affected by nature, nurture, your benifit/detriment analyis or anything else besides which way the coin lands.

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi Is making a decisiion based on the action of something random(flipping a coin, rolling a die) free choice? It's not affected by nature, nurture, your benifit/detriment analyis or anything else besides which way the coin lands.

Actually, the way the coin lands is - theoretically - determined by the angle and velocity you choose to flip it by, as well as the density and movement of the air in the room you flip it. Similar argument goes for the dice, and we again (theoretically) have a deterministic choice.

You may say that although the choice is deterministic it is not *predictable*. But that hinges on our ability to predict - which I will claim to be a function of our mental capabilities and experiences, too. E.g. I know how much one of my friends wants a particular item, and I choose to give it to him as a birthday present. I can predict that he will be happy - although someone who do not know my friends desire and what the present contain will have a harder time predicting that. Someone from another culture, where people do not exchange wrapped gifts, would be even worse off at predicting the reaction of my friend.

Don't know if that made any sense, but now I have typed it, so I might as well post it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: free choice?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew for me, a individual is a person with unique properties. even though you do not _really_ have free choice, you still are a unique person, a individual.

It is interesting that you write "unique properties", as it is quite a vague definition. I assume that you do not mean the acts of the person, as these are not freely chosen by him (cf. your own argument). I furthermore assume that you do not mean physical appearence, voice etc., as these could be altered due to surgery or accidents, yet that thing we call a person would remain. So what do you mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi Who knows. I don't think its important because the majority of society believes there are and I dont think theres really anyone who could really comprehend and accept us all being numbers. We have to live under the assumption that there are individuals regardless of whether or not it is correct.

Quite to the contrary I think that the existence of individuals/essences/souls are relevant to the latter part of Andrews argument. As I understand his reasoning, it goes something like this:

We do not have free choice. Therefore, the "individual" is not really responsible for the choices he or she make - or alternatively, if we punish him, it will be because of his initial brain structure and the experiences he has had - both factors that "he" cannot help being subjected to.
I don't know if I'm stepping out of bounds here, but it seems like he's advocating that the person/individual is more or less a slave to his brain and experiences: A helpless soul trapped in an automaton?

If, by my argument, you accept that the line of reasoning provided for non-existence of free choice also eliminates the existence of a soul/individual, then his cause ceases to be.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Actually, the way the coin lands is - theoretically - determined by the angle and velocity you choose to flip it by, as well as the density and movement of the air in the room you flip it. Similar argument goes for the dice, and we again (theoretically) have a deterministic choice.

Although we shouldn't forget the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you look at the coin while it's flipping, you can never be absolutely sure of the way it will land.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: free choice?

I largely agree with Diginut's statements however, let me add one note.

quote:

originially posted by diginut I think you also have to pay attention to the fact that "free/freedom" is a relative term. No matter how much freedom there is, you can always take it to a greater extreme. I think it was Skinner that described true freedom as an unattainable ideal, you'd have to be living in a vacuum, you'd have to be free from any environment or surroundings - in effect, you'd have to be living outside reality.

But do we not make an initial "choice" to undergo such experiences? Essentially, we can either choose to remain in a vacuum and remain uninfluenced by all factors, or we can decide to live in an ever-evolving/affecting environment and thus bear responsiblity for the effects of our choice to be affected? For example, if I make the initial choice to hang out with gangs all the time such that the lifestyle influences my ability to make "uninfluenced" choices, shouldn't my initial "choice" to involve myself in that lifestyle be the accountable factor? Then let's go back further and state that my choice to involve myself with a gang was influenced by my choice in friends to hang out with ... then that "choice" is the accountable factor in my ultimate choices later in life? As we go back in time I'm sure we would find that our "choices" in life become less and less influenced by our environment. Therefore our free choice in life is a summation of "free" choices that we have made since consciousness and therefore are ultimately "free".

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic We do not have free choice. Therefore, the "individual" is not really responsible for the choices he or she make - or alternatively, if we punish him, it will be because of his initial brain structure and the experiences he has had - both factors that "he" cannot help being subjected to. I don't know if I'm stepping out of bounds here, but it seems like he's advocating that the person/individual is more or less a slave to his brain and experiences: A helpless soul trapped in an automaton?

I was actually arguing with Andrew about this in another thread (which will never end). In my opinion, adopting such a philosophical believe is extremely dangerous. While we exclude personal responsibility and accountability for an individual since he supposedly does not have "free" choice, we also exclude that individual's ability to make choices. As you stated, there is no individual, only a helpless soul slave to a their brains and experiences. Therefore, according to this degree of thought, humans should NOT be extended the privelidge of choice since their choices in life are ALWAYS predetermined and unchangeable. Therefore, a superior system should be set in place (an all-knowing 1984 style of government or a super computer) to make choices for the individual since the individual will inevitably make the wrong choice. Or even going one step further, why not set up a eugenics program to eliminate the mass of humanity who are born with the propensity of gravitating to the wrong choices as a result of their brain chemistry?

I argued that freedom and accountability go hand in hand ... either you grant the individual the benefit of the doubt that they possess "free" choice and invoke accountability on their part for the choices that they make, or you eliminate their freedom of choice.

At any rate I've learned one thing from this discussion ... there really IS a short jump to totalitariaism from the extremist positions of either ideaological sides

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You may say that although the choice is deterministic it is not *predictable*. But that hinges on our ability to predict - which I will claim to be a function of our mental capabilities and experiences, too. E.g. I know how much one of my friends wants a particular item, and I choose to give it to him as a birthday present. I can predict that he will be happy - although someone who do not know my friends desire and what the present contain will have a harder time predicting that. Someone from another culture, where people do not exchange wrapped gifts, would be even worse off at predicting the reaction of my friend. Don't know if that made any sense, but now I have typed it, so I might as well post it.

It makes sense, but unfortunately for you, it is false.

First of all, Tito gave mention of the H. uncertainty principle which is one of the central tenets of modern science - specifically it refers to the relationship between the position/velocity or momentum/energy of a particle, and it states that the more you know about one variable (position), the less you can know about another (velocity). Now, I'm not going to give a physics lesson here, but the point you have to understand is that the uncertainty principle is not a technological or knowledge limitation, it is a basic principle of science which states that no technology could ever be made to measure both - it's impossible.

So, literally, a true prediction could never actually be made. Making a prediction would require knowing an exact state of matter, and on a quantum level, this is not possible. When you go to a macro scale - i.e. a coin, or the human brain, there are certain instances in which you know that the matter will interact in a certain way, and you can figure out, for example, which side the coin will probably land on or whether or not your friend will like the gift. But there is always a certain amount of uncertainty because there is an infinite set of variables that can never all be taken into account, and ultimately, your prediction is nothing more than a probability - it may be a 99.9999% probability, but it is still a probability.

This is why weather forecasts are misleading. It's why cars and computers break down. It's why you'll be walking down the street one day and trip over your own feet for some unknown reason. I know a lot of people have trouble with the concept of infinity, but try to understand - infinity is not a number, it is by definition the lack of any countable number. So when we are surrounded by an environment - an infinite set of variables and influences - no prediction could ever be made with 100% certainty.

The problem is, you're trying to apply a rather scientific concept (determinism) to a philosophical abstract without knowing the scientific foundation. Yes, we can model behaviour. Yes, some people may have a better ability to "predict" a certain thing than others - but no one, ever, could create a rock-solid model that would predict the behaviour of every individual particle in the universe - and hence, nobody could ever predict all the actions of individual human beings.

So I am sorry to say, I do not accept your argument here - human beings are random at the core, not determinstic, and randomness implies an a priori choice - one can always say a posteriori (after the fact) that no real choice was made, but unfortunately, we have to obey the principles of causality. We can't see into the future, and we have to structure our behaviour accordingly - based on modelling, randomness, and choice.

Choice is a linguistic term - as a word, it doesn't have any concrete meaning. It's a model, and in this case, a far better model than determinism. Let's stick with it.

I thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply stated that it is impossible to know both the location and spin or an electron at any given point in time. You may know one, but not the other.

As a corollary to that, I thought it also said that 2 electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time, with the same spin.

That was a long time ago though and my physics certainly isn't what it used to be, but I'd venture to bet that the H. Uncertainty principle is completely irrelevant to discussing a coin flip (i.e. flipping a coin has nothing to do with quantum physics).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.