For all practical purposes, this is basically a distinction without a difference to me. If I was never able to not run into traffic or sit at home playing video games, what difference does it make what we call it? If my “thoughts, actions and choices” are determined by my previous “thoughts, actions and choices” are determined by my previous “thoughts, actions and choices” are deterrmined by going back through the evolution of life on earth going back to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself, then it all seems to be unfolding only as it ever could have.
Again, the difference being that no matter is quite like brain matter. That’s still the main quandary to me. How can – how did – matter evolve into minds able ponder such things as this?
People who believe in autonomy as distinct from determinism/randomness believe themselves to be supernatural, imposing their will on the natural world through their bodies but remain, partly, apart from and immune to the influences of the natural world and thus remain autonomous. They have trouble reconciling neurological disorders, the effects of drugs and brain chemistry with this view and often contort themselves into odd shapes to try and maintain it… either by denying those things and instead claiming other supernatural forces at play, claiming that such brain manipulations only make it difficult or impossible for us to command our bodies, but our will and mind remain intact or some other such invention.
Well put. But, in my view, it still doesn’t pin down whether or not these “thoughts, actions and choices” are in sync with a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
I have to ask you… what is the minimum requirement for a choice?
Let’s say a man has a woman and her baby held hostage at gunpoint and gives you two options, which you magically know to be true:
- He shoots you, then he kills both of them right here and now in front of you as you bleed out
- You ask him nicely… and he will let them go, hand you the gun and turn himself in to the police
Now you could argue, that those are only options if we discount you… you being who you are and having the values that you do, would (I hope) “chose” option 2 every single time without fail. That this is a foregone conclusion and would be perfectly predictable to anyone who knew you in the least.
“Magically know to be true”? I don’t really understand your point. Mine is this: that whatever I choose, I am either not able to not choose it, or I am able to act autonomously on the values I have accumulated existentially and make what most will insist is the “right” choice.
Let’s consider a hypothetical I raised with Gib…
Imagine that earth is in a part of the universe where everything – everything – is wholly determined by the laws of matter. Aliens from a part of the universe where autonomy prevails note the option that I chose. They are freely debating among themselves whether that was the right thing to do while pointing out that in making the choice myself, I was never really “metaphysically” able to choose other than what I did. But: my brain/mind has deluded me into thinking that “psychologically” I freely chose either 1 or 2.
So let us say that we take ourselves to be part of our brains…
You may ask yourself, should I go make myself a snack or sit here and read MMP’s post, given determinism are those even choices?
Why not? Mindless matter interacts only as it must. It doesn’t choose to act. But mindful matter embodied in the brain is able to convince itself that it can and does choose among multiple options.
But if it was only able to convince itself to choose the only possible option for this particular brain/mind in this particular context, it’s not at all a choice in the manner in which choosing is contrued by those convinced that mind has somehow evolved to acquire autonomy.
If we discount your character (in this case those brain parts), do you have options about what to do next?
The answer is yes (even given determinism)… but just like the example above, if we knew your character well enough… the choice would likewise be perfectly predictable.
Discount my character?
I don’t follow this. If we were only able to either discount or not discount it, and this was inherently embedded in the evolution of all the matter that came before that choice, it was only ever going to be what it only ever could have been. The illusion of freely willing to or not to.
You suggest that this seems like a trick of language… but I honestly fail to see how.
The one making the choices is YOU… So if your character should turn out to be immaculately definable and thereby perfectly predictable… how does that in any way change the nature of choice?
An “immaculately definable” character? What “on earth” does this mean? Note a context in which human interaction unfolds. How would you describe this given the choices that are being made? And how would it be “perfectly predictable”?
As for the choice, is it in fact just an inherent manifestation of nature having evolved into the human brain, or is there something in this brain that takes matter to a whole other level?
And how on earth can we know the answer to something like this assuming we do have the capacity to make the choices we do of our own volition.