But this just takes us back to connecting the dots between the definition that you give to the words that encompass this speculation and the extent to which it can be demonstrated that the “internal process” itself involves some level of independence from the laws of matter.
It may well be unique to everyone but if everyone embodies it mechanically in a wholly determined universe, the uniqueness itself would seem to become only that “psychological freedom” that the compatibilists cling to as a “choice” in a world where we end up choosing only that which we could never not choose.
If I were to kick you, your response would not be the same as every other human’s… it might not even be the same as your own, if I kicked you a second time.
It’s that “freedom” (as compared to a rock’s freedom) to respond to outside forces that I think we want to talk about.How would you approach this definitions?
But what does it mean here to put “freedom” in these things: “_______”? How is expressing it this way different from expressing it as “It’s that freedom to respond to outside forces that separates us from rocks”?
How far can logic or rationality penetrate here?
I’m sure I don’t know… but seeing as how logic and rationality mark the end of our ability to comprehend, I would say it’s more a question of resilience than anything else.
It’s easy to say that which we don’t yet know is “unknowable” or that we which we don’t yet understand is “incomprehensible”, that saves us the trouble of having to make any effort…
But that is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Okay, but all we can do in the interim is to react to those who provide us with arguments that either tug us closer to autonomy or further away from it.
Or to bring our own experiences into the discussion and speculate as to what extent we are able to convince ourselves that we are choosing freely to do this rather than that.
But that doesn’t make the gap between utilizing human logic and/or excercising rational discourse from day to day and all that encompasses an understanding of them re the existence of existence itself go away.
We just don’t know what possible limitations there are here. And whether, encompassed in that, “I” is at least in part on its own in figuring it all out.
I would rather go down swinging, even against an insurmountable foe… at least my defeat will not be for lack of trying.
And I’m sure any number of foes will go down swinging in turn. But that still doesn’t seem to settle whether victory or defeat here was ever really within your capacity autonomously to bring about.
In other words, how are the interactions of the atomic and sub-atomic particles in the computer the same or different from the interactions of atomic and sub-atomic particles in the brain?
Well, the choices made by the computer seem to be entirely dependent on the computer program that has been installed in it. But when we Google something and it pops up on the screen the computer itself is not conscious of making this happen. It’s not like the computer can decide to bring up something not googled instead.
Now, with the human brain we have matter that is able to think that it is freely making the choice to google dog instead of cat. But if we live in a metaphysically determined universe what does that really mean? If I choose to Google dog instead of cat but I was never really able to google cat instead of dog, there’s still a choice.
But, come on…
Well that brings us right back to defining “choice”…
Or: That brings us back to grappling with the extent to which the definition that we choose was ever really embodied in some measure of human autonomy. And then the extent to which, in bringing that definition out into the world of human interactions, we are able to demonstrate how this definition works “for all practical purposes”.
When you are playing chess against the computer and the program responds to you and attempts to outmaneuver you… is it making choices?
Yes, but those hypothetical aliens in a hypotheically autonomous part of the universe, might argue that, given that earth is in a wholly determined region of the universe, both choices were only ever as they could have been. But the computer “mind” [to the best of my knowledge] is not able to think “I made that choice but could have made a different one.”
The human mind thinks that psychologically but in fact it was never really able to make any other choice. Never really able to think any other way. Not in a metaphysically determined part of the universe.
Let’s assume we’re in a non-deterministic universe… would the answer change?
What would it take for something to be a choice?
Again, in an autonomous world, the human mind chooses one move over another and, based on its capacity to excel at chess, eventually wins or loses the match. It is then able to freely react to that emotionally. For the computer though, none of this would seem to be relevant.
But then we get closer and closer to entities like the Terminator. We clearly see him choosing among options, but before the choice is made we see this computer schematics pop up on the screen. He is merely programed to choose. But: He is programed to choose by machines that were programed by flesh and blood human beings.
Or consider all of the levels of “reality” in the Matrix?
How than is a choice finally pinned down given all the possible permutations of variables?
See if you ask me for the definition of “choice” I would say it is “selecting between two or more options”
So to me the answer is clear… the rules of chess give the computer a multitude of options and it’s programing selects between them… the program is choosing moves.
Yeah, that makes sense. But: Has Nature or one or another God programed “life on earth” to select among options in much the same way? Only with humans, historical and cultural and interpersonal memes play a much greater role in the selection process. Though, in the end, no less mechanically.
But if that is not your answer I have to assume that you have a different definition of “choice”
My own understanding of choice [in an autonomus universe] revolves around the extent to which what we choose to think, feel, say, or do is able to be defended as that which all rational men and women are obligated to think, feel, say and do in turn.
In the either/or world.
In the is/ought world, what we think, feel, say and do seems rooted more in the manner in which I have come to understand identity, value judgments and politcal power at the existential juncture embedded in any particuar context.