New Discovery

Ever recurring blocks? What are you talking about Meno? You are making all kinds of assumptions that don’t belong. All I am establishing is that we can only choose one alternative whenever we are choosing between MEANINGFUL differences. Show me where this is false. You are trying hard to prove this author wrong, but he wasn’t wrong so you can’t do it. Your reasoning in an effort to prove that my definition is insufficient is completely flawed.

There is no difference that has been overlooked. Sometimes we look back and sometimes we don’t when making a decision. There is nothing reductionistic about this definition. There is no disorder or entropy by saying that when making a choice, it could only be that choice because we are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction or preference. Prove to me that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction (or lesser satisfaction) when a more preferable choice is available to you. That’s the only way we will be able to stay on track. Just to remind you: this is an invariable law of our nature whether it was during prehistoric times or modern times. Natural laws don’t change with time, although the environment changes with time.

That is a superficial definition of “free” will. To the extent we have available choices at our disposal does not grant us libertarian free will. It just means we have more options on the table. Yes, we have more freedom to move about, to do more things in life, but you are conflating two different definitions of “free”. Throughout the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, the author uses the phrase: “I was compelled of my own free will” to mean “I was compelled of my own desire” which is not a contradiction if you understand how the terms are being used. Similarly, using the word “free” to mean more options does not mean we have freedom of the will. We have to define words clearly in order to communicate effectively.

We are all limited by our environment, our income, our knowledge, our heredity, our culture, our predispositions, our subconscious desires and fears, etc. Regardless of the reasons for the choice, it was never a free one because we are compelled, based on all of the above which include the options available at that moment in time, to move in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction. It is impossible to move in any other direction, which means once the choice is made, it was the only choice that could ever have been made. IOW, we would get the same result if we were able to rewind the clock and repeat the same instance before making the choice.

This is the part I always latch on to. It reflects what I construe to be the “objectivist mentality”. And it can be in reference to all sorts of things.

But mostly two:

1] moral and political values
2] assessments of questions like this

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of “I” in it.

I encompassed this frame of mind in what I call the “psychology of objectivism”:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

On the other hand, I have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate that what others claim to know about things like this in venues like this one is not in fact in sync with the whole truth. Sure, it could be.

But given the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of such TOEs that have come down the pike historically, really, what are the odds?

Peace girl:

I’m not contesting Your thesis, admittedly only trying to modify its insubstantial basis.

Yeah. We’re free to make a limited choice out of limited options, I agree, just stating my own wording of it to make sure I fully understand you.

I already stated that there is no right or wrong or objective truth when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others. What is a hurt? you may ask. It is someone doing something to you that you do not want done to yourself.

It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But…you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

Except the choice/option from the beginning has been restricted or is lead to by something outside of self, this is not freedom, there are boundaries. It’s only variety of limited options… Free to pick, out of limited choice. So why call it free will when it is just will. If there is “to an extent” then there is a wall.

It doesn’t halt at all. It would be like choosing between two identical options, or A and A. If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one. This does not prove free will because whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if not choosing any is the preferred option.

Freedom in having options is different from free will. Of course we always are restricted to limited set of options. We however are free to choose the option that we want among set of available set of options regardless of our like/dislike, external force, etc.

It does halt. For a free agent there is even a delay between realizing the options and choosing one option in the case one wants options equally. The example of identical option is of course is not relevant since choosing is indifferent.

this is a popcornological impossibility. the law of identity only holds for notational and propositional logic, not for things extended in space/time. there can be no two identical things in space/time. just sayin’.

You’re splitting hairs. For the purposes of my example that when two things are virtually identical, this does nothing to prove we have free will.

But why choose popcorn, the choice in itself is limited… One has obviously developed the taste for popcorn, (preference), through genes and environment, these are limitations. Both objectively and subjectively. Why does one choose popcorn? Then it becomes even narrower, well what kind of popcorn? Caramel? Cheese? Butter? Sure options are available but options are limited in themselves by development of preference through genetics and environment.

The reason I take a position where I defend against free will (by definition) in an objective/literal sense is due to it being also genetics, taste buds. Did you pick your likes and dislikes? No? You simply discovered them and have the limited option of continuing or discontinuing usage of whatever said preference is. I did not have a choice in becoming, becoming had a choice in me, (trial and error in a sense, selection.)

It is both objective and subjective limitation of “free” will. As I believe it was Ben, who said a long time
ago, “we have a will but it isn’t a free one”

And I thought it was merely a play in words as a jest.

Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Based off of preference.

Value of the “greater good”, one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something “new”, the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Is that not dependent upon mood or belief of what could be the “right” choice of which one will return a greater satisfaction?

When I am picking between donuts or cookies (I love both) I take into account what mood I am in, not so much a struggle of not being able to choose due to liking them both equally. Or how about how I love Italian food but also love Mexican food, mood plays a role in determining which one we choose and which will be “more fulfilling” based on what makes one salivate more in the present moment.

You might be in a mood to have cookies but think that it makes you fat so you believe that it is better to go with donuts. You want both options equally at the end when you consider all circumstances. This is a situation that mood or belief alone cannot move you to pick up the option you want so you have to decide freely.