The Free Will Pill
Taylor A. Dunn asks, if free will were a drug, should you take it?
From Philosophy Now magazine
As usual, a part of me must acknowledge that, given some measure of free will on my part here, I am not understanding his point.
He must be assuming that he himself has some measure of free will in order to note this here and now given the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, a free will pill has not yet been invented.
Instead, he seems to be presuming that we do not have autonomy now but that somehow in the future nature will compel the human species to invent a free will pill. And some [more privileged] will be compelled by nature to obtain this pill giving them the free will that the underprivileged will not have access to?
So we will live in a world there some can afford to acquire free will giving them an advantage over those not able to afford it?
I’m having difficulty grasping how for all practical purposes this plays itself out in particular contexts.
Okay, John buys and sell stocks after acquiring free will pill. Jane and thousands more like her buy and sell stocks the old fashioned way: as nature compels them. Meanwhile those throughout the economy who manufacture, market, sell, and/or purchase the commodities that encompass the economy are as well, either in possession of the free will pill or are not.
Same for the is/ought world. Some take the free will pill and argue of their own volition that buying and selling stocks embodies moral or immoral behavior. Meanwhile the majority of folks unable to afford free will argue only as they are compelled to given that their brains are still wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
A little help here please. How in more detail might the free will folks go about reconfiguring the old adage, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” when capitalism intertwines the autonomous and the compelled in this brave new world.
who said that… your homeboy satyr? sounds like something he’d say. well if he didn’t say that, he’s said the same thing in so many other words. i’ve been tellin this dude since what, 2010, that there is no ‘determiner’ in a causal system, no single individual who possesses some agency called ‘freewill’ that acts as a cause, and certainly no transcendent ‘god’ that determines what’s going to happen in the system. this is all to say there is no intent for, or reason why, anything happens. it just happens because it has to.
but you can see here how these freewillists are so deluded about causation that they can’t imagine it being even possible without some directing agency. if a determinist denies them their freewill, he must then be granting the determining power to some ‘god’. see what i mean? but it’s the freewillist who insists that there must be a ‘determiner’, not the determinist.
the fact is, the delusion of the illest of the freewillist runs so deep he begins to see himself in those he argues with… and presto, becomes his own strawman.
the concealed premise here is that in order to justify ‘punishment’, it has to be believed that the punished had freewill. this rests on the lack of honesty and power on the punisher’s part. we are still in the stage of human history where forces that deter, repress and control find it easier to do so through lying… which is understandable… because the ‘truth’ isn’t a priority here. order is the priority, and the means to keeping this reveals a particular idiosyncrasy about society. what it has to do to keep order.
and there’s an ongoing dual-history to the usefulness of this freewill lie. on one hand, it makes managing social order and criminal justice much more efficient; make an offender ‘feel guilty’ and half the work is already done. he’ll do anything you say to clear his conscience. on the other hand, along with that continued belief in freewill, attention is always paid more to the individual rather than the environment from which he came. and this distraction compliments western democratic capitalism; the environments that produce criminals are, by and large, direct results of capitalism’s effects. so to begin placing more restriction on, and demonstrating more control of, those conditions, would put a damper on the freedom of capitalism and what it indirectly causes.
This is where it all gets particularly problematic. For some, determinism encompasses everything and anything that we had ever thought, felt, said and done in the past, everything and anything that we think, feel, say and do now in the present and everything and anything that we will ever think, feel say or do in the future.
Nothing is excluded. Not the drunk-driver manslaughter case, not the Holocaust. Not even Trumpworld.
And it certainly doesn’t exclude me typing these words or you reading them.
Think about it. In a wholly determined universe [as some understand it], the fact that promethean has been telling satyr since 2010 what he thinks about all of this and the fact that he might take satisfaction that satyr is still unable to grasp it and the fact that satyr might react to this over at KT tomorrow — none of it is exempt from the laws of matter. It is all only as it must be.
But: We have no way [that I am aware of] of determining and then demonstrating beyond all doubt if it is in fact only as it must be.
People are not “free from” their causes though, and can cause without intent or even awareness.
You can deny that you’re self-responsible. That’s not justification for avoiding blame/justice/prosecution.
Law is justified by society as a group. It doesn’t even matter if you were right/correct/rational or had some greater philosophical point. It’s not going to stop the mob coming after you. So, philosophers, thinkers, intellectuals, moral leaders, long ago agreed that it’s best to have some form of social judgment that’s fair to some small degree, hence Western (Common) Law, Judges, Juries, Rights, and Due Process, etc.
I think Prom is at least aware, and we’ve broached the point already, that ‘Justice’ is obscure. I already agreed with the Witchhunt/Scapegoat/Whipping Boy tendency of society. Society, the mob, people in general, want something or somebody to Blame for wrong-doing, whether they are intentional or not. I disagree with Prom about the source of criminality. I, as per usual, default to Biology and Anthropology. Prom blames “society at large” and “capitalism”, or other various social failings to properly educate, indoctrinate, discipline, and order children into adults. That’s somewhat correct, but not entirely.
I’m pretty sure that Prom’s larger point is that he can ‘blame’ just as much as the judge and jury can. And, Prom is correct to point out lies and hypocrisy. But it goes both ways, “Nobody is without Sin”, etc. That’s not how Justice works in America though. You have to convince and persuade the Jury, your societal ‘Peers’. And that’s the wildcard. It may not be “Perfect”, but Western Civilization has agreed on this, as it developed and evolved, to the current method of Justice. Can the wealthy class, with powerful lawyers, “beat the system”? Yes, they can. But there are reasons for this too.
One can no sooner praise me for my superior intellect than they can blame satyr for his special needs, as all things proceed from nature with perfect necessity and order sub specie aeternitatis.
Free Will Is An Illusion, But Freedom Isn’t
Ching-Hung Woo says freedom is compatible with choices being determined.
Basically the standard argument:
But somehow this argument is then made to be compatible with freedom. Which makes no sense to me at all. And yet lots and lots of very intelligent people are able to make them compatible. So I’ve got to accept the possibility that the problem is me. In other words, there is just some snag in my thinking here – technical or otherwise – that stops me from reconciling what seems to be well beyond reconciling altogether.
Unless of course the snag is in their thinking.
Then the shift to the quantum world:
Here of course all bets are off. Cause and effect? Going all the way back to how the world of the infinitely small is intertwined in the world of the infinitely large?
Either we are understanding the quantum world only in the manner in which nature compels us to, or we do have some measure of autonomy in grappling with it…but are still [no doubt] years and years away from understanding everything there is to know about it.
Well, in a wholly determined universe [as I understand it it] your conjectures regarding the obscurity of Justice are necessarily in sync with my own conjectures regarding your conjectures regarding prom’s conjectures…going all the way back to whatever [whoever] set into motion the laws of matter going back to whatever [whoever] set into motion existence itself. Unless, of course, someone here can explain to us beyond all doubt how existence can only have always been.
Now, in a world where I take an existential leap to human autonomy, the obscurity of Justice is embedded instead in the manner in which I construe human interactions as embodied in the assumptions I make in my signature threads. Others can then peruse them and note how those assumptions are not in sync with their own assumptions.
Then we can note a particular context in which assessments of Justice are clearly at odds and bring our intellectual contraptions down out of the technical/scholastic/didactic clouds and explore our differences more substantively.
Okay, but my larger point is that who blames whom for what is necessarily subsumed [universally, essentially, objectively] in the laws of matter unfolding only as they must. And, until the hard guys are able to pin down once and for all how the human brain is the exception to the rule that is nature being synonymous with existence itself, each one of us as individuals takes our own subjective leap to that which we believe to be true “in our head”. But that in which none of us [to the best of my knowledge] is able to demonstrate is true for all rational human beings.
And, in the case of Justice, those objectivists who insist that what they think they know is true in their head need be as far as they go in arguing that others must share their conclusions or be, among other things, complete fucking morons or desperate degenerates.
Free Will Is An Illusion, But Freedom Isn’t
Ching-Hung Woo says freedom is compatible with choices being determined.
Complex, or too complex? And what of those who are willing to acknowledge that the complexity leaves them no choice [if there is an actual autonomous choice at all] but to take a subjective leap to one or another conclusion. And then to behave accordingly.
Instead, most of us ignore the gap between what we think we know here and all that can be known and simply embrace a set of assumptions that permit us to go about the business of living our life as though what we think is true really is as far as we need go. And that clearly works because there is no one around able to convince them that there is in fact only one correct way in which to think about it. And that their way isn’t it.
The genes do their thing and the memes are what they are…depending on when and where you are born, who you either meet or do not meet, what you either experience or do not experience. Out in any particular world in which, like everybody else, you are shaped and mold existentially given a particular confluence of variables derived from a particular constellation of contingency, chance and change.
That’s not the point though. The main consideration here is the complexity. The convoluted uncertainty embedded in all these factors that “I” aggregates into any one particular “sense of reality” from moment to moment. Most merely assume that their own understanding of this need be as far as they go. Others however are able to convince themselves that how they understand it is in turn how others are obligated to understand it as well. Only a very, very few become ineffably and inextricably fractured and fragmented in a swirl of ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty.
Free Will Is An Illusion, But Freedom Isn’t
Ching-Hung Woo says freedom is compatible with choices being determined.
Cue “compatibilism”. Which, try as I might, I am never able to reconcile with the manner in which I construe the existential relationship between determinism and value judgments “for all practical purposes”.
I’m not arguing that they are wrong, only that, so far, I am not able to grasp why [or how] on earth they are right. And even here I can only presume that [somehow] I do have the capacity to choose this. But if that is the case there is no need to speak of compatibility at all.
But: I do know where they will then take the exchange. To the argument that peacegirl comes back to time and again:
Ever and always it comes down to how you have come to understand the meaning of that word even though from my frame of mind you come to understand it ever and always as nature compels you to.
Something happens. Something happens because of the behaviors that I chose. I am therefore responsible for what happened because had I not chosen the behaviors that I did it would not have happened.
That is compatibilism?
Again: Huh?
It makes no difference how complex the intertwined factors are. It makes no difference that I am not able to untangle them in order to assess cause and effect in any particular context. It matters [to me] only that I either had some capacity to choose these behaviors autonomously or I did not.
This was explored in the film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:
[b]A woman in Paris was on her way to go shopping.
But she had forgotten her coat and went back to get it. And when she had gotten her coat the phone had rung and so she had stopped to answer it and talked for a couple of minutes.
And while the woman was on the phone Daisy was rehearsing for that evening’s performance at the Paris Opera House.
And while she was rehearsing the woman was off the phone had gone outside to get a taxi.
A Cab comes to a stop she moves to get it but somebody gets there first, the cab drove off and she waits for the next one.
Now this taxi driver had dropped off a fare earlier and had stopped to get a cup of coffee.
He picked up the lady who was going shopping who had missed getting the earlier cab.
The taxi had to stop for a man crossing the street who had left for work five minutes later than he normally did because he forgot to set his alarm.
While the man, late for work, was crossing the street making the cab wait Daisy, finished rehearsing, was taking a shower.
While Daisy was showering the taxi was waiting outside a boutique for the woman to pick up a package which hadn’t been wrapped yet because the girl who was supposed to wrap it had broken up with her boyfriend the night before and forgot to.
When the package was done being wrapped the woman was back in the cab but the taxi was blocked by a delivery truck.
All the while Daisy was getting dressed.
The Delivery truck pulled off and the taxi was able to go while Daisy, the first to be dressed, waited for one of her friends who had broken a shoelace.
While the taxi was stopped, waiting for a traffic light, Daisy and her friend came out of the theater.
And if only one thing had happened differently…if the shoelace hadn’t broken or the delivery truck had moved moments earlier or the package had been wrapped and ready because the girl hadn’t broken up with her boyfriend or the man had set his alarm and got up five minutes earlier or the taxi driver hadn’t stopped for a cup of coffee or the woman had remembered her coat and had gotten into an earlier cab…
Daisy and her friend would have crossed the street and the taxi would have driven by them.
But life being what it is, a series of intersecting lives and incidents out of anyone’s control, the taxi did not go by and the driver, momentarily distracted hit Daisy and her leg was crushed.
Her leg had been broken in five places and with therapy, and time, she might be able to stand, maybe even walk.[/b]
Of course Daisy’s leg was no ordinary leg. It was the leg of a world renowned dancer. And now, because of these “intersecting lives and incidences out of anyone’s control”, her life was forever changed.
And this works the same for all of us, of course. We think we are free to go about the business of living our lives autonomously. But how exactly is this point to be determined?
In a large sense our intertwining lives are akin to countless balls on a gigantic pool table. We zig and zag, caroming into each other in ways no one can truly grasp. Yet we can potentially create havoc in another’s life simply by stepping back into our apartment to retrieve a coat.
You and Brian are like…brothers. Same quality of mind.
you’re like him, in twenty years…when Godo’s footsteps are heard on the door step.
Brian is version you, 2.0. Next generation nihilist.
Until peacegirl returns [compelled or not], I’ve sort of taken over this thread [compelled or not].
And [compelled or not] I’ve enacted a No Kids policy.
It’s an existential contraption, true, but that is rooted in my assessment [compelled or not] of “I” as the embodiment of dasein.
I gave you a chance [compelled or not] on another thread to demonstrate that you have the capacity [compelled or not] to approach philosophy more [as I like to put it] substantively.
You either do or you do not.
And that’s either compelled by the laws of nature or [somehow] we really do possess the capacity to opt for alternate arguments.
The outcome can be predicted.
A slew of repeating sentences, not veering off a script. A loss of my time, on a hypocrite, and an inevitable surrender to nature’s failed experiments.
I’ll leave you with this.
Nothing is inherently good/bad, but only in relation to an objective. Your refusal to admit that your objective is parity and subjugation to a collective, makes you a thinker of bad faith. A waste of time.
The only acceptable answers will b those that promote your objective, without admitting it.
Marxist utopia.
In a wholly determined universe [as I understand it], things are only able to be predicted if there is a God; or if there is a teleological component to nature in a No God world that [obviously] has not been pinned down by mere mortals; a predictive component embedded in the laws of nature that is embedded in turn in a definitive understanding of existence itself.
On the other hand, that slew of repeating sentences is predicated solely on the assumption that mere mortals here on planet Earth do possess some measure of free well. Then the distinction I make is between that which is able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us [in the either/or world] and “personal opinions” rooted in dasein in regard to acquiring, assessing and then judging the moral and political values of others [in the is/ought world].
Here, however, I require the discussion to be illustrated. By being embedded descriptively in an examination of the relationship between conflicting goods out in a particular world [ours for example] pertaining to a particular context. Which I always allow the objectivists among us to choose.
I’ve already addressed this with you on the universal truth thread:
To which you responded…
As for the Marxist utopia, I have long since abandoned that rendition of objectivism. I merely note the extent to which Marxism is a vital component in regard to the role that political economy plays in our lives.