Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[BigMike]

Think about what it means to choose. At its most basic, to choose something means to pick the most wanted option from a number of choices. This means that the options should be able to be "transitively" ranked from least to most preferred. When I say "transitively," I mean that if you have two choices, one of them is at least as good as the other. When x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This allows the ordering to take place. Hence, you use the same operation to choose between three or any number of choices, not just two. You wouldn't be able to choose without this. When there is a tie, the goal changes to breaking the tie. You could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," or flip a coin, or you could do something else.

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem in a feasible domain. It's about finding a solution that meets one's needs and wants as much as possible while still being practical. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I drew above. This definition came from the great book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior," by Nobel laureates John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern. Also, the brain finds it easy to make comparisons like "x is at least as good as y" so choices are also easy.

Because of this process, there is always only one "best" choice: the determined one. One might ask, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one choice: the one it thinks is best based on logic. In hindsight, your brain might have made a different decision, but it didn't have that information at the time. As we get older and have more experience, we tend to choose goals and make decisions that are better at meeting our own needs and the needs of those closest to us.

This method also shows that there is only one right choice in any situation, and that choice is always the best. The person making a choice would only choose a different option if they thought it was better. If they thought it was better, their brain's logic would move it to the top of the list, making it inevitable again.

The person who makes a choice might think they did it freely, but in reality, they are limited by how their brain works. They might fool themselves into thinking they have free will, but the truth is that they don't. Their thinking is based on the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

Our brains play tricks on us to make us think we have free will. You may believe that you had a genuine choice; that you "might as well" have done something else. However, you are mistaken. You choose what you believe to be the best option, and there is no alternative. Given the same circumstance or setting, you never settle for second best. You can only choose the second or third best option if you change your objective, combine two or more objectives, or are convinced, possibly by others, that these are the better choices. In the end, there is no "choice" at all, your actions are logically determined by your brain.

[Belinda]

Think about what it means to choose. At its most basic, to choose something means to pick the most wanted option from a number of choices. This means that the options should be able to be "transitively" ranked from least to most preferred. When I say "transitively," I mean that if you have two choices, one of them is at least as good as the other. When x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This allows the ordering to take place. Hence, you use the same operation to choose between three or any number of choices, not just two. You wouldn't be able to choose without this. When there is a tie, the goal changes to breaking the tie. You could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," or flip a coin, or you could do something else.

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem in a feasible domain. It's about finding a solution that meets one's needs and wants as much as possible while still being practical. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I drew above. This definition came from the great book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior," by Nobel laureates John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern. Also, the brain finds it easy to make comparisons like "x is at least as good as y" so choices are also easy.

Because of this process, there is always only one "best" choice: the determined one. One might ask, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one choice: the one it thinks is best based on logic. In hindsight, your brain might have made a different decision, but it didn't have that information at the time. As we get older and have more experience, we tend to choose goals and make decisions that are better at meeting our own needs and the needs of those closest to us.

This method also shows that there is only one right choice in any situation, and that choice is always the best. The person making a choice would only choose a different option if they thought it was better. If they thought it was better, their brain's logic would move it to the top of the list, making it inevitable again.

The person who makes a choice might think they did it freely, but in reality, they are limited by how their brain works. They might fool themselves into thinking they have free will, but the truth is that they don't. Their thinking is based on the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

Our brains play tricks on us to make us think we have free will. You may believe that you had a genuine choice; that you "might as well" have done something else. However, you are mistaken. You choose what you believe to be the best option, and there is no alternative. Given the same circumstance or setting, you never settle for second best. You can only choose the second or third best option if you change your objective, combine two or more objectives, or are convinced, possibly by others, that these are the better choices. In the end, there is no "choice" at all, your actions are logically determined by your brain.

----the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

We live and learn. The speed of sequential living and learning depends on learning ability and environment of the learner.The latter is provided by good schools and savvy parents together with similar peers. Both innate learning ability and learning -enriched environment increase individual freedom.

So called 'free will' is a political move to circumvent individuals' power and render individuals more subservient. The evidence is right wing poor funding for liberal education.

[BigMike]

----the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

We live and learn. The speed of sequential living and learning depends on learning ability and environment of the learner.The latter is provided by good schools and savvy parents together with similar peers. Both innate learning ability and learning -enriched environment increase individual freedom.

So called 'free will' is a political move to circumvent individuals' power and render individuals more subservient. The evidence is right wing poor funding for liberal education.

Spot on! There's also the possibility that it's a religious ploy.

[BigMike]

----the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

We live and learn. The speed of sequential living and learning depends on learning ability and environment of the learner.The latter is provided by good schools and savvy parents together with similar peers. Both innate learning ability and learning -enriched environment increase individual freedom.

So called 'free will' is a political move to circumvent individuals' power and render individuals more subservient. The evidence is right wing poor funding for liberal education.

It may not be a conscious "political move" at all, but rather a logical response to the general notion that people have free will. If so, this is the question posed in the topic header.

[Belinda]

----the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

We live and learn. The speed of sequential living and learning depends on learning ability and environment of the learner.The latter is provided by good schools and savvy parents together with similar peers. Both innate learning ability and learning -enriched environment increase individual freedom.

So called 'free will' is a political move to circumvent individuals' power and render individuals more subservient. The evidence is right wing poor funding for liberal education.

It may not be a conscious "political move" at all, but rather a logical response to the general notion that people have free will. If so, this is the question posed in the topic header.

The intuition that one is free to choose affects morals and character.Without the intuition that one is free to choose most mammals would learn only by stimulus and response, which is not the case. Men are not the only mammals that can abstract a generality from several responses to stimuli; a population of truly wild animals very quickly learns not to trust mankind.

Absolute free will as contrasted with causal determinism, is a different matter. The intuition of freedom to choose is beneficial as I hope I have explained, but the belief in absolute Free Will is not a natural intuition, it's religious, it's taught, and it's aimed at social control.

[BigMike]

Without the intuition that one is free to choose most mammals would learn only by stimulus and response, which is not the case.

This claim is astounding to me. How does "the intuition that one is free to choose" impact the learning process, in your opinion? Is not the formation of new axon terminals in the brain responsible for long-term memory and learning? And are axo-axonic stimuli not responsible for the onset of this growth? Where does intuition come into play, and how does it affect the way things naturally unfold?

[Belinda]

Without the intuition that one is free to choose most mammals would learn only by stimulus and response, which is not the case.

This claim is astounding to me. How does "the intuition that one is free to choose" impact the learning process, in your opinion? Is not the formation of new axon terminals in the brain responsible for long-term memory and learning? And are axo-axonic stimuli not responsible for the onset of this growth? Where does intuition come into play, and how does it affect the way things naturally unfold?

Of course you are right!

Your claim is physicalist: mine is mentalist. These are complementary not mutually exclusive.

I don't know when or where intuition came into play however it's bound to be older than scientific investigations.

[BigMike]

Your claim is physicalist: mine is mentalist. These are complementary not mutually exclusive.

I don't know when or where intuition came into play however it's bound to be older than scientific investigations.

Let's try to find a middle ground here and see if we can agree on something. What exactly do you mean when you say "intuition"? Mind you, I don't have my own definition, mostly because I don't think I need one, at least not when it comes to free will. But let's see where this goes.

[Belinda]

Your claim is physicalist: mine is mentalist. These are complementary not mutually exclusive.

I don't know when or where intuition came into play however it's bound to be older than scientific investigations.

Let's try to find a middle ground here and see if we can agree on something. What exactly do you mean when you say "intuition"? Mind you, I don't have my own definition, mostly because I don't think I need one, at least not when it comes to free will. But let's see where this goes.

Yes I had thought may be we are cross purposes regarding 'intuition'.
By intuition I mean know- how which is not explained or rationalised. Not only actions like how to focus the eyes or climb the stairs or ride a bicycle, but also
the unexplained feeling that one has some control over what is going to happen ; that one is an agent of change.

In practical terms I may have an intuition that route a) is a better road to drive on than route b), not because I heard a traffic forecast but because I can safely hand my decision to a lot of unremembered past experiences. An intuition lacks the focused attention that seems to be so much in demand in these times.

[BigMike]

Your claim is physicalist: mine is mentalist. These are complementary not mutually exclusive.

I don't know when or where intuition came into play however it's bound to be older than scientific investigations.

Let's try to find a middle ground here and see if we can agree on something. What exactly do you mean when you say "intuition"? Mind you, I don't have my own definition, mostly because I don't think I need one, at least not when it comes to free will. But let's see where this goes.

Yes I had thought may be we are cross purposes regarding 'intuition'.
By intuition I mean know- how which is not explained or rationalised. Not only actions like how to focus the eyes or climb the stairs or ride a bicycle, but also
the unexplained feeling that one has some control over what is going to happen ; that one is an agent of change.

"not explained or rationalised." I struggle with that. Let me ask you: If I put "Reflexes", "Instincts", "Intuition", "Subconscious thoughts" and "Conscious reasoning" in this order, from "most primitive" to "most advanced" would you agree that Intuition should be where I put it, or would it not even belong on the same line at all? Could it be, for instance, just your subconscious thoughts?

[Belinda]

Let's try to find a middle ground here and see if we can agree on something. What exactly do you mean when you say "intuition"? Mind you, I don't have my own definition, mostly because I don't think I need one, at least not when it comes to free will. But let's see where this goes.

Yes I had thought may be we are cross purposes regarding 'intuition'.
By intuition I mean know- how which is not explained or rationalised. Not only actions like how to focus the eyes or climb the stairs or ride a bicycle, but also
the unexplained feeling that one has some control over what is going to happen ; that one is an agent of change.

"not explained or rationalised." I struggle with that. Let me ask you: If I put "Reflexes", "Instincts", "Intuition", "Subconscious thoughts" and "Conscious reasoning" in this order, from "most primitive" to "most advanced" would you agree that Intuition should be where I put it, or would it not even belong on the same line at all? Could it be, for instance, just your subconscious thoughts?

That's where I'd put it too. Subconscious thoughts, yes, but with the added advantage of speed in making a decision based on the subconscious with no need for introspection or analysis.
Some people are less intuitive because they have been taught to over-think and over-analyse at every turn.

[BigMike]

"not explained or rationalised." I struggle with that. Let me ask you: If I put "Reflexes", "Instincts", "Intuition", "Subconscious thoughts" and "Conscious reasoning" in this order, from "most primitive" to "most advanced" would you agree that Intuition should be where I put it, or would it not even belong on the same line at all? Could it be, for instance, just your subconscious thoughts?

That's where I'd put it too. Subconscious thoughts, yes, but with the added advantage of speed in making a decision based on the subconscious with no need for introspection or analysis.
Some people are less intuitive because they have been taught to over-think and over-analyse at every turn.

I've found through google-research that "intuition" almost always means what you said. It isn't as deep or broad as traditional ways of thinking, but it gives quick answers. In some cases, it's clear that this is a good thing, but in others, it's clearly a bad thing. Aside from that, I haven't found any other significant differences between them; they're pretty much the same.
When it comes to the discussion about free will, I don't think it adds or takes away anything important. Still, I think it's usually risky to make arguments based on "pure" intuition. In our case, though, you and I both agree that free will is an illusion, though you do so from a "mentalist" point of view based in part on intuition and I do so from a "physicalist" point of view. Or...?

[Belinda]

"not explained or rationalised." I struggle with that. Let me ask you: If I put "Reflexes", "Instincts", "Intuition", "Subconscious thoughts" and "Conscious reasoning" in this order, from "most primitive" to "most advanced" would you agree that Intuition should be where I put it, or would it not even belong on the same line at all? Could it be, for instance, just your subconscious thoughts?

That's where I'd put it too. Subconscious thoughts, yes, but with the added advantage of speed in making a decision based on the subconscious with no need for introspection or analysis.
Some people are less intuitive because they have been taught to over-think and over-analyse at every turn.

I've found through google-research that "intuition" almost always means what you said. It isn't as deep or broad as traditional ways of thinking, but it gives quick answers. In some cases, it's clear that this is a good thing, but in others, it's clearly a bad thing. Aside from that, I haven't found any other significant differences between them; they're pretty much the same.
When it comes to the discussion about free will, I don't think it adds or takes away anything important. Still, I think it's usually risky to make arguments based on "pure" intuition. In our case, though, you and I both agree that free will is an illusion, though you do so from a "mentalist" point of view based in part on intuition and I do so from a "physicalist" point of view. Or...?

I believe popular 'free will' is a case where intuition is better than focused analysis and fact finding.Without popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense all life forms would be impossible.

Philosophy ,as we know it ,does analyse and seek theories of existence. Popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense does not benefit philosophy although Sartre's insights do benefit philosophy. We need reasoned focus and fact finding when we do philosophy and any other activity that calls for explicit language and explicit ideas. Demolishing the idea of absolute FreeWill calls for the latter, not intuition.

Horses for courses.

I do agree that mentalist and physicalist explanations are not mutually exclusive but are complementary.

[iambiguous]

Think about what it means to choose. At its most basic, to choose something means to pick the most wanted option from a number of choices.

Seriously though, I grapple to understand his thinking here. He seems to adhere to determinism...but then posts things like this. How is his point really any different from how a libertarian would pose it?

We pick the things we want. But as Schopenhauer suggested, we can choose what we want, but we can't freely want what we want.

He's a determinist, but does he include his own posts here as inherently, necessarily in sync with the only possible material reality? It doesn't appear so. Why? Because he'll often make this distinction between thinking/choosing wisely [like he does] and thinking/choosing foolishly [like does who don't think/choose as he does].

Then these ponderously intellectual contraptions that seem far removed from the actual behaviors that [compelled or not] we "choose", choose or "choose":

This means that the options should be able to be "transitively" ranked from least to most preferred. When I say "transitively," I mean that if you have two choices, one of them is at least as good as the other. When x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This allows the ordering to take place. Hence, you use the same operation to choose between three or any number of choices, not just two. You wouldn't be able to choose without this. When there is a tie, the goal changes to breaking the tie. You could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," or flip a coin, or you could do something else.

Whereas as I am far more interested myself in how thinking like this is applicable to Mary aborting Jane. The part where determinism, as understood by him, pertains to moral responsibility.

And on and on he goes up in the clouds of abstraction:

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem in a feasible domain. It's about finding a solution that meets one's needs and wants as much as possible while still being practical. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I drew above. This definition came from the great book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior," by Nobel laureates John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern. Also, the brain finds it easy to make comparisons like "x is at least as good as y" so choices are also easy.

Because of this process, there is always only one "best" choice: the determined one. One might ask, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one choice: the one it thinks is best based on logic. In hindsight, your brain might have made a different decision, but it didn't have that information at the time. As we get older and have more experience, we tend to choose goals and make decisions that are better at meeting our own needs and the needs of those closest to us.

This method also shows that there is only one right choice in any situation, and that choice is always the best. The person making a choice would only choose a different option if they thought it was better. If they thought it was better, their brain's logic would move it to the top of the list, making it inevitable again.

The person who makes a choice might think they did it freely, but in reality, they are limited by how their brain works. They might fool themselves into thinking they have free will, but the truth is that they don't. Their thinking is based on the connections between neurons in their brain, which grow and strengthen as they experience more. As Dr. Kerr L. White put it, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment."

Our brains play tricks on us to make us think we have free will. You may believe that you had a genuine choice; that you "might as well" have done something else. However, you are mistaken. You choose what you believe to be the best option, and there is no alternative. Given the same circumstance or setting, you never settle for second best. You can only choose the second or third best option if you change your objective, combine two or more objectives, or are convinced, possibly by others, that these are the better choices. In the end, there is no "choice" at all, your actions are logically determined by your brain.

Typical "world of words". Words that define and defend other words but never really get around to explaining how here the "best" choice others can make is to agree with him that "somehow" our brains really do know best?

[BigMike]

I believe popular 'free will' is a case where intuition is better than focused analysis and fact finding.Without popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense all life forms would be impossible.

Philosophy ,as we know it ,does analyse and seek theories of existence. Popular 'free will' in the Sartrean sense does not benefit philosophy although Sartre's insights do benefit philosophy. We need reasoned focus and fact finding when we do philosophy and any other activity that calls for explicit language and explicit ideas. Demolishing the idea of absolute FreeWill calls for the latter, not intuition.

Horses for courses.

I do agree that mentalist and physicalist explanations are not mutually exclusive but are complementary.

Perhaps complementary in that they are "not mutually exclusive". But I think the physicalist explanation is both necessary and sufficient to show that "free will" is not true. And if I understand what you said, you also think this: "When we do philosophy or anything else that requires clear language and ideas, we need to think things through and find facts. This, not intuition, is what is needed to destroy the idea of absolute free will."

Because of this, I don't think the "complementary" explanations of mentalists are necessary or sufficient; they are superfluous. They may contribute to a broader perspective, however.