esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/19/85)
[or, Subject: Re: freedom and reason (attn russ, rich, & laura)] Laura Creighton writes: > If I do not have free will then I cannot ``make a mistake'' [...] Rich Rosen responds: > All you've shown is that the word "mistake" may be a poor word. [...] > If by mistake you mean "an error in judgment resulting in negative > consequences",[...] Try "wrong judgement/decision" as the meaning of "mistake". To call a judgement/decision wrong is to imply that there was a right judgement/ decision that one could have made. And to say that one ought to avoid error is to say that one *can* avoid error: "ought" implies "can". Now suppose Laura believes she is free. Could it be that she ought to have believed the opposite? No: her belief is either true or false. If false, then she *couldn't* have come to the true conclusion (that she was not free). If true, then she believed what she ought. So her belief that she is free cannot be criticized (even if false). -- We're No. 2 -- we think harder. --Iconbusters, Inc.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/19/85)
> Laura Creighton writes: > > If I do not have free will then I cannot ``make a mistake'' [...] > Rich Rosen responds: > > All you've shown is that the word "mistake" may be a poor word. [...] > > If by mistake you mean "an error in judgment resulting in negative > > consequences",[...] > > Try "wrong judgement/decision" as the meaning of "mistake". To call > a judgement/decision wrong is to imply that there was a right judgement/ > decision that one could have made. So, you're throwing in more words to support an erroneous argument. Your calling a mistake a "wrong" judgment/decision does NOT imply a right one, or even a better one. Given any number of possible decisions you COULD make at a given decision point, it's irrelevant which (if ANY) would be the best. The point is, based on the contents of your brain at that point, a certain decision will be made. If you had absorbed and incorporated more and better knowledge into your brain prior to that decision point, a different (perhaps better, perhaps worse!) decision MIGHT have been made. What caused your brain to be in THAT particular state at that decision point and not the other state with the additional knowledge (or some other state with less knowledge)? What caused it is every event in your life (and the world surrounding it) that preceded it. If that's not enough experience of life for you, then decide to believe in free will. But realize that it's a decision you're making based on how you might want or prefer the world to be, not necessarily the way it is. When presented with "evidence" that "this means we must have free will", there has always been a less presumptive "physical" explanation. Remember that even Laura said she is incapable of not believing in free will. Which means she is not free to disbelieve. The reason being the way her brain currently is. Actually, she's as free as she is willing to accept the notions I've put forth, but that freedom, as in the freedom of people to do things like quit smoking, is limited by what their mind currently allows them to accept and integrate. This is why for some people psychoanalytic therapy takes years. > And to say that one ought to avoid > error is to say that one *can* avoid error: "ought" implies "can". "Can" through addition of new knowledge into one's mind. If one is not predisposed to the incorporation of new knowledge (or certain types of new knowledge), they are NOT directly free to make use of it, without a significant effort to eradicate the inhibitions that lead to the predisposition NOT to incorporate. Reductionistically, one might even find inhibitions to eradicating the inhibitions, of course, and so on... > Now suppose Laura believes she is free. Could it be that she ought to have > believed the opposite? No: her belief is either true or false. If > false, then she *couldn't* have come to the true conclusion (that she > was not free). If true, then she believed what she ought. So her belief > that she is free cannot be criticized (even if false). If the belief is false (that free will does not exist), she could very well have come to the conclusion that free will DOES exist because of the way she individually interprets her information based on her experiences, her pre- conceptions, etc. AND, given another set of circumstances, she might have come to a conclusion that it does not exist. Through incorporation and acceptance of new knowledge (a point that free will advocates agree is very important to being able to make decisions), one can change one's mind. As I mentioned above, preconceptions inhibiting such incorporation exist, IN EVERYBODY, in some form or other, so the only way to be as "free" as possible is to seek to eliminate as many of those preconceptions as possible. Thus retaining preconceptions inhibits your ability to incorporate knowledge, improve your brain, and thus (possibly) improve your life (make it more "free"). -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." - Stevie Wonder ("Superstition") Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr