[MD] Free Will

[John Carl]

Hi Steve.  Here's my reply at my new ponderous rate of return:


On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi John,


What you are missing is that the above dilemma (the traditional free

will/ determinism problem) is a false choice that arrises only when we

accept SOM premises. The MOQ denies both horns.


John:


The MoQ denies the fundamentalness of the subject/object split.  But it does
not deny the pragmatic usefulness of the split.  The MoQ says that valuation
is more fundamental that objectivism (SOM) and what I'm saying is that
choice is fundamental to value.  You can't have Quality if you have no
choice.  Chioice and Quality are  not pair of horns on an angry bull,
Choice and Quality are the intertwined and spirallng co-existents of a
single horn - sorta like the spirals on a unicorn's appendage.


Ride the unicorn, Steve!  Choice is the magic power the universe bequeaths
to sentience.



> John:  Which hypothetical offers us the most good?  The most freedom of

> action and moral culpability?  It seems to me on pragmatic basis alone,
the

> idea of being completely constrained would lead to a sort of intellectual

> dead-endedness.



Steve:

Pragmatism is not a matter of believing what you wish were true.


John:


Of course it isn't.  For any truth that is out of line with reality will
force itself upon you, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.  But for
matters of sheer intellectual speculation which can't be proven one way or
the other, Pragmatism is useful for deciding which intellectual pattern
offers the most room for play.  To my mind, a deterministic universe is a
closed system that makes no sense to my mind, and offers no joy to my heart.





Steve:


I would say that a Jamesian pragmatic evaluation of the situation goes

like this: if determinism were true, we would behave exactly as we

already behave and have no choice in the matter even though we have

the feeling of willing some of our acts. If free will is true, then we

would behave exactly as we behave but _do_ have a choice in the

matter. If determinism is true, then your belief in free will is

causally determined. If free will is true, then I am freely choosing

not to be able to make sense of it. Either way, we behave exactly as

we behave. This so-called metaphysical problem is a difference that

makes no difference in how people behave in practice.


John:


It makes a difference in how people feel, and in the end I have to believe
that how people feel makes a big difference in how they behave.  This is one
of those conundrums that is resolved more easily with art than science -
with rhetoric than logic - with poetry than prose.  A longish short story by
Ken Kesey called Demon Box, based upon Maxwell's Demon, is the best argument
I could offer for my conclusion that "entropy is only a problem in a closed
system.


I'm sure I could even offer empirical psychological evidence for the
preponderance of depression and anti-social behavior on the part of those
who believe most strongly in a deterministic universe.  It's certainly been
the preponderance of my experience, that those who struggle the most against
the idea of free will, have hidden monsters in their closets and history.


Steve:


The feeling of

having a choice points to something that is either real or illusory,

but either way, we still do what we do, so this problem is a fake

problem with no consequences.



John:


Well, I plainly disagree.  But hey, that's my choice.



> John:

>

> Yes, but the MoQ also opens our eyes to the fact that we CHOOSE our
values.



Steve:

That's news to me. Please demonstrate you ability to value something

you don't value as a matter of will by, say, willing yourself to value

theocracy over democracy or something simpler like willing yourself to

prefer chocolate when you already prefer vanilla.


We don't choose our values, we are our values.



John:  Choice and valuing are synonomous.  Is what I've been saying.  What
we choose is what we value.  What we value is what we choose.  Individuality
IS our choice, so thus it could be said that we don't make choices, we ARE
our choices.  That's just as true and points to the fundamentalness of
choice as well.


Is what I've been saying for quite some time.



Steve:

But I've always granted that we make choices. My question for you has

been, what does it mean to say that this choosing is "free"? We

certainly have will. We have moods, preferences, intentions, etc. But

where do these come from? In what sense are they "free"?


John:


I've conceded by now that "free will" is a redundancy.  Will exists only as
an aspect of choice.  Therefore, any true will is fundamentally free and to
say "free" will is as silly as saying "ATM machine".  But lots of people say
that.  As well as "PIN Number".  What can you do?  Human rhetoric sometimes
falls short of high logical value.    Welcome to the world.


Now get on your unicorn and ride that bitch.


John