It would probably help if you gave the definition of FW with which you're working here. It seems to vary considerably depending on one's biases. I for instance define it as being able to make my own choices, and not having an external (supernatural?) entity do it for me. Pretty biased, I know. No, I'm not a materialist, but again, maybe you have a different definition of what being a materialist means.This post is about how reason comes into direct contact with free will when considering free will and choice - with some unintended consequences regarding materialism. — ToothyMaw
So we love to believe, but I've found it to be otherwise. It is actually a good thing that we're not particularly rational.a. Humans are somewhat inherently rational and take some actions based upon reasoning and internal logic.
OK, but what if the premises are mostly wrong?b. A rational action a need only have internal logic and consistent reasoning given a set of premises g to be rational to an actor x.
A simple mechanical device can make such choices. Does such a device have free will then?d. If actor x has free will, they can choose combinations of courses of action that are subsets of p that are not otherwise available to actor x even with the intent to act rationally.
Don't understand this. It seems to suggest that all possible actions considered must be rational ones. If one considers an irrational one, the choice eventually made (even of a different action) is not free. That makes no sense, so I probably got it wrong.e. By necessity, all actions p + a that are considered with the intent to act rationally and those that are precluded by reasoning/faulty logic must be rational or action a is unfree depending upon whether or not free will exists.
The premises are infallible now. Does that means they're necessarily true (which would defeat them being called premises at all), or they're not open to debate, in which case they're irrational biases instead of premises arrived at via rational choice.each's premises must be differentiated in terms of subsets of the collection of infallible premises q.
An example of something that involves reasoning that is not logical would help clarify this. Maybe something else that is logical but lacks reasoning.To begin: when discussing “rational” actions, “rational” means in accordance with reason or logic, which are two very different things. A belief that results in an action can have internal logic but be the result of poor reasoning and still be rational according to some faulty premises. I will define rational as such:
It's only about beliefs? Not choices? Must the logic be valid? Plenty of supposedly rational choices are made by poor logic skills, resulting in actions inconsistent with their premises. Reaching for the next cigarette for example, despite knowledge (premises) that doing so will ruin one's health.Rational: A reference to any belief that possesses internal logic and reasoning consistent with a set of premises that may or may not be accurate.
a. Humans are somewhat inherently rational and take some actions based upon reasoning and internal logic.
b. A rational action a need only have internal logic and consistent reasoning given a set of premises g to be rational to an actor x.
c. The reasoning supplied for the action a of actor x must necessarily preclude all otherwise possible courses of action p, which contains both rational and irrational decisions, based upon reasoning and/or considerations of internal logic.
d. If actor x has free will, they can choose combinations of courses of action that are subsets of p that are not otherwise available to actor x even with the intent to act rationally.
e. By necessity, all actions p + a that are considered with the intent to act rationally and those that are precluded by reasoning/faulty logic must be rational or action a is unfree depending upon whether or not free will exists.
f. If all actions p + a are to be deemed rational or not based upon merit, then each's premises must be differentiated in terms of subsets of the collection of infallible premises q. — ToothyMaw
It would probably help if you gave the definition of FW with which you're working here. — noAxioms
It seems to vary considerably depending on one's biases. I for instance define it as being able to make my own choices, and not having an external (supernatural?) entity do it for me. Pretty biased, I know. No, I'm not a materialist, but again, maybe you have a different definition of what being a materialist means. — noAxioms
My more typical example is one where somebody is trying to cross a busy street. There's more than one time to do it safely, but one must still choose a safe one over one that puts you in unreasonable danger. Some people's definition of free will would get this person killed almost every time. The rational robot should have no trouble with the task, because it has the sort of free will that I defined. — noAxioms
a. Humans are somewhat inherently rational and take some actions based upon reasoning and internal logic.
So we love to believe, but I've found it to be otherwise. It is actually a good thing that we're not particularly rational. — noAxioms
d. If actor x has free will, they can choose combinations of courses of action that are subsets of p that are not otherwise available to actor x even with the intent to act rationally.
A simple mechanical device can make such choices. Does such a device have free will then? — noAxioms
e. By necessity, all actions p + a that are considered with the intent to act rationally and those that are precluded by reasoning/faulty logic must be rational or action a is unfree depending upon whether or not free will exists.
Don't understand this. It seems to suggest that all possible actions considered must be rational ones. If one considers an irrational one, the choice eventually made (even of a different action) is not free. That makes no sense, so I probably got it wrong. — noAxioms
each's premises must be differentiated in terms of subsets of the collection of infallible premises q.
The premises are infallible now. Does that means they're necessarily true (which would defeat them being called premises at all), or they're not open to debate, in which case they're irrational biases instead of premises arrived at via rational choice. — noAxioms
To begin: when discussing “rational” actions, “rational” means in accordance with reason or logic, which are two very different things. A belief that results in an action can have internal logic but be the result of poor reasoning and still be rational according to some faulty premises. I will define rational as such:
An example of something that involves reasoning that is not logical would help clarify this. Maybe something else that is logical but lacks reasoning. — noAxioms
Rational: A reference to any belief that possesses internal logic and reasoning consistent with a set of premises that may or may not be accurate.
It's only about beliefs? Not choices? Must the logic be valid? Plenty of supposedly rational choices are made by poor logic skills, resulting in actions inconsistent with their premises. Reaching for the next cigarette for example, despite knowledge (premises) that doing so will ruin one's health. — noAxioms
I don't see that you have properly distinguished between rational and irrational. You seem to be saying that an irrational act follows from some kind of "internal logic", which is logic that may be faulty, and this is the means by which you can say that an irrational act is actually in some sense rational. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, the fault in (b) is that what you call a "rational action", may actually be irrational, because the internal logic may be faulty, yet the irrational act qualifies as a "rational action" by your definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then, in premise (c) you go way off track. The selection of a course of action, does not necessarily "preclude" all other possible courses of action. One may set out on a course of action, being somewhat unsure of oneself, and ready to change course at a moment's notice. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore "p" as the possible courses of action, in an irrational action, is completely backward in your representation. You represent the possible courses of action as having been considered by the acter, when in reality, the irrational acter does not consider those possible courses of action, hence the irrational act follows. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the OP claims that rationality is a force that negates/limits free will, I'd have to agree but with the proviso that as per some sources it (rationality) also liberates in the sense that if a particular factor that influences our decisions is identified, we can take (logical) steps to counter it (effectively). — Agent Smith
Fairly aligned with my definition, but even a roomba has this.FW is the ability to choose between different courses of action unimpeded. — ToothyMaw
This seems to be the classic wording, but it is self-contradictory as worded. It is in past-tense, suggesting that it be somehow possible for both X and ~X to have happened, which is a logical contradiction. Sure, the choice was there at the time, but this is worded as the ability to choose at some time to alter a choice made at a prior time.This would imply autonomy and the ability to have done otherwise.
That would be a scientific view, one with practical implications. Materialism is a philosophical position that has limited implications for science.If the only thing that is relevant to rational discussions is science, math, and logic, that sounds a lot like some sort of materialistic view. Although maybe there is a better word for that?
Using the button lets the device decide for you, which is hardly most people’s idea of free will. The scenario is a normal street crossing where the pedestrian never has the right of way. I don’t think your definition of FW has a problem here, but I’ve seen some definitions that very much would result in fatal choices being made.Yes, and a smart, rational person that could exercise their free will and get themselves killed could also hit the button that lights up the sign that indicates to them that it is safe to cross the street
You said in point a ‘somewhat inherently rational‘ which is something with which I can agree. My observations have shown that we’re fundamentally just animals with animal decision making mechanism, but with an addition of a rational advisor. But the advisor is not in charge and the part that chooses can veto the rational advice, which is very much not being consistently rational, especially when it matters. This seems to be an optimal setup most of the time, making for a fit individual.I think we should always be rational when we can be, but maybe that's just me. And I think people are consistently rational when it matters.
’Conscious’, another undefined word. Most people with an agenda equate that with ‘is human’ or at least a vertibrate or something, but if a roomba detecting a table leg and choosing to go right or left of it needs to be conscious to do that, then it is conscious because it does that.If the machine is conscious and is actually considering and choosing between different courses of action, then maybe.
And there’s the bias. You didn’t make this anthropocentric assertion before. What possible evidence do you have of this? How are you not a mechanical device, albeit a somewhat wet one?But a mechanical device cannot think, and thus cannot have free will.
Name a few? Science is no help since it works by inductive reasoning which cannot verify anything, only falsify wrong things. That leaves philosophical positions, few of which lacks a counterpart which suggests the opposite. I mean, I tried elsewhere to suggest that the sum of three and five being eight is an objective truth, and I get pushback from even that.Yes, the premises must be based on verifiable truths
Speaking from experience (with something other than cigarettes, something I’ve never tried), that premise is not there. The premise is that the bad habit is not worth it, and the rational decision/resolution made based on that premise, but the choice is overridden anyway by the irrational part that is in charge and wants the short term hit despite all the long term damage that makes it not worth it.If one starts with the false premise that cigarettes are worth ruining one's health then maybe it is rational to smoke a cigarette.
I said "and", not "or". It must have both internal logic and consistent reasoning given as set of premises, but these premises need not be strictly true. If the internal logic is faulty, it cannot be rational even with consistent reasoning given a set of premises according to my definition. — ToothyMaw
I do not deny this. I'm saying that if we are talking about someone actually being rational and making a rational decision, they must eliminate all other possibilities because of reasoning - even if that reasoning is faulty. — ToothyMaw
And what is rational could change and it would be relevant up until a course of action is selected. But while actions are limited by our intent to act rationally, act a is not free, or every action becomes rational. — ToothyMaw
I am discussing what is the case in a perfect instance of rational decision making. Considerations of whether or not humans make decisions irrationally is irrelevant. — ToothyMaw
Perhaps, but one need not consider every possible irrational course of action to come up with one that is while deliberating. I didn't say that p represents all irrational courses of action, but rather those considered. And even if one does not consider many irrational actions because irrational people don't think before acting, and thus are acting irrationally, people almost always deliberate and consider multiple courses of action if they are acting rationally. — ToothyMaw
I sort of agree with that, at least insofar as it expands choices. But one can act freely without having any more than two options really. Because that way you could have chosen otherwise. — ToothyMaw
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.