Free will, determanism and all that (choices, choice)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If I look at the sky, my view could be interpreted using the geocentric model of the solar system. Does this mean that both the geocentric and heliocentric solar system's exist but the former is subjective and the latter is objective?

If you look at the sky and interpret your view as anything other than what you observe (not geocentric, but you-centric) then you are expressing an objective view. The subjective view is you-centric (or me-centric, or it-centric).

Both geocentric and heliocentric interpretations of the sky are objective if they describe (express) what is observed.

Of course both geocentric and heliocentric views exist! As many views exist as there are things in the universe, and then some.

[Fluffy]

If you look at the sky and interpret your view as anything other than what you observe (not geocentric, but you-centric) then you are expressing an objective view. The subjective view is you-centric (or me-centric, or it-centric).

I don't understand how it is possible to interpret something as other than what has been observed without making a false interpretation. We come to know the geo-centric model through our observations. How, therefore, does it differ with what you call "you-centric"?

Of course both geocentric and heliocentric views exist! As many views exist as there are things in the universe, and then some.

But that does not mean that there are items in reality that cohere with those views.

The belief in freewill certainly exists but that does not mean that freewill actually exists, surely?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I don't understand how it is possible to interpret something as other than what has been observed without making a false interpretation. We come to know the geo-centric model through our observations. How, therefore, does it differ with what you call "you-centric"?

What is a "false" interpretation? Do you mean an interpretation that doesn't reflect the objective view of reality? Subjective views necessarily do not reflect the objective view of reality, nor are they supposed to; they are subjective.

When I look up at the sky and see the crescent moon hanging there, is that not a "false" interpretation that is not only possible but useful and meaningful? Free will is such an interpretation: useful and extremely meaningful.

The geocentric model of the universe describes a view that is subjective for the earth, not for you. We come to know the geocentric model through astronomical observations made from the earth. Yes, it is similar to what I can see when I look up at the sky from my point of view, but any view can have only one centre: if it's the earth, it's not me; if it's me, it's not the earth. Geocentric is the earth centred model. You-centric is you at the centre, with the universe, including the earth, all around you. That is where your view stems from. That is the subjective view for you.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

"Of course both geocentric and heliocentric views exist! As many views exist as there are things in the universe, and then some."
But that does not mean that there are items in reality that cohere with those views.

True. Objective reality does not have to agree with any subjective view. The moon isn't really a crescent.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The belief in freewill certainly exists but that does not mean that freewill actually exists, surely?

Belief in something does not create reality, but the things we believe in do exist. Sort of; rather, we couldn't believe in them if they didn't exist, because we couldn't know of them. Faeries exist, as things of imagination. Illusions exist. Does the crescent moon exist? Or do we look up in the sky and say, "Oh look! What a pretty nothing!" If it's something, it exists.

[Fluffy]

What is a "false" interpretation? Do you mean an interpretation that doesn't reflect the objective view of reality? Subjective views necessarily do not reflect the objective view of reality, nor are they supposed to; they are subjective.

If you see a small pink square and interpret it to be a large orange circle then I would say that constitutes a false interpretation. When we see railway tracks disappearing in the distance, straws bending in water and make an interpretation based on sight alone, ignoring other observations that tell us that the tracks and parallel and the straw is straight then we are again making a false interpretation.

A correct interpretation is one that not only coheres with current sensory data but also with future sensory data.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as an objective view of reality or, if there is, we are not able to discern it. Everything about reality is given to us through our senses and so becomes subjective. An objective view is therefore a contradiction since any sort of view is necessarily subjective.

When I look up at the sky and see the crescent moon hanging there, is that not a "false" interpretation that is not only possible but useful and meaningful? Free will is such an interpretation: useful and extremely meaningful.

If your interpretation is that you are seeing a crescent object then this is false since it does not cohere with other observations of that same object. In order to have a correct interpretation of that object, the interpretation must be able to explain all of the observations of that object. If it only explains one observation and excludes others (ie this is a crescent object and therefore not a sphere that I can only see part of) then that seems to be false.

The geocentric model of the universe describes a view that is subjective for the earth, not for you. We come to know the geocentric model through astronomical observations made from the earth.

We do not come to know the geocentric model of the solar system through astronomical observations. The geocentric model was derived for religious reasons and was not based on observable data. However Wittgenstein remarked that both the geocentric and heliocentric models look the same from a person standing on this planet (mostly). We know that the geocentric model is false because it conflicts with every other observation we have of our solar system whereas the heliocentric model explains all observations.

My point was that just because both models happen to explain a single observation (a person looking at the night's sky) does not mean that the geocentric model is not completely and utterly wrong. You appeared to be arguing that free will was not false because it appeared to be correct from a subjective view. I am arguing that since free will does not accurately explain all of our observations, whereas determinism does, free will is a false interpretation.

True. Objective reality does not have to agree with any subjective view. The moon isn't really a crescent.

That the moon isn't a crescent is still a subjective, not objective, view.

Belief in something does not create reality, but the things we believe in do exist. Sort of; rather, we couldn't believe in them if they didn't exist, because we couldn't know of them. Faeries exist, as things of imagination. Illusions exist. Does the crescent moon exist? Or do we look up in the sky and say, "Oh look! What a pretty nothing!" If it's something, it exists.

When I was reading critiques of the ontological argument, I came across Kant's view of existence. He was discussing it with reference to the argument but I think that it is relevant here as well.

Kant asks us to imagine a triangle and all of the properties that this triangle has. Its colour, its lengths, its angles. He then asks us to imagine a second triangle that is identical to the first in every way except that he asks us to add the additional property that it exists. He then asks whether our perception of these two imaginary triangles is different and the answer is no, there is no difference between them. So therefore existence is not a real property of an object and an object of belief need not exist even if it is believed to exist.

When we look up in the sky we are not seeing a crescent moon. We are seeing a spherical moon part of which is dark. If we think we are seeing a crescent moon then we are wrong.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If you see a small pink square and interpret it to be a large orange circle then I would say that constitutes a false interpretation.

That's not an interpretation, that's a halucination.

Alright, I see; I would say, rather, that that constitutes an interpretation that does not conform to objective reality.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

When we see railway tracks disappearing in the distance, straws bending in water and make an interpretation based on sight alone, ignoring other observations that tell us that the tracks and parallel and the straw is straight then we are again making a false interpretation.

A correct interpretation is one that not only coheres with current sensory data but also with future sensory data.

Now I'm confused again. 20 years down the road, won't those same railway tracks still disappear into the distance? It is sensory data that gives us that "false" interpretation of perspective.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I don't believe that there is such a thing as an objective view of reality or, if there is, we are not able to discern it. Everything about reality is given to us through our senses and so becomes subjective. An objective view is therefore a contradiction since any sort of view is necessarily subjective.

We don't "discern" the objective view through senses, we imagine it. The objective view is the view through reality's eyes, i.e. the thing that an "interpretation" is compared to in order to consider it "correct". Truth belongs to the objective view.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If your interpretation is that you are seeing a crescent object then this is false since it does not cohere with other observations of that same object. In order to have a correct interpretation of that object, the interpretation must be able to explain all of the observations of that object. If it only explains one observation and excludes others (ie this is a crescent object and therefore not a sphere that I can only see part of) then that seems to be false.

But is it useful, in your opinion, to have these "false" interpretations? We live in an ocean of them, everyday, as our minds interpret things. We cannot avoid them; they are a part of who we are.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

We do not come to know the geocentric model of the solar system through astronomical observations. The geocentric model was derived for religious reasons and was not based on observable data. However Wittgenstein remarked that both the geocentric and heliocentric models look the same from a person standing on this planet (mostly). We know that the geocentric model is false because it conflicts with every other observation we have of our solar system whereas the heliocentric model explains all observations.

My point was that just because both models happen to explain a single observation (a person looking at the night's sky) does not mean that the geocentric model is not completely and utterly wrong. You appeared to be arguing that free will was not false because it appeared to be correct from a subjective view. I am arguing that since free will does not accurately explain all of our observations, whereas determinism does, free will is a false interpretation.

What is "false" about the "false interpretation" as you use that phrase is that it does not conform to the objective view of reality; but I say it doesn't need to conform, and it's not supposed to conform. There is no requirement, whatsoever, for the subjective view to conform to objective reality. Those train tracks that converge into the distance will, and should, always converge into the distance, and we should always acknowledge that that is the subjective view rather than the objective view.

Determinism is a philosophy that describes objective reality, as far as we can know it; that is its purpose. Free will accurately explains all our observations when it is looked at in the proper context, as a subjective phenomenon (that is, from the subject's point of view). It has no purpose in describing objective reality, only our view of it.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That the moon isn't a crescent is still a subjective, not objective, view.

It is a "correct interpretation", then, if that's the phrase you prefer. It describes reality.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

When I was reading critiques of the ontological argument, I came across Kant's view of existence. He was discussing it with reference to the argument but I think that it is relevant here as well.

Kant asks us to imagine a triangle and all of the properties that this triangle has. Its colour, its lengths, its angles. He then asks us to imagine a second triangle that is identical to the first in every way except that he asks us to add the additional property that it exists. He then asks whether our perception of these two imaginary triangles is different and the answer is no, there is no difference between them. So therefore existence is not a real property of an object and an object of belief need not exist even if it is believed to exist.

When we look up in the sky we are not seeing a crescent moon. We are seeing a spherical moon part of which is dark. If we think we are seeing a crescent moon then we are wrong.

Well, I haven't read Kant, but his conclusion is correct; existence is not a property. Without existence, there is no "thing" to attach a property to, not even an imagined thing.

Things exist (axiom at its best). Imagined things are things, too. They "exist in the imagination."

We are not "wrong" that it appears to be a crescent. We are not wrong if we accept it for what it is, and not reject it for being something it is not.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Cause-and-effect objectively describes the world. Free wil is a subjective phenomenon, meaning it only exists from the perspective of the person executing an action.

Just as we have both perspectives, objective and subjective, we can have both cause-and-effect and free will. We just cannot look at them at the same time.

Atoms can't act spontaneously, but they can act (they can be the ones to act).

I agree.

I believe in more of a semi-free will (for now). While our choices may be determined by past influences, those past influences become a part of our subjective will. I see the subjective mind as feeding off these objective influences, and becoming larger - growing ever larger and larger!Mm...determinism is delicious! - so that it may in turn use these influences to influence the objective world.

In other words, in that infinite string of cause and effect, we are affected by objective influences that become our willful muscle that makes us agents of change. Not free will, despite how it feels. But it may as well be. Thus, semi-free will.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

I agree.

I believe in more of a semi-free will (for now). While our choices may be determined by past influences, those past influences become a part of our subjective will. I see the subjective mind as feeding off these objective influences, and becoming larger - growing ever larger and larger!Mm...determinism is delicious! - so that it may in turn use these influences to influence the objective world.

In other words, in that infinite string of cause and effect, we are affected by objective influences that become our willful muscle that makes us agents of change. Not free will, despite how it feels. But it may as well be. Thus, semi-free will.

You have a radically different definition of "will" than I do. While our choices are determined by past influences, and determine future influences, I see free will as the choice that we make here, now. In other words, that we are "affected by objective influences that become our willful muscle" doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, from a subjective perspective: free will is the "will" in the willful muscle.

"May as well be" doesn't matter, either, when it is the same as "what is."

Will you utlize all that is in your memory to enact change in the world?

Go for it. Now. That is the exercise of will.