Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

[Koldo]

Well P2 might be that you have no shoes at all. That would be an observation.

Ok. Why is having a pair of shoes and less money better than having no shoes and more money ?

 

[Curious George]

Ok. Why is having a pair of shoes and less money better than having no shoes and more money ?

Perhaps you live in an area with lots of sharp debris strewn about the ground.

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps you live in an area with lots of sharp debris strewn about the ground.

What if you don't care ? Or even, for some absurd reason, what if you want to step on sharp debris with your bare feet ? What about it would make having the shoes better ?

 

[Curious George]

What if you don't care ? Or even, for some absurd reason, what if you want to step on sharp debris with your bare feet ? What about it would make having the shoes better ?

Well i can hardly imagine you would be on the way to the mall to buy shoes if that were the case

 

[Koldo]

Well i can hardly imagine you would be on the way to the mall to buy shoes if that were the case

Do you mean you wouldn't see buying the shoes as the better choice if you didn't care about what happened to your feet ?

 

[Curious George]

Do you mean you wouldn't see buying the shoes as the better choice if you didn't care about what happened to your feet ?

I mean to highlight the unlikelihood of reasoning whether or not buying shoes was a better option for you if such were the case. But even so, this is no reason to discount P2 as you currently have no shoes.

You are missing the vital point. That is that a person engages their environment with reasoning in order to make a choice where there is a conflict between wants. This is the "weighing" that you earlier acknowledged. This "weighing" is not objective regardless of the word choice. This "weighing" is actually reasoning. Reasoning is not objective. Scales are objective.

And who does the weighing? You. How? Reasoning. So what is it when you through reasoning give preference to one action over another? That is choice.

 

[Koldo]

I mean to highlight the unlikelihood of reasoning whether or not buying shoes was a better option for you if such were the case. But even so, this is no reason to discount P2 as you currently have no shoes.

You are missing the vital point. That is that a person engages their environment with reasoning in order to make a choice where there is a conflict between wants. This is the "weighing" that you earlier acknowledged. This "weighing" is not objective regardless of the word choice. This "weighing" is actually reasoning. Reasoning is not objective. Scales are objective.

And who does the weighing? You. How? Reasoning. So what is it when you through reasoning give preference to one action over another? That is choice.

I was trying to show how any facts about the external reality can not be used to determine in themselves what is better or worse. You need to care about not having your feet hurt to choose to buy a pair of shoes ( or similar product ) at any given day.

Give two people the same set of facts and the same capability to understand the consequence of their choices, and yet they might choose differently because they value different things, and therefore their judgment on what is better or worse will be different.

You can't reach the conclusion of what is the better or worse alternative without referring to what you want. And it is inevitable that if you have conflicting 'wants' there is absolutely no way to make a choice except for choosing on the basis of what you want the most, why ? Because if you accept we need the values that our desires bring to us to make choices ( to determine what is better and what is worse ) then it leads to an infinite regress to say that you can choose your values, since that entails having yet another set of values that will supersede the others to allow you to change your 'wants', and then so on and on. The act of choosing entails assessing how much each choice will net you at the end of the day and this leads to determinism in a way.

EDIT: To put it a bit differently, there is no set of facts that makes any choice better or worse than the other, and therefore reasoning alone can't allow you to reach the conclusion of what is better or worse. You need to supply your reasoning with values to make this assessment possible.

 

[Curious George]

I was trying to show how any facts about the external reality can not be used to determine in themselves what is better or worse. You need to care about not having your feet hurt to choose to buy a pair of shoes ( or similar product ) at any given day.

Give two people the same set of facts and the same capability to understand the consequence of their choices, and yet they might choose differently because they value different things, and therefore their judgment on what is better or worse will be different.

You can't reach the conclusion of what is the better or worse alternative without referring to what you want. And it is inevitable that if you have conflicting 'wants' there is absolutely no way to make a choice except for choosing on the basis of what you want the most, why ? Because if you accept we need the values that our desires bring to us to make choices ( to determine what is better and what is worse ) then it leads to an infinite regress to say that you can choose your values, since that entails having yet another set of values that will supersede the others to allow you to change your 'wants', and then so on and on. The act of choosing entails assessing how much each choice will net you at the end of the day and this leads to determinism in a way.

This is where you are wrong. You want to write it off as simply wanting the one more than the other. It is much more complex than that. We assess risks a rewards differently; we employ sound or faulty reasoning; sometimes the future does not turn out as we think it will. You want to chalk all of that up to well they wanted choice a more at that moment in time. In reality it is more complex than that. We cannot say that a person will want choice A more than choice B prior to their employment of reasoning. It is reasoning that defines us and it is our employment of this reasoning that makes these choices. I already said from the beginning that wants need not originate from within our control for this to be so. The wants can in themselves be a complex interaction that is part of our environment. Something to observe, if you will. But that doesn't change a thing. Our reasoning is our interaction with our environment and ultimately what allows us to make choices.

 

[Koldo]

This is where you are wrong. You want to write it off as simply wanting the one more than the other. It is much more complex than that. We assess risks a rewards differently; we employ sound or faulty reasoning;

Yes, people have distinct reasoning capabilities. This doesn't contradict what I have said though.
That we are further limited by our capabilities to reason is a given and it poses no problem to what I am saying.

sometimes the future does not turn out as we think it will. You want to chalk all of that up to well they wanted choice a more at that moment in time. In reality it is more complex than that. We cannot say that a person will want choice A more than choice B prior to their employment of reasoning.

Are you referring to an ontological 'cannot' or an epistemological 'cannot' ?
Nevertheless, both of them don't contradict what I have said. They only refer to predictability.

It is reasoning that defines us and it is our employment of this reasoning that makes these choices. I already said from the beginning that wants need not originate from within our control for this to be so. The wants can in themselves be a complex interaction that is part of our environment. Something to observe, if you will. But that doesn't change a thing. Our reasoning is our interaction with our environment and ultimately what allows us to make choices.

Of course it is part of what allows us to make choices, else we wouldn't refer to them as choices, but reasoning by itself won't allow you to make choices.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, people have distinct reasoning capabilities. This doesn't contradict what I have said though.
That we are further limited by our capabilities to reason is a given and it poses no problem to what I am saying.



Are you referring to an ontological 'cannot' or an epistemological 'cannot' ?
Nevertheless, both of them don't contradict what I have said. They only refer to predictability.




Of course it is part of what allows us to make choices, else we wouldn't refer to them as choices, but reasoning by itself won't allow you to make choices.

Is it even possible to have reasoning in a vacuum? Reasoning is what we control and the only thing we can be said to control. We cannot control our beliefs, our wants, our actions but for our reasoning.

 

[Koldo]

Is it even possible to have reasoning in a vacuum? Reasoning is what we control and the only thing we can be said to control. We cannot control our beliefs, our wants, our actions but for our reasoning.

In what manner do you control your reasoning if not through what you want to do ?

 

[Curious George]

In what manner do you control your reasoning if not through what you want to do ?

Through conscious effort? Not sure what you are looking for here. That you may have a want to reason something, in no way assures the outcome of that reasoning. If i reason through the solution to a math problem the answer i find is not necessarily the answer i wanted to find.

 

[Koldo]

Through conscious effort? Not sure what you are looking for here. That you may have a want to reason something, in no way assures the outcome of that reasoning. If i reason through the solution to a math problem the answer i find is not necessarily the answer i wanted to find.

You don't get the solution you want to find, but you get to employ out of the means available to you the one you want the most. There is no such thing as a conscious effort that is set apart from your wants.

 

[Curious George]

You don't get the solution you want to find, but you get to employ out of the means available to you the one you want the most. There is no such thing as a conscious effort that is set apart from your wants.

And with what mechanism are such wants originated if not Reason. There is no natural imperative to apply the quadratic function.

Surely you can appeal to wants when it comes to evolutionary needs. But this is less easy when we are discussing green shoes and math formulas.

 

[Koldo]

And with what mechanism are such wants originated if not Reason.

If I may take a guess, I would say feelings and instincts.

There is no natural imperative to apply the quadratic function.

Surely you can appeal to wants when it comes to evolutionary needs. But this is less easy when we are discussing green shoes and math formulas.

It is not easy. It is trivial.
The question is: why are you applying the quadratic function ? There is something you intend to achieve, something that you want. What is it ? Whatever you consciously do, you always want something from it.

 

[Curious George]

If I may take a guess, I would say feelings and instincts.



It is not easy. It is trivial.
The question is: why are you applying the quadratic function ? There is something you intend to achieve, something that you want. What is it ? Whatever you consciously do, you always want something from it.

But you are now discussing wants that are incoherent without reason. Without reason these want could not exist.

 

[Koldo]

But you are now discussing wants that are incoherent without reason. Without reason these want could not exist.

Sure. Actually, reason is involved in all choices in one way or another. I am not saying otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

Sure. Actually, reason is involved in all choices in one way or another. I am not saying otherwise.

Seems to me you were suggesting everything originated with wants. Yet now we have something else that interacts with those wants on a fundamental level. So if we are keeping track we have observations, drives (wants), and reasoning.

 

[Koldo]

Seems to me you were suggesting everything originated with wants. Yet now we have something else that interacts with those wants on a fundamental level. So if we are keeping track we have observations, drives (wants), and reasoning.

Everything originates with wants.
Reasoning is a tool used by the wants to get things done.