Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept
Humans have discovered the ethics of liberty over and over again throughout history. Of course, an ethical system for rational animals has to take account of the dynamic aspects of conflict, and not just zero sum scenarios. All other species in the world are not characterized after a vigorous a) capability and b) need, for owning and creating property. Men profit from a more advanced division of labor, whereas the animals and plants suffer when they compete for scare resources, since they cannot create more or just conceive of any alternatives for large numbers. The need for property is now evident. But how are we to validate the justice behind property and -of course- its allocation?
The best answer available to us (yet) is Hoppe's development of Habermas-Apel's concept of discourse or communicative ethics. Those German thinkers have written about it to justify democracy and even dialog for the sake of dialog. Hoppe, a student of Habermas and a scholar on both, took the concept one step beyond. Thus, we can properly speak of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics.
Prof. Hoppe studied and applied the epistemological breakthrough that Ludwig von Mises provided as an answer to Kant's dilemma: how are categories of the mind supposed to fit reality. Is it that humans create reality or at least that there is no reality but our mind makes sense (arbitrarily) of a senseless cosmos? Is it that reality created the human mind, and because of that human mind can understand reality around him?
The last position fits perfectly with what Neurobiology teaches us about the human brain. Our brain is not, by any means, a tabula rasa. We are born with a brain (mind) that is the result of millions of years of evolution, and even if free will is a fact (which it is), we still have analogical processes that allow us to understand concepts which are key to our survival.
One of those concepts is the concept of property. Intuitively or rationally, men have always known that property homesteaded (by mixing labor with a resource) or created, belongs to the actor. But a contract to homestead a forest implies understanding more than meets the eye: the capitalist is the homesteader, and the employees just play a limited role and accept to receive a reward for it from his capital fund. That someone now owns the forest after some labor exerted over it, may be intuitive to some point. What cannot be is the fact that the capitalist existed, since he hired them over the phone and was not present to the eye of the natives in the zone. Those subtle categories of action (contract, fraud, wages) and the fact of -inevitably- limited information in an individual brain (no human being is omniscient, although I couldn't know, since I am not and so I have to deal with categories and generalizations). Those categories require reflection upon the meaning of human action, and in this case, human relations. The capitalist-wage earner relation is not self-evident, as we see. But neither is property. From the simplest to the most advanced form of property (say, company stocks or insurance policies), the human mind has to reflect upon basic categories of action in order to establish the proper relation between owner and property.
What about the human body? Nature (before us, that is) never had to deal with organ donation or robbery. Donation implies contract through the will of the parts. Robbery implies just the opposite. In order to distinguish both to a degree that will satisfy the victim or a judge, proper ownership of body parts has to be established.
But it is action what creates property around us. Isn't action capable of determining property of ourselves too? A right to self-determination embodied (yes, literally) on self-ownership?
Argumentation as action: the act of engaging in an argument is certainly revealing of some facts. First of all, we are willingly interacting in a peaceful way with the interlocutor. Argument, after all, is not any form of talking: it implies at least two people engaging voluntarily and freely in it. A speech to the slaves in a galley may not be an argument although it certainly is communication, of course. But if we talk about ethics, we are talking about principles equally valid (the universalizability of rights is a vital part of its definition, as a table has to hold things from falling to the ground in order to be a table) for all humans in the same situation.
Second, then, some ethical principles are revealed in the course of argumentation. One of them is contract, of course (and this is not tautological by any means, just keep in mind the galley example). But contract requires property. So denying self-ownership to the parts, would be denying the whole argumentation possibility. And yet, the one denying it would be engaging in some sort of argument if he was free to do it or not from the start. So in this case, we have a clear case of proof by contradiction of the opposite.
Human beings have a right to own themselves, as the act of argumentation clearly shows: nobody else can have command of their own bodies.
In sum, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has discovered and developed a system of rights that is grounded on the fact that humans act, that humans have a mind that is analogical to its circundating reality and that does not require an "is-ought" duality in order to show us the proper ethical system for rational animals. We are the rightful owners of our bodies and of property we create through the use of our minds, ourselves or through contract. If slaves in a galley can dream of freedom in the near future, so can citizens of an statist world. Argumentation Ethics provides us with a template based on facts of how to untangle, understand and finally free a world ridden with contradition and denial of justice.
Comments (68)
Free-will is not a fact. Either we can attribute the processes in our brain to classical physics, in which case they are deterministic with no room for a "will" to enter in and change anything or to indeterministic quantum mechanics which has no more to do with free-will than an electron.
Published: September 20, 2007 11:57 PM
Please tell the processes or electrons that made you post your coment, that I chose to disagree.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:13 AM
TGGP, what are your thoughts on compatibilism?
Published: September 21, 2007 11:23 AM
Please tell the processes or electrons that made you post your coment, that I chose to disagree.
I don't know how my microwave works, that shouldn't make you believe it doesn't work. Ask a neuroscientist.
Compatibilism is essentially admitting there is no free-will yet acting like there is.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:18 PM
Science says reality is deterministic. There's no compelling reason to deny this. Even quantum mechanics is perfectly deterministic if you treat the wave function as a pysical reality - and there's no compelling reason not to do that, except to desperately hang on to some hope of indeterminism.
Meanwhile, discussions of justice and politics and 'should' versus 'shouldn't' are all completely pointless if the world is deterministic. Determinism means consciousness is like going to the movies - it FEELS like decisions are being made and events are unfolding as you watch, but really you're just rolling forward and discovering the immutable script as it is revealed to you.
A discussion about 'should' versus 'shouldn't' is only relevant to a reality where free will exists. Despite the contrary evidence of science, I still feel like I have free will, so I'm willing to presuppose the existence of free will, say we don't understand it yet and more study is needed to discover its origin and eliminate any contradiction with science... and then proceed to happily discuss should versus shouldn't.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:57 PM
Determinism reveals this:
Rocks and men are very similar in that their every motion, all events that they cause or do not cause, have been predetermined through sets of large chains of physical and chemical cause and effect interactions, since the beginning of time.
Yet man has one important thing the rock lacks: delusion of free will. Poor delusional man doesn't even know he doesn't ultimately choose a single act of his. Yet he puts so much importance on them. Is that not rather pathetic?
LOL!
Published: September 21, 2007 1:25 PM
TGGP,
If there were no free will and our thought processes were based entirely upon the laws of physics, it would seem to me that everyone would arrive at similar (if not the same) conclusions. I would imagine that the "arts" would be much different than what they are now.
It was just a thought...
Published: September 21, 2007 1:32 PM
JFC> ...and even if free will is a fact (which it is),...
and...
TGGP> Compatibilism is essentially admitting there is no free-will yet acting like there is.
As best I've been able to gather, I have no choice but to act as though I have a choice. laughs.
IMHO> If there were no free will and our thought processes were based entirely upon the laws of physics, it would seem to me that everyone would arrive at similar (if not the same) conclusions.
That assumes that the brain (and sensory organs) have the capability to absorb all environmental data, has infinite memory, have infinite processing power, and can somehow download all past information about the universe. That is not the structure of any living thing, as best as I can tell. So each conscious being has very sparse information, and different information than any other conscious being. No two beings have identical structure or processing power, nor are they processing in absolutely identical environments. Nor do they have the same history. We are stuck with an assumption of free will, even if it is not true. So ironically, we have no choice but to act as though we do have a choice. It is not suprising they don't reach identical conclusions -- they are different by any definition -- and that can't be evidence of free will.
There is not a shred of evidence that humans have free will. But the practical fact of our limited perception and knowledge leaves us with uncertainty, so that "free will" is a practical operational solution to our construction. I reckon a better term than "free will" could come into being. Maybe "blind disobediance" is a good one. laughs.
Published: September 21, 2007 4:31 PM
"I reckon a better term than "free will" could come into being."
We think there are options because we are ignorant of the future. "Ignorant of the future" seems fitting.
Published: September 21, 2007 5:00 PM
Even if there is no real choice, and action is predetermined, can there still be chance?
Published: September 21, 2007 6:15 PM
How about BROKEN BALLS to replace FREE WILL?
That's for "we wish we had a crystal ball, but we don't." :-(
Published: September 21, 2007 6:25 PM
Dear Juan Fernando Carpio,
If you are so inclined go to my blogsite (http://divineeconomyethics.blogspot.com/) and read about the fifteen axioms of a positive ethical system that I developed as I wrote my most recent book (ETHICS of the Divine Economy).
The assumption that I made as I wrote "ETHICS of the Divine Economy" was that I was continuing the work embarked on by Murray Rothbard as he laid the foundation for a positive ethical system.
I am thankful to you for the pdf of Chapter Ten from the work of Hans Hoppe (http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-10.pdf). All of his work is masterful and impeccable.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:22 PM
“There is not a shred of evidence that humans have free will.”
There is one shred, at least. And that is that determinists keep forgetting that the people they intend to persuade via reason that there is no free will, have no free will of their own to see reason, and choose to change their minds about the status of free will. You’d think the proponents of determinism, at least, would see the futility of reasoning with a predetermined robot of the truth of determinism. But I suppose they would answer that they themselves, are destined to pursue what is already determined to be either futile, or redundant – they have no choice in the matter. What fun and what futility.
Published: September 22, 2007 3:02 AM
"Even if there is no real choice, and action is predetermined, can there still be chance?"
How could there be genuine chance? Determinism has it that all things were ultimately determined at the very beginning of the universe. It is all one ultimately predictable sequence of cause and effect physical interactions. Whatever occurs in time, had to have occurred, due ultimately to how the first event of the universe played out - as it was the first of the chain of events leading to any other particular event.
Published: September 22, 2007 3:10 AM
Can radicals and revolutionaries ever be hard determinists?
Published: September 22, 2007 8:35 AM
Despite the contrary evidence of science, I still feel like I have free will, so I'm willing to presuppose the existence of free will, say we don't understand it yet and more study is needed to discover its origin and eliminate any contradiction with science... and then proceed to happily discuss should versus shouldn't.
Saying you "feel" it exists is a crappy reason to presuppose its existence. The purpose of scientific investigation is not to confirm what you already believe either.
If there were no free will and our thought processes were based entirely upon the laws of physics, it would seem to me that everyone would arrive at similar (if not the same) conclusions. I would imagine that the "arts" would be much different than what they are now.
That does not make any sense. Human beings are not all the same, otherwise DNA tests would be unable to tell us apart. We also are not exposed to the same stimuli or environment. If you agree that rocks and computers are deterministic, you would also have to conclude that every computer is running the same program and every rock must fall if one does, which is clearly not the case. When you are skipping stones on a lake you may think two stones are identical and you have thrown them identically, yet one skips very differently from the other. This is not because the stones decided to behave differently.
You’d think the proponents of determinism, at least, would see the futility of reasoning with a predetermined robot of the truth of determinism.
Who says a robot must stay the same? Interacting often changes its state. But I primarily interact because I enjoy it.
The notion of "chance" is useful because the future is still uncertain. Coin-flips and dice-rolls are deterministic but modeling them as purely probabilistic is still useful for prediction.
Can radicals and revolutionaries ever be hard determinists?
Yes, Marx believed in dialectical historical materialism where forces inevitably lead from slavery to feudalism to capitalism to communism (with a dictatorship of the proletariat right before the end).
Published: September 22, 2007 11:50 AM
If humans don't have a free will, then not only does morality become meaningless, but so does reason. So why are you determinists posting here? You can't change anyone's mind; our choices are predetermined by the chemical reactions in our brains. It just so happens that your chemical reactions rolled the dice and came up with "determinism" as the answer to everything. You didn't arrive at that answer by study, reason, or superior intelligence; it just happened. Our chemical reactions ended up with a different answer.
But if all our decisions are hard-wired, how is it possible for us to learn, adapt and to change our minds?
Published: September 22, 2007 1:26 PM
not only does morality become meaningless
Calvinists would disagree, but I do not.
but so does reason
Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
So why are you determinists posting here?
I enjoy it.
You can't change anyone's mind; our choices are predetermined by the chemical reactions in our brains.
Those chemical reactions can be affected by the photons entering your eyes from a screen whose content was altered by my writing.
It just so happens that your chemical reactions rolled the dice and came up with "determinism" as the answer to everything. You didn't arrive at that answer by study, reason, or superior intelligence; it just happened. Our chemical reactions ended up with a different answer.
You don't know what you're talking about. Computers are deterministic but some computer programs can find answers better than others. A pseudo-random number generator will do a worse job than an algorithm in solving a math problem.
But if all our decisions are hard-wired, how is it possible for us to learn, adapt and to change our minds?
Have you ever heard of machine-learning?
For more on gut feelings versus evidence-based reasons for belief, read this.
Published: September 22, 2007 1:44 PM
"Who says a robot must stay the same? Interacting often changes its state. But I primarily interact because I enjoy it."
And a rock also need not stay the same, as physical interaction often changes its state as well. And so it is true, a rock remains a rock and a robot remains a robot.
I suppose you must be predetermined to at least try to persuade the world of determinism, irrespective of the superficial reason you may give. And the rest of us must be predetermined to believe whatever it is we will believe. You can no more ultimately choose to stop doing something that is either futile or redundant, anymore than anyone else can choose to resist to remind you that you must believe your efforts are either futile or redundant. That this makes your efforts rather illogical and pointless, is of little importance to you, again because you are predetermined to see your contradiction as unimportant. You have no choice but to ignore it, just as we have no choice but to point it out.
Published: September 23, 2007 4:47 AM
TGGP: "Have you ever heard of machine-learning?"
I'll concede your other points, but this one needs a response. "Machine learning" is an exaggeration typical of the computer industry, like "artificial intelligence." Algorithms that perform "learning" do nothing more than pattern matching at very rapid speeds. It's nothing at all like what humans do when we learn something. With machine learning, someone has to tell the computer what the correct answer is to a question; then the computer will rapidly scan new data and tell you whether or not the correct pattern is in the new data. For example, if you store the images of criminals in a database, a computer can scan the faces of people and rapidly match the new images to those in the database. But no computer can scan the faces of individuals not in the database and determine which ones are criminals.
Another example: "machine learning" is used extensively to catch fraud at banks. But the users must show the computer examples of real fraud. Then the computer can match new data with those examples and determine the possibility of fraud in specific transactions.
But notice in these examples that the computer is not learning in the sense that humans do. Humans can take new data and find new patterns or come up with ideas no one has thought of before. (Computers can do very limited discovery of patterns with cluster analysis algoriths, but to be meaningful, they require a lot of human interaction.) Computers can't do that.
Computers are limited to solution that are preprogrammed into them. Humans clearly aren't. So I ask again: But if all our decisions are hard-wired, how is it possible for us to learn, adapt and to change our minds?
Published: September 23, 2007 9:28 AM
TGGP: not only does morality become meaningless
Calvinists would disagree, but I do not.
That's interesting, isn't it? As far as I can tell, Calvinists don't believe in free-will. Maybe someone who is a Calvinist can enlighten us on that. BTW, Muslims don't believe in free will, either, at least orthodox Islam doesn't. A lot of popular Islam assumes a free will.
Published: September 23, 2007 9:31 AM
All religions accepting fate reject free will in a sense. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of them.
Marxists also reject it.
Actually most of the people on this earth reject free will on some level.
Free will is a very scary concept. It comes with responsibility which is had to bear for most people.
Published: September 23, 2007 10:30 AM
To ameliorate your fear ('very scary concept') of free will I suggest that you consider it as an inherent part of the human operating system. Is subjectivism frightening to you? Subjectivism stems from the human reality spoken of when referring to 'free will.'
However, if you understand human science then you appreciate subjectivism. What would truly be 'scary' would be to deny subjectivism (which is a pretty good explanation for many if not most of the ills afflicting humankind currently) in favor of an alternative view such as empiricism.
Ethics and free will are like the turmoils of adolescence. Discovery comes from testing the standards and through that discovery process an enlightened individual is born.
Published: September 23, 2007 4:10 PM
TGGP says: "Saying you "feel" [free will] exists is a crappy reason to presuppose its existence. The purpose of scientific investigation is not to confirm what you already believe either."
The scientific method - this is to remind rather than to teach, as I am sure you know this already - is to gather observations from the senses, determine a pattern in the observations, and refine the pattern into laws until it is clear you have it correct because the laws now perfectly predict all new observations. If the predictions are contradicted by observations, you're 'not quite there yet' and your understanding needs to improve.
Science is a system I embrace wholeheartedly. It is true that no matter of mere belief may be allowed to contradict the conclusions of Science. But science is silent on many matters - and until it catches up on these matters (if it ever does), science cannot be used as a trump card to dismiss other ideas.
To date, science has very much failed to explain or dismiss the observation of my own free will, or for that matter the experience of the 'ego'.
So no, saying we observe free will is not a crappy reason to suggest it exists. It's the only, and in fact the scientific reason, to claim something exists - because we observe it.
Published: September 23, 2007 5:47 PM
Why has one “impasse” (Murray Rothbard’s evaluation of the pre-Hoppean state of libertarian rights theory) engendered another? Perhaps we need less preaching to the choir and more practice of the ethics of argumentation with those who accept it but deny Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s inferences therefrom. Perhaps Hoppe should invite none other than global democrat Karl-Otto Apel himself to examine and evaluate Hoppe’s use of his insights. I think we could all learn from such an exchange.
Published: September 23, 2007 6:46 PM
That'd be worth it just to see Apel's reaction.
I am not sure why this emphasis on free will. Neither Hoppe's nor Mises's insights hinge[d] on free will at all; in fact I believe Mises was somewhat of a compatibilist.
Published: September 23, 2007 7:37 PM
PE> And that is that determinists keep forgetting that the people they intend to persuade via reason that there is no free will, have no free will of their own to see reason, and choose to change their minds about the status of free will.
Who says a mind capable of reason didn't also give birth to free will? After all, it may well have given birth to gods and the easter bunny.
PE> It is all one ultimately predictable sequence of cause and effect physical interactions.
Maybe in cartoons and seances it is "ultimately predictable." But I haven't met anyone with that amount of mental horsepower. Or if I did, I was too meager to understand it.
Fund.> If humans don't have a free will, then not only does morality become meaningless, but so does reason.
I suppose you are unable to see why one does not follow the other. Apparently the way you were constructed, and given your location in space and time, made such a disconnect appear plausible inside your brain.
Fund.> But if all our decisions are hard-wired,...
It wouldn't be a "decision" if it was hardwired, now would it?
Fund.> ...how is it possible for us to learn, adapt and to change our minds?
If the universe is predetermined, why would you need to adapt? How could there even be such a thing? How would you know you weren't constructed to carry that sort of illusion? How would you know that a successful organism like a human being didn't benefit from the illusion?
PE> I suppose you must be predetermined to at least try to persuade the world of determinism,...
It is actually the opposite. Belief in free will is a positive assertion. "Determinism" is a negative, it asserts nothing. Free willers seek converts, so they try to persuade. I suppose it is inherent in the construction of humans -- perhaps genetic and/or memetic -- to get others to conform to one's views. It seems common enough, after all. Juan Fernando Carpio made the assertion.
There is a universe of difference in saying the world appears to have patterned behavior through observation and inductive (reasoned) argument, and then saying one has the ability to know without uncertainty what *any* particular pattern is. No one has that ability. You confound the restricted capability of a human being with the argument of whether "a pattern" (and what the heck is a singular pattern?) exists or does not exist. And that is about "a pattern" that cannot even be observed correctly, because again of the limited capabilty of the observer.
BK> Subjectivism stems from the human reality spoken of when referring to 'free will.'
My observation is that subjectivism stems from me having limited capability and limited knowledge. It says nothing about "free will." And so what? I accept that I am limited. But ironically due to my limitations, I don't know were my limitations are with absolute precision. Some things I'll try, but I won't be jumping off tall buildings based on a hunch about my ability to fly like a bird.
JP> The scientific method - this is to remind rather than to teach, as I am sure you know this already - is to gather observations from the senses, determine a pattern in the observations, and refine the pattern into laws until it is clear you have it correct because the laws now perfectly predict all new observations. If the predictions are contradicted by observations, you're 'not quite there yet' and your understanding needs to improve.
I am an engineer, so I deal in applied science, by definition. It is one thing to have a very general hard law -- there are not that many of them. It is quite another thing to apply these general laws to a complex evironment we can't by definition know completely correctly. Most often we have shortcut models that tend to work, but the models are not precise law in themselves, and also have bounded capability. The purpose of models is to make the intractable tractable. It seems it is most often only the near trivial problem that easily lends itself to the pure law. It would be nice if that were not so, but it is so. Again, the problem is our own limitations. It says little about the nature of the universe itself.
JP> ...science cannot be used as a trump card to dismiss other ideas.
To date, science has very much failed to explain or dismiss the observation of my own free will, or for that matter the experience of the 'ego'.
So no, saying we observe free will is not a crappy reason to suggest it exists. It's the only, and in fact the scientific reason, to claim something exists - because we observe it.
Silence on a matter is an admission of nothing. It is no big deal to say "I don't know," since knowing is finite and unknowing is infinite. Science does not admit or deny a God, for example.
You observe your free will. I observe nothing of the kind. I observe that I can't see the future, and that I know very little of both the present and the past. And even what I do see is only partly processed well by my reasoning abilities. The present and the past are very big "places." So is the future. Free willers ask so much of humans in the way of knowledge and processing power. Why?
------------
It is really pointless to worry about whether humans have free will or not. A human being is limited -- they can't see the future except through a thick haze. It is only their limited reasoning abilitly that lets them see into the haze at all. (And there ironically is the source of the free willer conflation.) So they must treat the world as one of choice, regardless of whether or not it is. Deal with it. While you are out on the razor's edge, staring at the abyss on either side, try not to get sawed in half.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:03 PM
Greg,
“PE> And that is that determinists keep forgetting that the people they intend to persuade via reason that there is no free will, have no free will of their own to see reason, and choose to change their minds about the status of free will.
“Who says a mind capable of reason didn't also give birth to free will? After all, it may well have given birth to gods and the easter bunny.”
I thought the determinists say that the mind did not and cannot give birth to genuine free will, except in the same sense that it gave birth to the imaginary Easter bunny.
“PE> It is all one ultimately predictable sequence of cause and effect physical interactions.
“Maybe in cartoons and seances it is "ultimately predictable." But I haven't met anyone with that amount of mental horsepower. Or if I did, I was too meager to understand it.”
The implication of determinism is that whatever a man chooses to do, it was determined long before he ever chose to do it – in fact it was all determined at the start of the physical universe. That man is not smart enough to make use of this fact to predict anything much with any certainty is irrelevant.
“PE> I suppose you must be predetermined to at least try to persuade the world of determinism,...
“It is actually the opposite. Belief in free will is a positive assertion. "Determinism" is a negative, it asserts nothing. Free willers seek converts, so they try to persuade. I suppose it is inherent in the construction of humans -- perhaps genetic and/or memetic -- to get others to conform to one's views. It seems common enough, after all. Juan Fernando Carpio made the assertion.”
Determinism asserts nothing. That’s a relief. I thought it asserts that all choices that men appear to make are always actually necessarily predetermined and could not have been otherwise, given the physical reality of the universe from its beginning. Does determinism not even say this?
I always get a kick out of the sort of argument that goes: “I am not making a positive assertion – You are! I am not defending a position; I’m just telling you why your position is wrong.” Which is the positive assertion: “Your mother is not by any stretch of the imagination, slender.” Versus: “Your mother is fat.” LMAO. People take one side of a position or the other. There’s no such thing as particularly positive except in the way you rhetorically frame the question.
“There is a universe of difference in saying the world appears to have patterned behavior through observation and inductive (reasoned) argument, and then saying one has the ability to know without uncertainty what *any* particular pattern is. No one has that ability. You confound the restricted capability of a human being with the argument of whether "a pattern" (and what the heck is a singular pattern?) exists or does not exist. And that is about "a pattern" that cannot even be observed correctly, because again of the limited capabilty of the observer.”
Huh? Since determinism says nothing, I suppose I have nothing in respect to it to object to. If you change your mind and it really does say something interesting, then fire away and we can continue the debate.
Published: September 24, 2007 3:12 PM
ktibuk: "Judaism, Christianity and Islam all of them."
What little I know about Judaism, I would guess that they are free-willies. In Christianity, only the Calvinists are free-willies. Hinduism leans toward determinism because in their belief system the universe is just a dream of the supreme being, so whatever he dreams is what happens. Islam is deterministic without a doubt. When talking about the future, Muslims often say something like "It is written." They mean by that that Allah has predetermined every simple act and decision that we make and even written it down.
Greg: "I suppose you are unable to see why one does not follow the other." That was in response to my "If humans don't have a free will, then not only does morality become meaningless, but so does reason." You're right. I am unable to see it. Please explain.
Greg: "It wouldn't be a "decision" if it was hardwired, now would it?"
So it's an illusion, too? Why is it that so much that seems obvious to reasonable people is nothing but an illusion? What if determinism is the illusion?
Greg: "If the universe is predetermined, why would you need to adapt?"
Again, history and science seem to indicate that we do in fact adapt to changing circumstances. I guess that's an illusion, too.
It seems to me that if the "illusion" of free will is so strong that a lot of reasonable, intelligent people think it's reality, maybe it's not an illusion. It's clear that determinism eradicates morality and reason, both of which are essential to the welfare of humanity. So if it violates human nature, maybe it's not true.
Published: September 24, 2007 6:40 PM
If the determinists are correct, then the only way that free-willies like me happen to exist is that the genes which promote such thinking got lumped together over time in the western world among a few people. That means that the ideas of respect for life, liberty, and property (which depend upon humans having a free will) were nothing more than the accidental convergence of genetic material. Since we're a small minority, we probably won't survive, and since the majority of humanity doesn't have the appropriate genetic structure to appreciate those principles, those principals will die out.
Published: September 24, 2007 6:47 PM
I can be a happy robot.
Published: September 24, 2007 7:05 PM
It is not merely the case that everything is pre-determined. According to Einstein we only subjectively perceive time to be moving forward from an absolute past to present to future, but in fact no two events can actually be objectively "simultaneous", and when two different observers disagree over which of two events happened first there is not necessarily a correct answer. Space and time are one and every event is not simply destined to happen but in a sense HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
Free-will is not something you have observed and can present evidence for, but a subjective feeling.
Published: September 25, 2007 12:50 AM
According to Einstein we only subjectively perceive time to be moving forward from an absolute past to present to future, but in fact no two events can actually be objectively "simultaneous", and when two different observers disagree over which of two events happened first there is not necessarily a correct answer.
That's wrong. Two observers can never disagree about which event happened first. They can disagree about how much time elapsed between two spatially-separated events, but not the order.
Published: September 25, 2007 5:54 AM
"Free-will is not something you have observed and can present evidence for, but a subjective feeling."
Where is the evidence for everything being determined? I take an agnostic position on this issue, because I do not think there is sufficient proof for either position - except perhaps that we have an idea of free will, illusory or not.
Published: September 25, 2007 7:21 AM
Anthony: "Where is the evidence for everything being determined?"
This debate reminds me of the evolution/intelligent design debate. Many evolutionists say that the universe only appears to be designed, but that's an illusion. But if the illusion is so strong, and we don't have reason to believe that someone is deliberately trying to fools us, maybe their is some reality behind it and it's not all illusion.
Someone has written that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent him and act as if he did. The same goes for determinism. Even if it's true, so what? We have to act as if it isn't in order for society to work and humanity to progress. The alternative is fatalism.
I know a little about fatalism by observing how some muslims act. I spent some time in Iran and saw dozens of car wrecks where people passed other cars on hills and curves. The Iranian attitude in such cases, often, is that their future is "written", so they have no reason to practice safe habits. If their death while passing is "written", there is nothing they can do to prevent it. If not, there is no way it can happen. Oil field workers testify to similar disregards toward safety on the part of muslims in their dangerous line of work.
Published: September 25, 2007 8:01 AM
That's wrong. Two observers can never disagree about which event happened first. They can disagree about how much time elapsed between two spatially-separated events, but not the order.
"Consider a classic example. Imagine a moving train car, with a light source in the exact center. At a predetermined moment, the light source switches on and fires two photons, one toward a detector on the front wall of the car, one toward a detector on the back wall. Which detector will be triggered first?
An observer on the train, moving along with its motion, will observe both detectors trigger simultaneously. After all, the emitter was in the exact center of the car, so the two photons have to travel the same distance to their respective detectors. This is undoubtedly a correct answer.
But an observer on the platform, watching the train pass by, will observe something different. To that observer, the back wall of the train was moving toward the photon, while the front wall was moving away from it. The difference in distance is miniscule, but it exists; so the back detector should trigger first. This, too, seems to be a correct answer.
Which observer is right? As Albert Einstein first demonstrated, the answer is that they both are. Strange as it seems, there is no one absolute answer to this question. Rather, simultaneity is relative: it depends on the perspective of the observer. Observers who are in motion relative to each other will disagree on which events are simultaneous - in other words, they will disagree on what is happening "now" - and there is no way to say that one is right and the other is wrong."
Now add a third observer who is traveling in the same direction as the train relative to the person on the platform, but twice as fast. To him the photon will hit the front detector first, and so he and the person on the platform will disagree about the order.
Where is the evidence for everything being determined?
We now know that the behavior of the brain is dictated by the firing of neurons, which merely obey the laws of chemistry. There is no room in there for the addition of "free-will" to make an impact.
This debate reminds me of the evolution/intelligent design debate.
It's not a debate. People like the folks at the Discovery Institute have not published anything in peer-reviewed journals for evolutionists to respond to.
But if the illusion is so strong, and we don't have reason to believe that someone is deliberately trying to fools us, maybe their is some reality behind it and it's not all illusion.
The reason behind the illusion is promiscuous teleology.
Someone has written that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent him and act as if he did.
That was Voltaire.
Even if it's true, so what?
The article states that free-will is a "fact". If it's not true, it isn't a fact.
Published: September 25, 2007 11:20 AM
TGGP: "...every event is not simply destined to happen but in a sense HAS ALREADY HAPPENED."
I agree with TGGP. From the point of view of an observer travelling at the speed of light (such as a photon), all events are happening at once.
It's no big deal.
Published: September 25, 2007 12:53 PM
TGGP: "We now know that the behavior of the brain is dictated by the firing of neurons, which merely obey the laws of chemistry."
Scientists know less about the brain than they do about the dark side of the moon. Describing the brain as neurons obeying the laws of chemistry is like describing economis as following the law of supply and demand; both are true, but constitute such a small portion of the whole as to be trivial. Are the simple chemical reactions in a neuron a sufficient cause for for human thought? The cause is to small for the effect. That's why people find the chemical determinist explanation unconvincing.
TGGP: "People like the folks at the Discovery Institute have not published anything in peer-reviewed journals for evolutionists to respond to."
Austrian economists can't get published in the journals of mainstream econ, either. Does that mean they have nothing worthwhile to say? Peer reviewed journals exist to preserve the status quo paradigm. They'll allow small controversies within the paradigm, but refuse to publish anything that challenges the paradigm, which both ID and Astrian econ do.
TGGP: "The reason behind the illusion is promiscuous teleology."
Or, as I wrote above, it's not an illusion; reasonable people can see that the chemical "cause" is just too small an engine for the amazing effect that is the human mind.
TGGP: "The article states that free-will is a "fact". If it's not true, it isn't a fact."
Some of us think it is a fact. But that wasn't my point. Even if I concede that your chemical determinism is a fact and that free-will is an illusion, so what? Everyone will continue to act, pass laws, write books, and argue as if free-will is the fact and determinism is false. We have no other choice than to act as if free-will is true, whether it is or not.
Published: September 25, 2007 6:22 PM
Anthony> I take an agnostic position on this issue, because I do not think there is sufficient proof for either position - except perhaps that we have an idea of free will, illusory or not.
It would be most techically correct to say I am agnostic regarding the existance of gods/god. I always have to strictly say "I don't know." But since I have never witnessed a single thing I could characterize as supernatural, I really don't go looking for it. So functionally I am an atheist, because I don't bother with the question itself due to persistant lack of evidence. And so it goes with free will. Since there is no evidence, it isn't just assumed into existance. It would seem unnecessary, and perhaps as Paul Edwards might put it: "uninteresting."
Fund.> We have no other choice than to act as if free-will is true, whether it is or not.
Hey, if you keep stealing my ideas, we can warp this into an IP thread. lol. I am amused at you language: "we have no other choice..." Of course, no choice is not choice. That's my original conflictory line, in essence.
As best as I can tell, history is uni-factual. That means history only happened one way. Where is the evidence of choice in that? While we may internally feel like we are making a choice that lays down history, we can't really say that "being who we are, we could make any other choice than the one we actually made." The singularity calls into question that we could have done anything other than what we actually did. "Being who we are" is our makeup in totality -- something we can't even comprehend itself. It includes a physical history and makeup we have only a sliver of knowledge about. "Choice" is simply not a given, regardless of our feelings. Now that is an agnostic stance, technically speaking. There is not evidence that free will exists. There is no proof that it does not exist, and I dare venture that it cannot be proven away. So technically speaking, I am agnostic also on free will. But persistant lack of evidence does incline one to terminate efforts along a dimension.
As a final note, I don't usually respond to the language of "free will." Even though there is no technical evidence of it, I can usually just let it pass (when the language is not so strong) as a shorthand of the human condition. This is with regard to limitations in the ability of humans, which means these limited humans can only make vague predictions as they peer into the fog of the future. We leave the future to God, and trust him in the grants he has made to us, including our meager ability to sketch a vignette of his plan.
Published: September 25, 2007 11:00 PM
Human Action:
Chapter 1. Acting Man.
1. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp
Published: September 26, 2007 3:02 AM
Mises has some interesting quotes on the matter of free will. I can never quite make out where he stands on the matter, though he seems like a soft determinist. He noted that humans always act as though they have a choice, even though from the vantage point of an omnipotent force we may seem entirely determined.
Published: September 26, 2007 7:26 AM
I think that Mises quite clearly supported the view that man has a free will as he wrote:
“is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life.”
That is also my interpretation of a free will.
Published: September 26, 2007 7:39 AM
Human Action:
"We may say that action is the manifestation of a man's will."
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec1.asp
Published: September 26, 2007 7:41 AM
Björn, I've noticed you often use Mises and Rothbard quotes as answers to questions. Can Mises be wrong? Or was he just using "free will" shorthand? What difference would it make in practice?
Published: September 26, 2007 8:25 AM
Certainly Mises could be wrong. He did, for instance, not believe in axiomatical principles of justice. I quote him and Rothbard when my own reason tells me that their views are correct or, in other words, when I believe that their views are in harmony with reality.
Published: September 26, 2007 10:36 AM
He said "may." I didn't see any absolute assertion of free will in the statements you quoted, although I can see how someone might read it that way. So you believe he asserted it or proved it?
Published: September 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Greg,
“And so it goes with free will. Since there is no evidence, it isn't just assumed into existance. It would seem unnecessary, and perhaps as Paul Edwards might put it: "uninteresting."”
Evidence? Do you really think the reason you don’t believe in free will is due to your reasoning skills and a lack of evidence? Why is it not simply that you have been predetermined as dictated by the concept of determinism to not believe in it? And if you were to happen to change your mind on the subject, one day, it will again, naturally be because it was necessary, again as explained by determinism?
Why do you pretend that it is reason and evidence on which you decide these things when you know very well that for whatever the reason, logical or illogical, with good evidence or none, whatever you believe was set from the beginning of the universe, and that you have really no genuine choice in the matter?
Published: September 26, 2007 2:47 PM
Greg
Mises wrote:
Human action is purposeful behaviour. That is all what he intended to say. Then he uses the word “may” and by using this word “may”* in sentences like this he meant “in other words”.
*Answers.com for the word may: used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
In the end he wrote:
Such paraphrases* may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself (that is: Human action is purposeful behaviour) is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.
*Babylon online dictionary for the word paraphrase: use different words; present something in a different manner
I think that Mises both asserted it and proved it. What I mean by “proved it” is that we as humans can understands the meaning of “that human action is purposeful behaviour” and that we also can understand, because of the reason that we are humans, that we function in this manner.
Published: September 26, 2007 3:39 PM
Greg, this one is clearer and nicer!
Mises wrote:
“Human action is purposeful behaviour.” That is all what he intended to say. Then he uses the word “may” and by using this word “may”* in sentences like this he meant “in other words”.
*Answers.com for the word may: used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
In the end he wrote:
“Such paraphrases* may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself (that is: Human action is purposeful behaviour) is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.”
*Babylon online dictionary for the word paraphrase: use different words; present something in a different manner
I think that Mises both asserted it and proved it. What I mean by “proved it” is that we as humans can understands the meaning of “that human action is purposeful behaviour” and that we also can understand, because of the reason that we are humans, that we function in this manner.
Published: September 26, 2007 3:45 PM
In addition to Mises, Greg ought to read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit." Hayek directs his argument against socialists, but much of what his writes applies equally well to some non-socialists. Hayek distinguishes between real reasoning and pseudo reasoning: real reasoning humbles itself before the accumulated wisdom of humanity, what Hayek calls tradition, even though it can't prove those things to be true emperically or through pure reason. Real reason is willing to give tradition the benefit of the doubt, knowing that one person can understand everything. True reasoning places the burden of proof on the attacker of tradition, not on tradition.
Pseudo reasoning accepts nothing as true unless the individual doing the reasoning can understand it, prove it, and predict the consequences of it. Everything begins and ends with that individual's ability to grasp it. Hayek traces pseudo reasoning to the French enlightenment, Rousseau in particular.
If Hayek is correct about true and false reasoning, then the burden of proof lies with the determinists, not with the free will thinkers.
Published: September 26, 2007 6:33 PM
PE> Do you really think the reason you don't believe in free will is due to your reasoning skills and a lack of evidence?
Yes, thinking is reasoning, by definition. Lack of evidence is a reason to be unconvinced and to unbelieve.
PE> And if you were to happen to change your mind on the subject, one day, it will again, naturally be because it was necessary, again as explained by determinism?
{Laughs} Sure. Nature could have endowed me with a sometime-to-come brain tumor wherein I would lose my current razor sharp brain. Just because I don't know about the congenital defect doesn't mean it couldn't be true. It is sorta like free will itself, except the case for free will can't be examined under a microscope like a tumor can. ooops!
PE> Why do you pretend that it is reason and evidence on which you decide these things when you know very well that for whatever the reason, logical or illogical, with good evidence or none, whatever you believe was set from the beginning of the universe, and that you have really no genuine choice in the matter?
Reason can't be illogical, by definition. What you say makes no sense. And now you are calling "not believing" its opposite ("believing"). It is the same for the religious battles: the religious say atheists "believe in no god." Somehow a null turns into an assertion. What a crock.
[Mises] that human action is purposeful behaviour That language is born of not really knowing the future, but having a nature given ability to attempt to sketch it. It is as if you folks think a god created humans with free will, and then thought, oh by the way, to implement free will this creature will need reason. Ironically, if reasoning power became great enough, the future could be more accurately predicted, and (yikes!) determined by the reasoning creatures. "Free will" would be ironically extinguished by powerful reasoning. uh oh. Mises didn't prove free will there. I don't have a general problem with his shorthand.
Fund.> In addition to Mises, Greg ought to read Hayek's "Fatal Conceit."
Buzz off. I have read it, several times.
Fund.> Hayek distinguishes between real reasoning and pseudo reasoning: real reasoning humbles itself before the accumulated wisdom of humanity,...
Yeah, and he's talking about interpersonal -- meaning social -- rules of conduct. Here we are talking about the beliefs and non-beliefs of individuals. No one is proposing a reordering if society -- the thing Hayek is saying to be humble about. Do you think Hayek is saying a housewife needs to be "humble" in attempting to discover a quicker way to wash the dishes? She would be, after all, violating the established tradition of her lineage of dish washing housewives. "Free will" is more personal than washing dishes.
Fund.> Real reason is willing to give tradition the benefit of the doubt, knowing that one person can [sic, can't] understand everything.
Blah Blah Blah. Okay, let's assume in your assertion of free will for this paragraph. If one doesn't know any better, and is uncertain how to proceed, following the rules of conduct established by accumulated wisdom is a reasonable avenue, given the constraints. You confound a "safe bet," which is (conservatively) reasonable in the sense of playing the odds established by apparent similarities (pattern cognition), with specific reasoning about which there are few or no guideposts. But so what? We've already agreed that it won't make a whit of functional difference, since we have no choice but to act as if we have a choice. But just following established rules is about as low a form of "free will" as one can find in humans, so it is ironic you should choose this as a good example. It requires the least amount of free will possible to simply do as others have already done. Strange.
Fund.> If Hayek is correct about true and false reasoning, then the burden of proof lies with the determinists, not with the free will thinkers.
Oh great, another hack version of Hayek. Maybe "Hackek." You are making the assertion that something exists. The burden is your's. A null is not an assertion, it is a void. My advice is don't waste your time; it can't be done and it makes not a whit of functional difference. I'm not going to waste any more of mine.
Published: September 26, 2007 10:11 PM
Greg,
“PE> Do you really think the reason you don't believe in free will is due to your reasoning skills and a lack of evidence?
“Yes, thinking is reasoning, by definition. Lack of evidence is a reason to be unconvinced and to unbelieve.”
Ok.
“PE> And if you were to happen to change your mind on the subject, one day, it will again, naturally be because it was necessary, again as explained by determinism?
“{Laughs} Sure. Nature could have endowed me with a sometime-to-come brain tumor wherein I would lose my current razor sharp brain.”
But perhaps it is not a tumor you have, but something else equally detrimental that leads you to currently perceive yourself in this way. How can you know that you are not simply determined to take a certain view, and how can you know that this view you take must be accurate if you are not even capable of genuinely choosing it? Surely you are not exempt from the laws of physics as laid out in determinism that we know must determine the views of others.
“Just because I don't know about the congenital defect doesn't mean it couldn't be true.”
Naturally. But it is not about congenital defects; it is about the laws of physics, and the chain of events that began at the start of the universe and culminated (partially) in you and the views you hold today. Surely you can see that it is not a genuine choice you make whether you will reason and observe reality accurately or not, and that nor can it be due to a genuine choice you will make to recognize this or not. You cannot choose yourself (via reason or anything else) out of believing about determinism whatever it is you are destined to believe about determinism; notwithstanding your perhaps false perceptions of your good health and good reasoning capabilities.
“It is sorta like free will itself, except the case for free will can't be examined under a microscope like a tumor can. ooops!”
I’m not sure if you are missing my point or not. You seem to be suggesting that that your current conclusion regarding determinism is due to your ability, tendency and choice to apply reason to the evidence you chose to accurately observe and genuinely, consciously come to the conclusions you come to. That it, that it is within your powers, your will and you ability to genuinely choose, to put reason over other more psychological considerations as you decide to arrive to your conclusions. You seem to imply that your reasoning and insight into life transcends the conclusions that determinism may otherwise have imposed on you. And yet, by advancing determinism as valid, you cling to the argument that there is no such thing as doing just that. Maybe it is me who is subject to determinism, and that my viewing your position as a contradiction is due to determinism, but that your position is both determined and reasoned, because you choose to use reason and I something else.
“PE> Why do you pretend that it is reason and evidence on which you decide these things when you know very well that for whatever the reason, logical or illogical, with good evidence or none, whatever you believe was set from the beginning of the universe, and that you have really no genuine choice in the matter?
“Reason can't be illogical, by definition. What you say makes no sense. And now you are calling "not believing" its opposite ("believing"). It is the same for the religious battles: the religious say atheists "believe in no god." Somehow a null turns into an assertion. What a crock.”
Now I know you’re not following me. I agree with you that reason can’t be illogical. But then, I am not seriously accusing you of being logical. I am asking you if you think you have a choice in the matter of the conclusions you draw about anything at all. Whether you think you genuinely choose to apply reason and relevant facts towards the pursuit of accurate conclusions, or do you suppose that it is not your choice to do so, but rather it was determined eons ago that you would. If so, then you might recognize that by the same token, if your reasoning or facts were a bit off - or a way off - and therefore your conclusions a bit or a way off, it is purely a result of the physics of the universe that occurred eons ago as well. Is it not that all of your mistakes and blind spots are not at all truly subject to your decision to rectify them, but rather if you do or not, it is purely a chance occurrence determined far in the past, at the beginning of the universe, in fact.
By asking these questions, I hope to perhaps reveal what I see as something in the camp of the determinists that closely approximates a logical contradiction, and therefore, how I come to be highly skeptical of the proposition implied in determinism: there is no genuine free will.
Published: September 27, 2007 6:07 PM
PE> How can you know that you are not simply determined to take a certain view, and how can you know that this view you take must be accurate if you are not even capable of genuinely choosing it?
In that case, there is no free will. And that is okay with me.
PE> [I]t is not about congenital defects; it is about the laws of physics,...
A congenital defect obeys the laws of physics.
PE> Surely you can see that it is not a genuine choice you make whether you will reason and observe reality accurately or not, and that nor can it be due to a genuine choice you will make to recognize this or not. You cannot choose yourself (via reason or anything else) out of believing about determinism whatever it is you are destined to believe about determinism; notwithstanding your perhaps false perceptions of your good health and good reasoning capabilities.
Same deal. In that case, there is no free will.
PE> You seem to be suggesting that that your current conclusion regarding determinism is due to your ability, tendency and choice to apply reason to the evidence you chose to accurately observe and genuinely, consciously come to the conclusions you come to.
You keep changing the argument. I don't have any conclusion regarding "determinism." I wonder if I've read 1 hour's total worth of material written by determinists or anti-determinists in my entire life. My comments were with regard to the statement that "free will is a fact." But what conclusions I do reach on any topic are related to my abilities and the constraints I face. Um, of course.
PE> [T]hat it is within your powers, your will and you[r] ability to genuinely choose, to put reason over other more psychological considerations as you decide to arrive to your conclusions.
I find your lingo in that sentence annoying and poor; I no choice but to reason that my response is emotional.
PE> You seem to imply that your reasoning and insight into life transcends the conclusions that determinism may otherwise have imposed on you.
Nonsense.
PE> And yet, by advancing determinism as valid,...
I advanced no such thing. I said there was no evidence of free will, but that more or less we would have to just go on behaving as if there was, since we ironically have no choice in the matter of choice.
PE> ...you cling to the argument that there is no such thing as doing just that.
Nothing I did speaks as you say it does.
PE> Maybe it is me who is subject to determinism, and that my viewing your position as a contradiction is due to determinism, but that your position is both determined and reasoned, because you choose to use reason and I something else.
Maybe it is both of us. So what. I'll say I don't agree with your line of thought -- your reasoning.
PE> I am asking you if you think you have a choice in the matter of the conclusions you draw about anything at all.
If it turns out I have no choice -- that is, I didn't choose the logic -- then it is happening inside my brain because that is how I am built. That does not negate the logic itself. You are conflating choice with the logic of a proposition. A computer can give a correct answer and have no choice in the matter.
PE> Whether you think you genuinely choose to apply reason and relevant facts towards the pursuit of accurate conclusions, or do you suppose that it is not your choice to do so, but rather it was determined eons ago that you would. If so, then you might recognize that by the same token, if your reasoning or facts were a bit off - or a way off - and therefore your conclusions a bit or a way off, it is purely a result of the physics of the universe that occurred eons ago as well.
If true, then I have nothing to worry about in that regard. Of course, I don't worry about it.
PE> Is it not that all of your mistakes and blind spots are not at all truly subject to your decision to rectify them, but rather if you do or not, it is purely a chance occurrence determined far in the past, at the beginning of the universe, in fact.
Sheesh. If it was determined far in the past, why would that be chance itself? Why "choose" to pin "the undetermined" -- since you seem to apply chance occurance to the determinate (illogical) -- to some arbitrary time in the past? Anyway, same as before -- I'll lose no sleep about it.
PE> By asking these questions, I hope to perhaps reveal what I see as something in the camp of the determinists that closely approximates a logical contradiction, and therefore, how I come to be highly skeptical of the proposition implied in determinism: there is no genuine free will.
What "camp of determinists?" You want to call people who don't just assume in free will as "believers in determinism." Okay, you go right ahead and say that. "Determinate" is the implication of the null, not a camp of determinists promoting this or that, or especially "believing." It is a null, a void. Yes, the implication is on the razor's edge. Free will is nowhere in sight.
This is sort of like an argument I heard from a believer in the afterlife.
Believer: you are somewhere right now, correct?
Me: Correct.
Believer: if you walk from here, then you will be somewhere else, right?
Me: Yes.
Believer: So in general, that means if you aren't here, you're somewhere else, right?
Me: Well I suppose that seems reasonable.
Believer: Then if you die, and you aren't here anymore, then likewise you must be somewhere else, right?
Me: Hmmm. What about nothingness?
Believer: Impossible. Voids can't/don't exist.
Me: That's amusing, since nonexistance is the definition of a void, and vice versa. I suppose it is to much to ask anyone to conceive the inconceivable.
Published: September 27, 2007 10:57 PM
Now add a third observer who is traveling in the same direction as the train relative to the person on the platform, but twice as fast.
Presumably by "twice as fast" you mean that the train is moving at the same speed in the opposite direction relative to the third observer as the first (on the platform). E.g., if the train is moving at 0.5c relative to the platform, this guy is moving at 0.8c relative to the platform, which isn't actually "twice" as fast.
To him the photon will hit the front detector first, and so he and the person on the platform will disagree about the order.
Sure, but they're measuring different things. If the guy on the platform marks the points on the platform where he sees the detectors triggering, and puts clocks there, this third observer will see the clock at the "front detector" position leading the other one, though the guy on the platform thinks they're synchonized; thus the "first" event occurs at a later time than the "second" event - they'll obviously agree on what time each detector triggers according to those, or any pair of (momentarily-colocated) clocks, in any reference frame.
Published: September 28, 2007 7:54 AM
Greg: "Oh great, another hack version of Hayek."
You say you've read "Fatal Conceit" twice, but you obviously didn't understand what Hayek was trying to say about pseudo reasoning in the chapter on Rousseau and others. Your attack on free will is very similar to the socialist attacks on property and free markets that Hayek describes.
Published: September 28, 2007 8:02 AM
Greg: "...he's talking about interpersonal -- meaning social -- rules of conduct."
That's the theme of the whole book, but he has a chapter devoted to pseudo reasoning that discusses the false reasoning used by socialists. Try it again.
Published: September 28, 2007 8:09 AM
Determinism is NOT a void. It is a positive assertion that every action we take is causally determined.
Published: September 28, 2007 9:11 AM
Anthony> Determinism is NOT a void. It is a positive assertion that every action we take is causally determined.
I take it then that you know more about what "determinists" say than I. And that could hardly be surprising, since I don't know who they are or what they say. However, I don't think I said "determinism is a void," and even if I did I would have to claim now it was an error of language. I believe I said something more like free will is an assertion that does not have to be assumed in without evidence. That is the void: the absence of an assertion.
I do wonder why folks get so hot and bothered by the idea they aren't in the control they feel they are. It matters not a whit, in the end. You guys should read Hayek's Fatal Conceit. He warns about that, you know. He talks about the evolution of human society and how a human's adherence to those societal rules of conduct lie between instinct and reason. That's sort of like animals running their program, which was "written" by evolution and punctuated equilibria. Awwww... too bad. That idea annoys the hell out of objectivists, and the objectivists have as good an understanding of Hayek as Fundy.
Published: September 28, 2007 9:57 AM
Greg, fair enough. My point was simply that both sides in the debate need to prove their position. Neither enjoys an advantage IMO.
Published: September 28, 2007 10:04 AM
That's fine. But I will make one assertion: for those taking sides, neither side will acceptably prove it to the other. The good news is that it doesn't seem to matter.
Published: September 28, 2007 10:15 AM
I'll agree on that. The entire debate on free will is inconsequential both to Austrian economics and the present article. As Mises wrote, all that matters to the agent is that he/she must choose from his/her perspective.
Published: September 28, 2007 11:01 AM
Greg.
I see our, or rather my, disconnect. I have been assuming that you have an interest and opinion regarding the likelihood of the validity of free will, and that it is grounded to some extent on the philosophy of determinism. I have been grossly mistaken. All you are saying is that you are entirely agnostic on the topic of free will and also determinism. You have no reason to argue for or against either of them, other than to say that neither is of much interest to you, let alone demonstrated as likely true, never mind proven true. Fair enough. I think I am responsible for spinning this discussion way out of control. Ooops. Sorry.
Published: September 28, 2007 4:39 PM
greg: "The good news is that it doesn't seem to matter."
I think it does matter, not as much as some things, like the socialist/capitalist debates. Judges are letting criminals go free because they believe that society is responsible for the person becoming a criminal. Those judges are acting on a philosophy of determinism. Determinism destroys society by destroying morality and reason among those who try to live consistently with their beliefs. Fortunately, most determinists say they believe in determinism and act as if they believe the opposite. But I would think that such hypocracy would breed cynicism and further dishonesty among the children who see such in their parents.
The whole socialist argument that capitalism causes people to be more materialistic is based on a type of determinism that says society shapes the character of its people.
Muslim societies are fatalistic to a large degree because of their theology of determinism. And of the ten poorest countries in the world, nine are Muslim. There are many reasons for their poverty, but I believe their fatalism causes them to not plan and not take personal responsibility for their actions. As a result, they fail to grasp cause and effect relations.
Published: September 28, 2007 11:46 PM
As for Hayek's views on free will (or the lack thereof), I'll simply point everyone to Gary T. Dempsey's interesting paper on the subject: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/hayekee.html
To boil down Hayek's position, it seems to be rather Nietzschean: i.e., we are determined, but we have no choice but to behave as if we have free will because we can never know what we are determined to do. Or, to borrow from Godel's incompleteness theorem, you cannot know your own mind "because the 'set' that we call the mind cannot contain itself," as Dempsey writes.
Published: September 29, 2007 12:56 AM
Fundamentalist, you bring up a good point. Free will or lack thereof is fundamental to questions of punishment and dessert. Many determinists are willing I have noticed to do away with dessert, but some recoil at the idea of doing away with punishment. Utilitarian determinists like JCC Smart have ways of getting around this, but they're also problematic (e.g. why not punish someone innocent if it deters crime?)
Published: September 29, 2007 7:11 AM
Frank, Thanks for the link to the article about Hayek. It's very interesting. However, I have some problems with definitions and conclusions that Dempsey makes.
First, Dempsey defines free will: ..."defined as a will that is not the exclusive and necessary result of the interaction of physical material."
I don't know if this is his own definition or if that is a commonly used one for free will, but it seems strange to me. Does anyone else use that definition? If that is the definition that Greg had in mind, then I apologize; I admit that free will doesn't exist and we are determined. But most people mean the ability to choose between alternative courses of action when they refer to free will. So if we accept Dempsey's definition, we'll have to invent other words for our concepts of free will and determinism if we're to make sense to each other and communicate clearly. However, since the debate over free will has existed long before modern science and the definitions of "free will" and "determinism" were established centuries ago, I suggest that Dempsey find a different word for his concept.
Second, he writes "But if this account is correct, why should we do anything purposeful at all? Doesn't Hayek's materialism destroy the idea of goal-directed action?" Now purposeful and goal-directed action are included in the traditional definition of free will. So Dempsey is asking "doesn't my definition of free will eliminate free will?" Of course it does; he has defined away the traditional definition of free will.
What Dempsey should ask is "does the fact that our brains are purely material (no soul or spirit) contradict the traditional concept of free will?" Hayek's answer is no: "The chief fact would continue to be, in spite of our knowledge of the principle on which the human mind works, that we should not be able to state the full set of particular facts which brought it about that the individual did a particular thing at a particular time..."
In other words, the brain is too complex for us to understand how it works in its totality. We can know some things that are true about the brain, such as that it's made up of neurons and connectors and works with chemical/electrical impulses. But that doesn't explain the way the brain works. The brain is probably the least explored territory in modern science.
Hayek seems to say that the material part of the brain is like the paper upon which experience, reason, and other influences, many of them contradictory, are stored. But the complex structure of the brain also enables rapid retrieval, analysis and choice of alternatives which make purposeful action and planning possible.
Dempsey concludes that "In other words, Hayek does not assert that our will is free, but that we are incapable of knowing how to behave like our will is unfree." I don't agree at all that that is what Hayek asserts. I don't see how Dempsey extracts that conclusion from what Hayek writes. In fact, Demspey appears to be guilty of using two different definitions of "free will". This latter instance is the traditional definition, which he defined away above. He really needs choose one definition and stick with it.
Let's use the traditional definition of free will, that humans can make real, meaningful choices between alternate courses of action, which makes purposeful, goal-directed action possible. Though Dempsey doesn't state it explicitly, his argument is against the idea of the existence of a soul or spirit that directs the operation of the brain. Now that may be a popular concept of free will, but it's not a necessary one. In fact, the religious groups who deny free will all believe in the existence of a soul, Calvinists and Muslims especially. So you can have determinism (using the traditional definition of a lack of choice) and a soul at the same time. My point is that having a soul is not essential to having free will because the determinist theologies include a soul, too.
No is having a soul essential to a free will in Christianity. The emphasis on the "soul" that we find in modern Christianity isn't Biblical, nor was it a part of early Christianity. It leaked into Christian theology from Greek philosophy, which dominated theology until the Reformation. The New Testament does mention the existence of a bodiless soul in heaven, but it plays a minor role in NT theology. Believers don't spend enternity in heaven in a bodiless state (much less setting on clouds). The primary emphasis in the NT is on the body. Jesus's resurrection was of his physical body. The hope of Christians is the bodily resurrection. Of course, those resurrected bodies will be eternal and without defect, but they will be our recognizable, physical bodies and we will spend enternity on a physical planet, the new earth.
I would not attempt to argue for the existence of a soul, mind or spirit behind the brain. I accept them only because the NT mentions them, but they're not essential to Christianity or the Christian doctrine of a free will. Biblical Christianity would suffer very little loss if we did away with those concepts entirely.
In the same way, I don't see how the fact that the brain is matter has anything to do with free will. The complexity of the brain, and the fact that it constantly takes in new information, much of which contradicts stored information, can sift through vast amounts of information and present a multitutde of alternative courses of action, then choose one of those alternatives, gives it, and us, free will in the traditional sense. Our brains can even invent alternatives that can't possibly exist in reality, such as socialism. In other words, the brain isn't limited to experience, but is creative. That's one of the ways in which we are like God.
Published: September 29, 2007 9:48 AM
"Our brains can even invent alternatives that can't possibly exist in reality, such as socialism."
Too true. :D I don't know about others, but I found the way you phrased that very funny.
Published: September 29, 2007 7:21 PM
Fundamentalist,
“First, Dempsey defines free will: ..."defined as a will that is not the exclusive and necessary result of the interaction of physical material."
“I don't know if this is his own definition or if that is a commonly used one for free will, but it seems strange to me. Does anyone else use that definition? If that is the definition that Greg had in mind, then I apologize; I admit that free will doesn't exist and we are determined.”
I think you will find that determinism asserts exactly this. So your view of free will appears to be that of the “soft” determinists. In other words, as you put it, “free will doesn’t exist and we are determined”. The way the soft determinists would say it is There is delusional free will, but no genuine free will as we sometimes act as, or pretend there is.
“…In the same way, I don't see how the fact that the brain is matter has anything to do with free will.”
The argument is as you have already read above and understood: a will that is the exclusive and necessary result of the interaction of physical material is not a genuine free will at all. Right? How can it possibly be otherwise? And if the proposition is correct then it stands to reason: one physical event is a result of a previous physical event, the laws of physics and the laws of cause and effect. Essentially this boils down to the necessary reality that our every thought, value, circumstance and choice are all absolutely determined from the start of the physical universe. Therefore, any free will we imagine we have, is in fact and of necessity merely a delusion, and not genuine at all. We are in every manner, just like the rock that rolls down the hill; determined strictly by the laws of physics. Ultimately, what most significantly distinguishes us from the rocks and other inert material in the universe is that we are apparently the only delusional entities. Do you see how the hard determinists come to this conclusion? Does it not indeed seem to be an insurmountable conclusion to you? And if not, how so?
Published: September 30, 2007 2:04 AM