Existentialism...

Sh3ld0n wrote:Existentialism...!

Free will is an illusion created by a lack of the necessary information required to always make the best possible choice.

In short, we're free by dint of ignorance.

Grossenschwamm wrote:Free will is an illusion created by a lack of the necessary information required to always make the best possible choice.

But then, even in theory, who gets to define the criteria for what's best?

1) Yourself, which essentially means that you do posses free will — paradoxical.
2) Nobody, which essentially means that there is no definite best — paradoxical.
3) A deity, who defines what's best but doesn't allow anybody to seek it — meaningless.
4)

if one is aware of having a choice, however limited, then one is also aware of being able to exercise that choice, ergo free will does exist. best choice really has little to do with it. we are free to choose the best or the worst or indeed whatever we want. for example, one could be perverse and choose not to choose the choice that one would make. but one is still choosing and in so choosing, exercising the free will associated with that choice.

anagram wrote:

Grossenschwamm wrote:Free will is an illusion created by a lack of the necessary information required to always make the best possible choice.

But then, even in theory, who gets to define the criteria for what's best?

1) Yourself, which essentially means that you do posses free will — paradoxical.
2) Nobody, which essentially means that there is no definite best — paradoxical.
3) A deity, who defines what's best but doesn't allow anybody to seek it — meaningless.
4)

There's no need to bring in deities or even yourself to define what's best! And even with nobody telling you, there's still an optimal outcome. In any given situation, there's always the best choice to make, and essentially one "correct" path in that it leads to the least negative consequences. I would suppose "best" is subjective according to the nature of what society or which person is defining it, but still.

shock_the_monkey wrote:if one is aware of having a choice, however limited, then one is also aware of being able to exercise that choice, ergo free will does exist. best choice really has little to do with it. we are free to choose the best or the worst or indeed whatever we want. for example, one could be perverse and choose not to choose the choice that one would make. but one is still choosing and in so choosing, exercising the free will associated with that choice.

Well, think of it this way - one is limited in choices by their own base of knowledge and experience, and therefore they're not free to make all possible choices according to their own will. Whether choosing what you want, or the lesser of two evils, you aren't aware of all of your choices, so there's a bit missing from what might normally be considered "freedom."

Even so, I guess in the scope of human capability, what freedom we have is as good as it gets, right?

Grossenschwamm wrote:I would suppose "best" is subjective according to the nature of what society or which person is defining it, but still.

A fluid definition with no specific reference is virtually the same as no definition. If it can't be defined, then it can't be absolute without metaphysical assumptions. A superlative that can't be absolute is — you guessed it — a paradox.

Grossenschwamm wrote:
Well, think of it this way - one is limited in choices by their own base of knowledge and experience, and therefore they're not free to make all possible choices according to their own will. Whether choosing what you want, or the lesser of two evils, you aren't aware of all of your choices, so there's a bit missing from what might normally be considered "freedom."

Even so, I guess in the scope of human capability, what freedom we have is as good as it gets, right?

Well said...

BTW, the problem that many people have is that they don't sit down and do the preliminarys...
They go off half cocked without defining what context is being used...
And often erroneously assume everyone is on the same page in regards to the terminology used...
God gave us qualifiers for a reason...

"what freedom we have is as good as it gets"...
Precisely...
And the mainstream implied context of there being an absolute perfect freedom of choice is nonsense which many don't seem to consider/realise...

-- Thu May 30, 2013 2:27 pm --

anagram wrote:A fluid definition with no specific reference is virtually the same as no definition. If it can't be defined, then it can't be absolute without metaphysical assumptions. A superlative that can't be absolute is — you guessed it — a paradox.

Could you clarify what you mean by "fluid definition"?
Could you give an example?

Sh3ld0n wrote:Could you clarify what you mean by "fluid definition"?

An ostensibly absolute definition that is essentially dependent on probabilistic factors.

Could you give an example?

Well... Grossenschwamm's implied definition of "best choice" was one. Using magma as a basic reference for altitude measurements would be another (more literal) one.

Ultimately, though, more than just depending on a fluid definition, I think Grossenschwamm's argument is an example of circular logic. "The best choice is the correct one, which leads to the least negative consequences." That's the same as just saying that "the best choice is the best choice". My question here is: "best for whom?" Also: "what exactly does negative mean?" (It may not be readily apparent, but these two questions are closely related.)

anagram wrote:A fluid definition with no specific reference is virtually the same as no definition. If it can't be defined, then it can't be absolute without metaphysical assumptions. A superlative that can't be absolute is — you guessed it — a paradox.

I flubbed a bit. There's a "true" best, and then there's best by whomever uses it.

Your point still holds, however. As an aside, that's a problem I have with science - questions are answered with the best we have so far, which isn't representative of a scientific failing so much as a human one.

The way I see it, however;

Living in a universe that's apparently made of random chance, we find ourselves sitting on a planet that's in quite a nice spot for life such as us to evolve and flourish. Now, eliminating the human element, I'll consider that there were no choices made leading to the formation of the sun, the earth in the sun's accretion disk, the collision of a roughly mars sized body into earth in the creation of the moon, and the collision of however many water carrying meteorites and asteroids hit the earth until it had a decent sized ocean.

However, when life began - when the search for food, a mate, and shelter truly began, were choices made? I can't imagine how those choices, if they were made, were considered as I don't have a perspective on what the first organism with male and female genitalia though. It might've been something instinctual and comparable to the idea of "survival" or "death."

As humans, we tend to add complexity to nearly everything, but as the latest step in our personal family line, wouldn't the choices essentially be the same?

Nebulous as they are, those two simple ideas - they encompass a great deal. And what are humans doing now, after billions of years of evolution? It looks like we're choosing to survive, but our actions might end up squandering vital resources and killing us - meaning we may have chosen wrong...so long as our ancestors, and our ancestor's ancestors were right. Or were they wrong to reproduce and adapt to change, resulting in us? Philosophy is frustrating.

I wasn't trying to argue circularly, but I guess it looked that way in my last post. I wasn't even trying to define "best," because I don't think it's possible to do so in the sense I implied it.

We can't decide the best choice because we don't know everything. Knowing everything is the key to having all options laid out - and the ideal choice readily available. "Best" probably isn't something people want to consider, because it might not turn out well for them.

A "needs of the many vs. needs of the few" predicament might be appropriate here.

Grossenschwamm wrote:I flubbed a bit. There's a "true" best, and then there's best by whomever uses it.

Well, who defines the "true best" then, if not a deity? To me, anyone/anything that gets to define such a thing is, by definition, essentially the same as a deity, even if it's not referred to (or culturally regarded) as such. Strict Theory of Everything = God.

Philosophy is frustrating.

Bingo!

If you're strict about it (which I just can't help), then it doesn't lead you anywhere useful.

-----------

Correction: It doesn't get you anywhere useful. But it may very well lead you there. Also, I don't think the same rules apply to Eastern philosophy in general, as it doesn't aspire to employ logic — quite the opposite, in fact.

anagram wrote:Well, who defines the "true best" then, if not a deity? To me, anyone/anything that gets to define such a thing is, by definition, essentially the same as a deity, even if it's not referred to (or culturally regarded) as such. Strict Theory of Everything = God.

Well, just because we humans are stupid and fallible, doesn't mean we have to create a God of the Gaps.

Bingo!

If you're strict about it (which I just can't help), then it doesn't lead you anywhere useful.

True enough.