I think the idea of "free will" was raised as more of a reaction to the notion of "determinism," which I think is also a mystical notion, along with "objective" and "reality," unless they are defined in a practical way. Practical ways would be "objective: other people agree with me" and "reality: sensations that matter to me over the long term." (But they are almost never defined this way in philosophy.)
I don't know about this (and I mean I don't know if I understand this paragraph) let me further illustrate:
I would say so much as there is communication between two or more people there has to be a use of "rules" that we go by. These "rules" are not mystic principles that govern over us - rther they are the neccessary consequencces of intersubjective dialogue (currency itself may be seen as an example of this) - if the words exist they must be good enough. Problems just arise when people look at these "rules" or words as "things in themselves" and not a consequence of action. The fact that something happened is what makes it necessary, it is not a fact that something will necessarily happen.
In the way I understand Mises: Whatever words he used were just the most convienent at the time. In a way we could call what he described "socialism" (he is after all using the assumtion that all relevant people are social), or whatever - it doesn't matter. What he is pointing out is there are atomic facts that "push" - if "community", "nation", "good" or whatever was real in the sense of a manifest force and not a "word in itself" it would be no more or less of an atomic fact as "I". It would be an equal propisition - and would act, consume, and will on it's own and for it's own as it's own force just like ever other atomic fact.
To worry about him being an "individualist", "capitalist", or whatever is missing the mark - these words are means to an end not things in themselves. Nobody worries when we say an "Oxygen atom wants to fill it's outer ring" - or when a biologist refers to "greedy reductionism".
So in terms of something like free will vs determinism: either/or could be right in so much as they are being used correctly and according to the "rules" or what is being talked about - same as a hammer and a saw. In terms as "idealistic" or "mystic" things as themselves, or governing metaphysical principles they are nonsense. Likewise a hammer is a hammer "for our purpose" there is no idealistic "great hammer" out there.
On an amusing note we can even turn idealistic language on it's head via dielectic to serve a purpose for making sense of things.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
All "notions" are then mystical. They are all based on faith in the validity of one's perception.
Jackson LaRose: All "notions" are then mystical. They are all based on faith in the validity of one's perception.
Agreed, vive. That's pretty much what I was getting at. There's no reason for people get angsty about whether they have free will.
Why anarchy fails
But what we can say is, simply, that some words are more useful than others. Especially, some are more clear and less ambiguous than others. When I call a term mystical, I'm calling it a certain type of ambiguous.
I don't see the point of it being debate. There's going to be a point in your life when you die, whether there's free will or not, and you can't change that. You can change and vary all the things leading up to that point, but once you're dead you're dead, and you're not free to do anything after that.
I disagree. One is free to choose Heaven or Hell after death... live like Jesus would have lived.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Well, I'm a Heathen, so I could care less what life Jesus lived. There's no life after death, so I put no concern on an after life, just life now.
you're dead you're dead, and you're not free to do anything after that.
Yes.
Well, first, it's probably better not to concern one's self with things they can't change anyway. When I die this life no longer exists, so I better concern my self with one that I know is objectively real than one that there's no consensus with. Second, what sources do you have from the dead? You a necromancer or something?
Neither of us could confirm or deny, it's just a different world view. Mine shifts to a "world affirming" or accepting one from a world denying one, whether you live now and what you do now affects you now, not later, or one where you work for a life after this one.
I see your second point as a false dichotomy. And I think it is silly to be dogmatic about something you admit you do not have evidence for or against.
I don't reject UPG, but it's nothing to base a foundation on, only for that individual.
I'm not being dogmatic at all, I'm basing it on what I know and can prove as far as I can go. I have no knowledge of an after life, so why alter how I live my earthly life now for some unknown chance at reaching some form of utopia and euphoria when I die? Instead of dwelling and preparing to meet some maker or god at my death I'll live what's best for me now, and I'll suffer the consequences on this earth in this life for any decisions that have negative impacts, not later. Again, it's just a different world view.
I could take it further on the existence of gods/goddesses and other spirits and so on. Do spiritual beings exist? Maybe, but do people appease said things for luck in life now, or after death? It just depends on where you lay importance, life now, or an unknown life later.
I'm not being dogmatic at all, I'm basing it on what I know and can prove as far as I can go.
I have no knowledge of an after life, so why alter how I live my earthly life now for some unknown chance at reaching some form of utopia and euphoria when I die?
How am I moving the goalposts? Controlling dreams equates to having your entire perceptual history at your fingertips. It's as close to a God as I could currently get.
You are talking about little more than using your imagination. That is completely removed from the shared reality of events in the real world.
Unless you also buy into the whole "astral projection" nonsense, lucid dreaming won't reveal anything that isn't already in your mind.
lucid dreaming won't reveal anything that isn't already in your mind.
That's true, having an understanding of praxeology will not create information or cause anything to manifest in the real world.
The point was that mentally interacting with only your own thoughts (i.e, lucid dreaming) is not unrestricted action at all - real events occuring in the external world are not experienced or affected by it.
No, it is the product of experience. If my foot falls asleep and I feel it tingling, I don't believe it is the result of invisible bugs crawling on me.
Likewise, when I wake after dreaming I know what I had experienced was a dream.
Generally speaking, not being able to distinguish between sensory data corresponding to external stimuli and sensory data resulting from organic disturbances is considered psychosis.
It does play into a religious belief, so I won't deny that.
Well, let's say I can't prove there is an afterlife, and I choose to live in accordance with some ways that puts focus on the life now, not later, is it much different? It's whether or not I believe or assume I reach a higher spiritual plane not of this world after death, and how I live now affects that. Thing is, if you didn't ask someone, and only observed, you may not find that much in difference of actions til death. Do I have much reason to say there is reason, or it does not exist at all, on the subject of an afterlife? I rather just put focus on life now.
Hell, if I wanted to bring praxeology into it I could say it's observing whether it's the right means to achieve the end goal, not that the end goal is good or bad.
Josh,
I do not believe that intersubjective consensus is necessarily a representation of objective reality. See Gettier Problem.
Why is it nonsense? See Rick Strassman.
"`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked. `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.' `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice. `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.' Alice didn't think that proved it at all; however, she went on `And how do you know that you're mad?' `To begin with,' said the Cat, `a dog's not mad. You grant that?' `I suppose so,' said Alice. `Well, then,' the Cat went on, `you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad.'" - Alice in Wonderland
Sorry I took so long to respond to this.
Malachi:Yes, however we do not observe electrons, strictly speaking. That is my point.
What would you say we do observe, strictly speaking?
Malachi:And we do observe morality, remember before you "learned" that morality is "subjective" (or whatever your preferred term, not trying to quibble) how people "should" do this and "shouldn't" do that? You observed an inherent sense of right and wrong.
No I didn't. Some sense of morality may inhere within me, in terms of instinctively judging some things to be right/good and others to be wrong/bad. But that's not the same as morality inhering in things external to me.
Malachi:The fact that your understanding of what behaviors are fitting for a human to engage in, and which are not, has evolved does not mean the whole idea is wrong.
What do you mean by "wrong" here?
Malachi:In fact, we can observe that nearly everyone has a sense of right and wrong, although their opinions on what acts are right and wrong are widely divergent. In fact, it is kind of like property rights, where everyone knows they exist, but some people choose to forget. In an agnostic sense, morals are what you teach your children. They arent laws you enforce on your neighbor.
Property rights don't exist in the same sense as electrons exist. Same thing with morality. They're simply patterns in the brain. However, that doesn't mean one cannot or must not derive any meaning from them. Does that make sense?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jackson LaRose:Autolykos, How am I moving the goalposts? Controlling dreams equates to having your entire perceptual history at your fingertips. It's as close to a God as I could currently get. Well, your definition of "free will" certainly seemed to be contingent on external reality. Is that in fact not the case? Regardless, lucid dreaming does not operate on external reality - it's entirely within the mind. Controlling dreams has no effect on the outside world. Jackson LaRose:Why did I start this thread... no reason, really. Really now? I call BS on that. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 20
Well, your definition of "free will" certainly seemed to be contingent on external reality. Is that in fact not the case? Regardless, lucid dreaming does not operate on external reality - it's entirely within the mind. Controlling dreams has no effect on the outside world.
Jackson LaRose:Why did I start this thread... no reason, really.
Really now? I call BS on that.
No, I was stating that we are limited in our potential actions, making completely free will unattainable. Now whether of not those limitations are "real", or "external" is not my call.
"I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." - Jesus
Autolykos:Really now? I call BS on that.
Call all you want. While you're at it, could you whip up a proof for the following claim?
"This statement is false."
Property rights don't exist in the same sense as electrons exist.
Same thing with morality. They're simply patterns in the brain. However, that doesn't mean one cannot or must not derive any meaning from them. Does that make sense?
Jackson LaRose: I do not believe that intersubjective consensus is necessarily a representation of objective reality.
I do not believe that intersubjective consensus is necessarily a representation of objective reality.
Nor do I. However, I can usually discern when something is part of objective reality as opposed to my imagination. I can go for a walk by myself, encounter no one, yet be confident that my subjective experience during the stroll is a representation of objective reality even though no one else can confirm it as it was not a shared experience.
Jackson LaRose: See Gettier Problem.
See Gettier Problem.
A part of objective reality was experienced, but misidentified. I'm not sure what this proves.
Jackson LaRose: Why is [astral projection] nonsense? See Rick Strassman.
Why is [astral projection] nonsense? See Rick Strassman.
If anyone can really travel out of their body and experience objective reality, there is a cool $million waiting for them - all they have to do is tell James Randi what is under his flowerpot.
Malachi,
I'm not sure why you regard psychosis as a "scare word" or a "label" - I am certainly not calling you psychotic. It is merley a term describing a mental illness in which the sufferer cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
You are writing replies, so it would seem you think there are others who are also contributing to this forum. I trust you do not suspect this is all a figment of your imagination.
It might be hard to nail down with language, but I think we all understand what is meant by the "real world" and can usually tell it apart from imaginary things. Otherwise I wouldn't ever drive on the freeway!
You are writing replies, so it would seem you think there are others who are also contributing to this forum. I trust you do not suspect this is all a figment of your imagination. It might be hard to nail down with language, but I think we all understand what is meant by the "real world" and can usually tell it apart from imaginary things. Otherwise I wouldn't ever drive on the freeway!
I believe the dream world is meaningful and valid and I dont have any trouble driving on the highway. But I think oftentimes people live in a sort of dream world anyway, where driving down the highway at 70 mph is seen as "safe" because we do it every day. But actually, there is so much energy and mass involved in an automobile at highway speeds, especially factoring in other vehicles, the risk of a catastrophic incident is an order of magnitude greater than sitting in a block building and walking to work all your life. The risk is still well-managed and mitigated with other measures, so that it is not worthy of consideration for most people. But when a tire blows out at 70 and the car spins into the divider and gets t boned by another vehicle at 70, when they are recovering in the hospital you can generally bet they didnt think that was a possibility when they left for work in the morning. Invalid premises distort theories which distort risk calculation. Maybe she should have gotten a bigger car. Maybe she should have gotten better tires. Mabe she woke up and had a panic attack three days ago with premonitions of a car crash, but everyone she trusted dismissed her fears because "dreams dont mean anything lol"
When you are on your solitary walks, how are you experiencing the reality around you?
The Gettier problems were meant to show the potential error in the mind's interpretation of observed phenomena.
Well, your challenge demonstrates the inherent limitations of intersubjective consensus. In Jeremy Narby's The Cosmic Serpent, he asks an Amazonian Shaman how he discovered that a certian plant acted as an antidote for the fer de lance snake. He responded that the plant had told him when he was under the influence of the plant mixture brew Ayahuasca. Its flowers had fang shaped parts, which the plant had told him about. Now, can it be "proven" to any of us whether or not this man's consciousness travelled somewhere else to receive this knowledge? No, not really. Does that mean it didn't actually happen? I'm not confident enough to judge either way.
I agree. It may not make a bit of difference in the long run. But it could make all the difference. Basically, if you had a divine encounter, it would obliterate all doubt. But if you had an angelic encounter, you might convince yourself that you had food poisoning that day, and hallucinated. And if someone tried to tell you about their legitimate belief system, and they mentioned reincarnation, that might taint whatever else they had to say with the stain of mysticism, whereas otherwise you might have listened. Basically, my only point is that prior distinctions limit our interpretations of sensory data. People tend to ignore or dismiss data that doesnt fit their theory, because they cannot explain it.
Thing is the assumption a divine encounter changes my worldview, and if someone believed in reincarnation it would taint their belief system for me. All these belief systems are just structures, how their structure works is their structure, and mine works another way. I stumbled across a lot of things before I reached this, so I'm not limited in a sense, it's just a choice of what one (let's say in a praxeological way since this is the Mises forum) feels is the best suited for them. If something doesn't fit with my theory evidence I change it.
Well, in that case I can use a razor and loupe on your statement. Why confine your goals to "this life"? Why not simply seek happiness in life as you know it, without reference to a contrasting (allegedly) mythical life?
What if my view in this life does increase the amount of happiness in this life?
Here's what I wrote a week ago on Heathen world view from my personal blog, keep in mind I wrote it drunk at 5 am, so it may seem chaotic (not much structure), but it's clear to it's point.
Thing is the assumption a divine encounter changes my worldview, and if someone believed in reincarnation it would taint their belief system for me.
All these belief systems are just structures, how their structure works is their structure, and mine works another way. I stumbled across a lot of things before I reached this, so I'm not limited in a sense, it's just a choice of what one (let's say in a praxeological way since this is the Mises forum) feels is the best suited for them. If something doesn't fit with my theory evidence I change it.
I did not means to cast aspersions of close-mindedness upon you. I was trying to support my claim that prior worldview affects interpretation of new evidence. Would you agree that is the case?
I was just using it as an example as well. What you bring up is a good point depending on the usage of evidence. To explain I'll explain short what Heathenry is from a reconstructionist standpoint. What I (and many many others) are doing are trying to reconstruct (not create or recreate) the pre-Christian religion of NW Europe, and there are A LOT of factors. What do we base it on? A lot of evidence beyond just the written myths and literature. Over time you come across something, some theories become more plausible or sensible while others become put to the side or disregarded. This plays a lot into world view to reconstruct a view and belief of something that has some "broken links" so to speak. Instead of coming across new evidence, and then trying to incorporate that evidence into a rigid belief, it's more likely to alter the views or beliefs according to new evidence.
My question is how do you decide what belongs in the utgard? Isnt this process suceptible to the error I am referring to, where evidence that doesnt fit the theory is ignored or dismissed because it is defined as "meaningless"?
The intent of utgard was actually to that of outsiders (or to those who are disruptive to the order of the community, etc.). In most cultures what's seen as something "outside" or foreign must be proven to have worth and value to those people. In the most plain example having someone prove their worth to another group of people, one's worth does not carry over to another group (you can also see this in other ancient cultures of which tribes, chieftains, etc. had what particular rank to another set of people, etc.) The term is more associated to people, and can seem rather objective at first (when first researching this I had a hard time understaind the concept of value and worth in Heathenry from econ philosophy, later realizing it does not apply). When I wrote that something was meaningless I'm sure I could have worded it better, but as I said I wrote it while drunk at 5 am and at the time seemed clear.
Jackson,
I experience the reality around me through my sensory organs. I'm pretty good at knowing when I'm getting real world sensory data or just imagining or dreaming something.
As far as the Shaman story (and Gettier problems in general) goes, I would say that the right answer to the question was that he discovered a certain plant worked as an antidote when it was tried and it worked. Perhaps he got the inspiration to try it from a vision - after all, there is the apocryphal story about Newton being inspired by a falling apple - but the discovery that it worked can't be said to really have happened until real world results went as predicted.
And a stopped clock is right twice a day.