Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

Preferences are contemporaneous, not antecedent.

Quite right. Your preference is the option that you choose at the time. Given the same options it may be different from a preference that you expressed in the past.

 

[Jo555]

Good grief, part. It was his preference. He decided he'd prefer to die with his integrity than live without it.

Bradskii, as Moses said to Pharoah, "Let my people go!"

Couldn't resist. So much for keeping my mouth shut.

 

[partinobodycular]

Good grief, part. It was his preference. He decided he'd prefer to die with his integrity than live without it.

Boy, you really are intent on avoiding this line of reasoning aren't you. But you're the one who brought up first order causes versus second order causes, and I gave you every chance to clarify what you meant by that, but I guess that at this point I'll just proceed as if my understanding of them is correct, and you can dispute them whenever you see fit.

In the example of Mr. Proctor the fact that if he signs the paper he'll live and if he doesn't sign the paper he'll die, are examples of first order causes. They're facts concerning the state of reality as it actually exists. However the value that Mr. Proctor places on each of these two options are second order causes because they exist entirely within Mr Proctor's mind.

So what we end up with is a causal chain that consists of the first order causes, followed by the second order causes, followed by the outcome. The outcome is completely dependent upon those second order causes, and those second order causes exist entirely within Mr. Proctor's mind and nowhere else.

Therefore the determining factor in the decision about whether to sign the paper or not, rests entirely with Mr. Proctor, it doesn't rest with the first order causes.

 

[Fervent]

Quite right. Your preference is the option that you choose at the time. Given the same options it may be different from a preference that you expressed in the past.

So if the principle determinant is the current preferences and not the antecedent conditions, what is the difference between genuine free will and illusory free will?

 

[Bradskii]

In the example of Mr. Proctor the fact that if he signs the paper he'll live and if he doesn't sign the paper he'll die, are examples of first order causes. They're facts concerning the state of reality as it actually exists. However the value that Mr. Proctor places on each of these two options are second order causes because they exist entirely within Mr Proctor's mind.

First and second order have not been used to describe antecedent causes. They have been used to ilustrate the difference between a first order 'want' and a second order 'preference.' And have only been used for that.

Proctor can choose A or B. Live or die. They aren't 'causes'. They are the options he has available.

It's obvious from the clip that he wants to live - a first order desire. But he prefers to die. His second order desire. Which overrides his first. He chooses the option which he prefers.

Why does he do this? Because of the type of man he is. He is the type of man who places supreme importance on integrity. That is one of the antecedent causes. His personality. His character. Which is, to use a phrase that you used above, 'the state of reality'. I've said it very many times that your character and your mood are some of the antecedent causes in every decision. And his character was instrumental in determining his choice.

 

[Bradskii]

So if the principle determinant is the current preferences and not the antecedent conditions...

Your current preference is simply 'the option that you like the best'. The 'principle determinant' is what caused the choice. So when you say 'the principle determinant is the current preference', what you are saying is 'What caused the choice is the option you like the best.' Which makes no sense at all.

Choosing the option you prefer isn't the cause of choosing that option. Choosing it is the result of the antecedent conditions. They are what determined it.

 

[Fervent]

Your current preference is simply 'the option that you like the best'. The 'principle determinant' is what caused the choice. So when you say 'the principle determinant is the current preference', what you are saying is 'What caused the choice is the option you like the best.' Which makes no sense at all.

Choosing the option you prefer isn't the cause of choosing that option. Choosing it is the result of the antecedent conditions. They are what determined it.

Seems you're going back on some of the things you said earlier about preferences and reasons. What causes the choice is that I prefer that option, so I choose it. So why did you bring up preferences and reasons if you didn't mean to imply that they were antecedent conditions to the choice being made? What was your bringing them up supposed to add to the discussion?

 

[Bradskii]

Seems you're going back on some of the things you said earlier about preferences and reasons.

If you quote what I said I'm sure I can clarify it for you.

What causes the choice is that I prefer that option, so I choose it.

You preferring an option can't be the cause of you preferring that option. Obviously. Something caused you to prefer it. Give me an example and I can show you. Or you can DIY. Think of something that you preferred to do and then ask yourself what caused you to prefer it.

So why did you bring up preferences and reasons if you didn't mean to imply that they were antecedent conditions to the choice being made? What was your bringing them up supposed to add to the discussion?

Preferences were brought up to contrast them with wants. You might want one thing but prefer another. Reasons are obviously discussed when we're talking about why you made a choice. What caused it. What determined your decision. What reason did you have to choose as you did.

 

[Fervent]

If you quote what I said I'm sure I can clarify it for you.

I'm not that interested.

You preferring an option can't be the cause of you preferring an option. Obviously. Something caused you to prefer it. Give me an example and I can show you.

Oh? Seems to me that there are plenty of things that I prefer simply because I like them better than other things. I prefer mr pibb to dr pepper because I like the taste better, no "cause" other than the preference. I prefer it because I prefer it.

Preferences were brought up to contrast them with wants. You might want one thing but prefer another. Reasons are obviously discussed when we're talking about why you made a choice. What caused it. What determined your decision. What reason did you have to choose as you did.

Seems to me you're just playing silly little word games and using a broad meaning to "cause" and conflating that with a narrow meaning.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not that interested.

No worries.

I prefer mr pibb to dr pepper because I like the taste better, no "cause" other than the preference. I prefer it because I prefer it.

Why do you choose it over Dr. Pepper? Why is it your preference? Because it tastes better. The fact that it tastes better to you is the reason you chose it. That wasn't too hard...

Seems to me you're just playing silly little word games and using a broad meaning to "cause" and conflating that with a narrow meaning.

They are explanations. Definitions. They are meant to help you understand.

Why did you choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What was the reason you chose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What caused you to choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What determined your decision to choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?

The answer to each is 'I chose it because I like the taste better'. Whether you enjoy the taste of something or not is one of the antecedent conditions. I don't like the taste of Earl Grey. It's one of the reasons why I prefer coffee.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's obvious from the clip that he wants to live - a first order desire. But he prefers to die. His second order desire. Which overrides his first. He chooses the option which he prefers.

You have absolutely no right to order those the way that you did. What gives you the right to classify Mr. Proctor's desire to live ahead of his desire to keep his integrity, when his actions clearly refute that?

This is why I wanted you to define the terms first order and second order desires, because they can be pretty darn confusing, as to almost be useless.

Per your example: Mr. Proctor desires to live. Mr. Proctor also desires to keep his integrity. There's absolutely no way for you, me, or anybody except Mr. Proctor to classify those as first or second order desires. The only means by which we can classify them is to classify them according to which one he chose.

Now if you would like to clarify exactly how you're differentiating first order desires from second order desires I'd be more than interested.

 

[Fervent]

No worries.

Why do you choose it over Dr. Pepper? Why is it your preference? Because it tastes better. The fact that it tastes better to you is the reason you chose it. That wasn't too hard...

Except the taste is nothing more than a subjective experience, a seems-like. I prefer it because it is my preference with no need for any other explanation. There isn't some particular cause of my preference, other than my having the opinion that the subjective qualities Mr Pibb elicits are better than the subjective qualities Dr Pepper produces. The only explanation is that I prefer it.

They are explanations. Definitions. They are meant to help you understand.

Why did you choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What was the reason you chose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What caused you to choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?
What determined your decision to choose Mr. Pibb rather than Dr. Pepper?

The answer to each is 'I chose it because I like the taste better'. Whether you enjoy the taste of something or not is one of the antecedent conditions. I don't like the taste of Earl Grey. It's one of the reasons why I prefer coffee.

When it comes to subjective experiences, speaking in terms of "cause" leads to more confusion than clarity. That my preference determined the choice makes it the cause, so either my choice was not determined based on antecedents or my preference is not concurrent with my decision. So which is it? Do my preference occur prior to the choice, or are my choices determined by my free will preference ranking?

 

[Bradskii]

Per your example: Mr. Proctor desires to live. Mr. Proctor also desires to keep his integrity. There's absolutely no way for you, me, or anybody except Mr. Proctor to classify those as first or second order desires. The only means by which we can classify them is to classify them according to which one he chose.

Correct. The reason I am differentiating them is simply to indicate the difference between someone preferring to do what they don't actually want to do. Proctor doesn't want to die. But he prefers it to losing his integrity. And as you say, it's not for us to choose.

Now if you would like to clarify exactly how you're differentiating first order desires from second order desires I'd be more than interested.

A first order desire is simply what you want. A second order desire is what you prefer. Even if you don't want it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

When it comes time to make a decision, just wait.

Your predetermined spidey sense will most likely get irritated and act on its own.

 

[Bradskii]

Except the taste is nothing more than a subjective experience, a seems-like. I prefer it because it is my preference with no need for any other explanation. There isn't some particular cause of my preference, other than my having the opinion that the subjective qualities Mr Pibb elicits are better than the subjective qualities Dr Pepper produces.

Yes. That's plainly obvious. You enjoy the taste of Dr. Pepper. And dislike (or like less) the taste of Mr. Pibb. That is the cause of choosing the former. It's the reason you chose it. It determined your choice.

When it comes to subjective experiences, speaking in terms of "cause" leads to more confusion than clarity. That my preference determined the choice makes it the cause...

Your preference is simply the choice that you made. To prefer something literally means to choose that option over others. It's not a cause. You choose it because...and fill in the ellipses. You can't say it's because you preferred it. Because, again, you are simply saying that you preferred it because you chose it.

Just try to understand that using the term 'I preferred it' is not necessarily the same as 'I wanted it'. Proctor most definitely didn't want to die. But he preferred it.

 

[Fervent]

Yes. That's plainly obvious. You enjoy the taste of Dr. Pepper. And dislike (or like less) the taste of Mr. Pibb. That is the cause of choosing the former. It's the reason you chose it. It determined your choice.

Here you're getting into some sloppy semantics and relying on multiple meanings of "cause"

Your preference is simply the choice that you made. To prefer something literally means to choose that option over others. It's not a cause. You choose it because...and fill in the ellipses. You can't say it's because you preferred it. Because, again, you are simply saying that you preferred it because you chose it.

Except there is nothing that causes me to prefer one to the other, simply my subjective opinion that Mr Pibb tastes better. The preference is self=explanatory and doesn't need a historic cause to explain it.

 

[Chesterton]

Proctor can choose A or B. Live or die. They aren't 'causes'. They are the options he has available.

I apologize for not replying sooner. I read your previous posts to me, but I've been involved in free will arguments before, and they inevitably become tedious and wearisome. I read your posts and considered them, but it's the same unsupportable assertions over and over.

Do you not see that whether Proctor chooses A or B, all you're doing is labeling his choice after the fact? If he chooses A, that was "first order". If he chooses B, that was "first order". You are like the world's worst magician, who can only tell me what card I'm holding after he's seen the face of the card. I'm not impressed.

 

[Chesterton]

I prefer mr pibb to dr pepper because I like the taste better, no "cause" other than the preference. I prefer it because I prefer it.

You get a Winner for referencing Mr. Pibb. Sadly it's no longer available in my area. Mr. Pibb was better, even though he wasn't a doctor.

 

[Bradskii]

Here you're getting into some sloppy semantics and relying on multiple meanings of "cause"

I'm being extremely specific. The cause of you doing something is the reason why you did it. The reason why something happened. What determined the choice that you made. This is basic English. It can't be put any plainer than that.

Except there is nothing that causes me to prefer one to the other, simply my subjective opinion that Mr Pibb tastes better.

You can't say nothing caused it and then, in the very same sentence, tell me what caused it.

In my opinion coffee tastes better than Earl Grey. That was the reason I just had coffee rather than Earl Grey. That I think it tastes better was the cause of me deciding to make a coffee rather than a cup of Earl Grey.

I mean, what is difficult to understand about that last paragraph? Tell me where it causes you a problem.

 

[Bradskii]

I apologize for not replying sooner. I read your previous posts to me, but I've been involved in free will arguments before, and they inevitably become tedious and wearisome. I read your posts and considered them, but it's the same unsupportable assertions over and over.

Do you not see that whether Proctor chooses A or B, all you're doing is labeling his choice after the fact? If he chooses A, that was "first order". If he chooses B, that was "first order". You are like the world's worst magician, who can only tell me what card I'm holding after he's seen the face of the card. I'm not impressed.

Why would I need to be able to predict what he prefers? It could be one or the other. It's entirely his choice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with free will. The only reason that the difference between 'want' and 'prefer' needs to be explained is because people have been conflating them. One would think that it was obvious. Apparently not.