"If the object (brain) is deterministic, then the subject (self) is deterministic..."

[GrowingSmaller]

Does this follow necesarily, or could it be a category mistake, expecting the properties of objects (brains) to be identical to the properties of subjects (people)? Or in some way expecting a simple translation...

The self is not an object ordinarily speaking.

Could we be "double agents" both determined and free, depending on which perspective you look at us from?

Lets imagine the self is emergent, what then?


If the self has a sense of freedom, could that be an functional adaptation, just as feeling pleasure or pain is psychologically and adaptively useful?

If freedom is the sense than under the present circumstances we may do either A or B etc, could this sense be due to a lack of knowledge? A sort of bounded rationailty? And if we are existentially stuck within those limits, then what?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

 

[Armoured]

If the brain is deterministic, then yes, it follows that the self is deterministic.

Assuming that all inputs are deterministic.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Even if the mind is immaterial, I don't see how that escapes the problem. If an action isn't determined by causes, then it's random. And randomness isn't free will either.

 

[True Scotsman]

Does this follow necesarily, or could it be a category mistake, expecting the properties of objects (brains) to be identical to the properties of subjects (people)? Or in some way expecting a simple translation...

The self is not an object ordinarily speaking.

Could we be "double agents" both determined and free, depending on which perspective you look at us from?

Lets imagine the self is emergent, what then?


If the self has a sense of freedom, could that be an functional adaptation, just as feeling pleasure or pain is psychologically and adaptively useful?

If freedom is the sense than under the present circumstances we may do either A or B etc, could this sense be due to a lack of knowledge? A sort of bounded rationailty? And if we are existentially stuck within those limits, then what?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

No. Not if you view volition as a type of cause. If a choice is the cause of an action then the action is not deterministic. You could have chosen a different action. Human actions are both caused and volitional.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was thinking along the lines (also) that human actions are understood in terms of belief, intention and desire. Rather than a causal chain. Reasons for action, not causes of it so to speak.

So even if we are deterministic in the brain, is a scientific model appropriate for the human agent? The brain is an "it", where as the agent is a "being-for-itself", an "I" or a "thou" etc.

So a deterministic model treats us as an "it", and therefore undermines our essential humanity. So, the implication seems, even if the brain is deterministic, that language is not problem free for the self. Something like a "category mistake" can occurr when we try to transfer the language of one domain (objective science) onto the other (subjective science).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Even if the mind is immaterial, I don't see how that escapes the problem. If an action isn't determined by causes, then it's random. And randomness isn't free will either.

The way I understand is that our sense of freedom comes from

1: we do not know what our will will be

and 2: deliberation about which option to take has an infuluece on what choice we will make

Even if 3 the course is already mapped out, 1 and 2 still hold.

Therefore, for all we know we may choose option A or B under the circumstances.

So "freedom" may be a result of lack of knowledge. But we are limited, subjectively, so isn't it appropriate to say we're free?

Randomness and determinism miss the point. The relate to objects, not to subjects (see my previous post).

Even if we are objectively determined (and we know it), we are subjectively free (and we know it). A paradox.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A "back-translation" is a translation of a translated text back into the language of the original text, made without reference to the original text.

Translation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Paradoxum]

The way I understand is that our sense of freedom comes from

1: we do not know what our will will be

and 2: deliberation about which option to take has an infuluece on what choice we will make

Even if 3 the course is already mapped out, 1 and 2 still hold.

Therefore, for all we know we may choose option A or B under the circumstances.

So "freedom" may be a result of lack of knowledge. But we are limited, subjectively, so isn't it appropriate to say we're free?

No... if we are determined then we aren't free, even if we feel like we are.

Randomness and determinism miss the point. The relate to objects, not to subjects (see my previous post).

Determinism and randomness can apply t subjects too, and there's no reason think therwise.

Can you give any reason?

Even if we are objectively determined (and we know it), we are subjectively free (and we know it). A paradox.

How so?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that determinism and randomness are theoretical terms in the philosophy of science, aspect of models of things. A good example of determinism being the billiar balls break. Repeat the process and the same break and spread of balls repeates time aftre time. Nowhere in "primary intiuition" or "after the epoche" do we have detrminism.

In phenomenological research epoché is described as a process involved in blocking biases and assumptions in order to explain a phenomenon in terms of its own inherent system of meaning. One actual technique is known as bracketing.

Epoché - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

I think that even if we are objectively determined, then subjectively even if we know we will only take one option, and know that it is determined, we still dont know which one it will be.

For all we know, practically, we may still choose either A or B under the present conditions. This amounts to being free subjectively IMO.


Put a child in a room with some toys. The parent will be back in 10 minutes, due to a emergency, but the child thinks it has an hour to play as per usual. In the mind of the child there is freedom to play for an hour, until the parent returns to spoil the fun. For all the child knows he has an hour, and it is epistemically virtuous to believe that based on the usual routine.

Likewise with our psychological routines, we dont know the "spoiler" so we are "free to play". When we make a decision we may say "it was tetermined" but ultil then we know not what the "it" will be.​