Hi Gregg, Alexander, Peter and TOK, this discussion of Free Will v choice
is fortuitous, given that biology remains descriptive. Given that, the
meaning of Free Will deserves  a redress, particularly with the
re-emergence of epigenetic inheritance directly from the environment, which
is also a 'game changer'. So for example, as I indicated earlier in this
thread, phenotype is not actually the inventory of traits that an organism
possesses, it is the mechanism by which it deliberates and obtains
epigenetic 'marks' that inform the organism of changes in the environment,
providing an existential advantage by informing the offspring of the
on-coming environment, replete with adaptive changes. So in this context,
choice is a more appropriate way to think about behavioral activities than
Free Will, the former being a verb, the latter being a noun (see Arnold de
Loof). This distinction between choice and Free Will implicitly
acknowledges the departure from biology as material towards it being
action, like Whitehead's 'Process Theory' that all is energy. Of course
there are deterministic constraints on choice, but they reference the
origins of life in the Singularity as the foundation of life and the Cosmos
alike. The point is that evolution is also a process, not a 'thing',
providing the wherewithall for biology to change in response to an
ever-changing environment. Hope this will generate further
discussion...With the Best of Intentions, John

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:28 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Gregg, Alexander, John and TOK,
> I certainly welcome all thoughts about the question of "free will."
>
> Reducing the term "free will" to “choice” its attractive for many reasons.
> First, it’s concise and I think we agree that it directly means precisely
> to what we are referring. Also, as Alexander pointed out, we are what we
> do, which is the result of our choices. For Sartre, choice itself is a
> doing but it is a great point by Alexander that we often lie in what we
> say, while action speaks truth. Sartre did recognize this with his concept
> of bad faith, in which one lies to oneself about the meaning of what they
> are doing, so that they can be ignorant of their deed, which is an immoral
> act or something otherwise undesirable to be aware of. Lying is also a
> doing, just not the doing that is hoping to be noticed. My example in the
> past of bad faith that is not immoral is ignoring the risk of a high-risk
> sport because awareness of it inhibits performance. Also, every time I get
> on an airplane I ignore the meaning of gravity, which is a reliably
> unforgiving force. As a pilot once said to me, no airplane ever got stuck
> up there.
>
> Also, by using the word “choice" we have crippled the determinist’s
> argument because there are no choices in a determined world, so they need
> to be craftier in forming a sentence. Choosing by definition means that
> there is(are) an option(s). Yet, according to Sam Harris, choosing is part
> of the causal chain of determinism. Harris' sentence reminds me of
> Alexander’s point that words can lie; or, just make no sense.
>
> I have been reviewing Libet’s and Haynes’ studies that identify
> unconscious brain activity during choice making prior to conscious
> awareness of those choices, and find them problematic as arguments against
> free will (choice). First of all, Libet himself disagrees with such an
> interpretation. Secondly, if a choosing agent is given a chance to make a
> free choice at a freely chosen moment, what does the sequence of brain
> activity actually mean, when it is caused specifically by someone making a
> choice when they freely choose to make the choice? Harris’ interpretation
> requires some kind of brain/brain dualism in which the self we are is not
> the self we are. It reminds me of Zeno’s proof that motion is impossible.
> Anyway, I’m trying to flesh out the argument of free will (choice) without
> referencing physical brain activity or quantum mechanics, and I think that
> that is possible. I’d like to keep on the ontological and Newtonian physics
> levels. I do know that William James in 1870 came up with a two-stage model
> of free will that has been reborn in Robert Doyle’s cogito model, now that
> quantum physics can be claimed as the original chance upon which a choice
> is based, making free will possible. But I think free will can be defended
> without referencing indeterminism, particularly quantum indeterminism.
>
> I am arguing (In the paper that I should right now be writing that I will
> be presenting at the Diverse Lineages philosophy conference in two weeks at
> George Washington University.) that the common (though inadequate)
> definition of determinism is true about free will; "all events have prior
> causes.” I don’t think any proponent of free will ever argues that events
> do not have causes, on the Newtonian level. And a definition of determinism
> that is a misuse of language is a slightly different statement: "all events
> are determined by prior causes." It presents one definition of determined
> but then uses a completely differing definition when subsequently arguing
> its point, which is that the future is already determined. Me going on a
> picnic tomorrow will be (1)determined by whether or not a tree is blocking
> my driveway does not mean that it is already (2)determined today if a tree
> will be blocking my driveway. In other words, just because everything has a
> (1)determining cause does not mean that everything is (2)determined, but
> that is what that statement tries to trick us into believing.
>
> I apologize for the length of this, a length which I think is obviously
> for purely selfish.
> Best,
> Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask]
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Agreed, strongly!
> And being a Zoroastrian, I would add that the choices we make add upp to
> our "identity".
> Even more so when how we "act" is compared with how we "speak". Actions
> speak louder than words in any culture. Especially long-term.
> Which is clinically enormously important as for example addicts escape
> beneath "ambitions" they rarely live up to.
> The only way to deal with that is the confrontation with their actual and
> self-harming actions, "their true self".
> Where the ultimate long-term choice is the one between "the will to live"
> (libido) versus "the will to live as if dead" (mortido).
> Best intentions
> Alexander
>
> Den lör 18 maj 2019 kl 17:23 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Let me add a comment to this analysis of choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it is helpful to distinguish between first order and second order
>> choosing. First order choosing is what a rat does at a “choice point” in a
>> maze. It could go left or right, and (generally speaking) it chooses the
>> path of least resistance and most reward. That is the animal mental
>> behavioral investment level of choosing. We do much the same when we,
>> without reflection, reach for vanilla rather than chocolate ice cream
>> because we prefer that flavor.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second order is full self-reflective intentions of persons who justify
>> their actions. This blog on the concept of addiction offers a way to
>> disentangle these two dimensions of choice:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201711_is-2Daddiction-2Ddisease-2Dthe-2Dbrain&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0eJMJjoEwVv1xykagr0ADAyUDiFbXDmVWpo7gTgCf2I&s=SVoIt7yoZoF0-_OvGBuxjqUS38T-Ke3ocwfYmopHn6o&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201711_is-2Daddiction-2Ddisease-2Dthe-2Dbrain&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=o-yfvPY-aGJbH9rxwoGZ3hT1k2FhcyOZSdIaT0wzLoM&s=6R__sJAP2DPnnMNOJs5ss6iJjpCjuctPMotzjfpSX7w&e=>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 18, 2019 11:17 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* RE: Good article on Free Will
>>
>>
>>
>> Alexander and Peter,
>>
>> I need to be brief, but I just wanted to chime in here and say I
>> completely agree about the terminology of “choice” as opposed to free will.
>> Probably should do a blog on why the wording of choice or free choice is
>> much more accurate and helpful than the old term.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for choosing 😊 to share your reflections.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 18, 2019 4:58 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: Good article on Free Will
>>
>>
>>
>> Totally agreed, Peter!
>>
>> So my suggestion is to remove the theological bastard "free will" from
>> our new grand narrative.
>>
>> Let's speak of wills, drives and desires. And let's speak of choices. And
>> the identities these choices produce.
>>
>> But a will is just as free as the options it has. Nothing more than that.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>> Den lör 18 maj 2019 kl 03:38 skrev Peter Lloyd Jones <
>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Alexander, et. al.,
>>
>> I agree that the term "free will" is clumsy, as John Locke suggested in
>> the 17th century.
>>
>> Philosophy, not being a science, allows such inaccuracies of terms,
>> despite the unnecessary misunderstanding it causes.
>>
>> I think that those two words together have come to mean something other
>> than what each might mean in other contexts; free will is the act of an
>> agent authoring a choice autonomously. So also, it’s not so much a matter
>> of something to have, but rather a matter of doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree, as you stated, that just “choice” alone is a better term, as
>> there is no real choosing if one is determined or coerced; freedom of
>> choice is redundant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Lloyd Jones
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 562-209-4080
>>
>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Gregg & Co
>>
>>
>>
>> But why even discuss free will when this concerns freedom of choice.
>>
>> Or rather just choice per se.
>>
>> A will wills whatever it wills. It is neither free nor determined. The
>> combo of will and freedom seems merely a remnant of Abrahamic religion and
>> its eagerness to hold believers accountable for their intentions.
>>
>> As in good will versus evil will. But there is no such thing. A will is
>> beyond good and evil. It wills whatever it wills.
>>
>> We should discuss a will's freedom to choose. Not its own freedom. There
>> is apparently no such thing. A will will always try to get whatever it
>> wants. At all times. The question is if it has that choice or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>> Den fre 17 maj 2019 kl 22:03 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Hi TOK List,
>>
>>   Thought you might be interested in seeing this article on Free Will.
>> Minus a few technical points, this is consistent with a ToK version of
>> reality:
>>
>> *https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nautil.us_issue_72_quandary_yes-2Ddeterminists-2Dthere-2Dis-2Dfree-2Dwill&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0eJMJjoEwVv1xykagr0ADAyUDiFbXDmVWpo7gTgCf2I&s=fKO31glKozgww712bkEEEGmgcdJ7HYRjUw9ZjaAj0X4&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nautil.us_issue_72_quandary_yes-2Ddeterminists-2Dthere-2Dis-2Dfree-2Dwill&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=G1XkHpKhGuXrWRmIGwwGi7rOIn2dxfTPssg91x8Zz_Y&s=wXqMgwevkPxlORiKI1vvCF9DERz8JipCn1NW4csh7t4&e=>*
>>
>>
>>
>>   The key is that there are different dimensions of existence (Matter,
>> Life, Mind, and Culture) and different causal processes that operate at
>> those different dimensions. Human persons are self-conscious entities that
>> learn to justify and take responsibility for their actions on the social
>> stage. This is a causal matrix, obvious at the present moment, as I am
>> justifying to you that reading the article is worth the time. As a
>> self-reflective entity, you will decide accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>>   As the article notes, atoms do not operate (i.e., are not the
>> appropriate causal nexus) at this dimension of complexity.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>>
>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>> Professor
>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>> 216 Johnston Hall
>> MSC 7401
>> James Madison University
>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>
>>
>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>
>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0eJMJjoEwVv1xykagr0ADAyUDiFbXDmVWpo7gTgCf2I&s=89zl49Pe74u-rOHYFeJiA1ezM1YxfFGSN25xA2NCy-8&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=G1XkHpKhGuXrWRmIGwwGi7rOIn2dxfTPssg91x8Zz_Y&s=IiFJ96LfMspNssFjxCh-oJtM15aW4dOuwUJt-ox5v8M&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> Check out my webpage at:
>>
>> www.gregghenriques.com
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=G1XkHpKhGuXrWRmIGwwGi7rOIn2dxfTPssg91x8Zz_Y&s=ffVYXCdGDsdZL0AAfo1vLCZ2HLvFF5jeJ2lU6syhlWg&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1