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://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201711/is-addiction-disease-the-brain

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:

http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/yes-determinists-there-is-free-will

 

  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://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

 

Check out my webpage at:

www.gregghenriques.com

 

 

 

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

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