My take is that notions of free-will and determinism are human constructed instantiations of higher order universal classes in which they are expressions. We inherent these instantiated concepts and formalize definitions and build on them according to the ideological heritage in which we are mimetically imbued.

If free will exists, the evidence is likely to be proven in the self-referential operations of systems. The variables are in the least the scope of knowledge of influential factors on an entity, that the entity has in decision making. If the entity is not aware of an influence, it cannot account for it and operate upon it, but is instead operated upon, and to some degree, at least in part, a product of that unknown influence. What is the difference between self-determination and free-will? Is there any?

I am therefore compelled to suspect that there is a dimension for any given decision between externally directed, and internally directed. It can only be quantified to the meausre in which the quantifier knows the factors of influence. Carl Jung coined terms for these: introverted and extroverted, which have been grossly misrepresented in modern times as whether or not a person is social.

And, I assure you that the woman who made this video does not care at all about large scale models and their interpretations of the topic. She made a song about it, how much she doesn't like theories of everything. I am sure I don't need explain the irony.

Cory

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021, 9:55 AM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Gregg,
You actively burn through every minute of every day without wasting a second yet you are willing to take time to engage with me one-on-one about this concept. You are heroic. I accept. But me being a bit dull, easily distracted, on the road, caring for someone, and I can’t remember what else, I ask for a rain check until about mid-month. Meanwhile I will stop torturing you about this on the TOK list. I will prepare points to discuss.

For now, my use of “free" does not mean free from caused, it means only free from determined. The concept of causal determinism leaves no room for autonomously authoring behavior. Something we can discuss is self-conscious determinism. I am lost on that concept.

Thank you.

Peter

Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.

On Feb 2, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Peter,

I honestly don’t know if we disagree or not. If you would like to zoom chat about this and engage in a dialogos, let me know. I think conversation is much more effective way of getting understanding than emails.

I will simply say that “free” seems to imply something that is disconnected from the unfolding wave of causal determinism. If you don’t mean “free” in that way, then we likely agree. My argument is what people mean by free will are events that flow through/are causally impacted by/regulated by processes of self-conscious determination. Self-conscious determination is a way to describe the behavior of persons. It differentiates those kinds of behaviors from other kinds of behaviors.

Best,
G

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Gregg, and all,

I think we might have come to the root of our disagreement, or agreement, I am not sure which.

I do not use the terms free will with joy, as we are talking about autonomy and authorship of choice, not about ability to will. They are clumsy terms and I use them only because they have become the vernacular of the discussion.

In everything I have said I have been consistent with the laws of physics, never appealing to a seat in heaven or ghost in the machine. I just don’t believe that the existence of gravity, for instance, leaves no room for freely authoring choices. If we did not have comprehensible physics in the universe then chaos would be boundless and existence on any level would impossible. Were there not resistance to choosing then choosing would also be impossible; things of no consequence about nothing would just happen. It’s the breadth of limiting influences we engage with that feeds our choices.

I think that we differ in that, for me, Matter-Object, Life-Organism, Mind-Animal and Culture-Person are different ways to look at a single unified thing: being. In my view, none of those things exist individually nor are they parts of a whole. While I’m not sure if I follow your “self-conscious determination”, I do agree with Michael that we are a singular whole-person, agent, organism, full-system being. I would add that we are also the environment in which wee choose. No part of it can be separated out. In other words, my thought is that defending or denying free will solely on arguments about the quality of the organism is invalid. Any full argument of free will must include place, and I am unsure how any design of determinism can account for each moment of being in place within a life time.

As for determinism, I agree with Galen Strawson’s argument that determinism can never be proven, I just don’t agree with his argument that free will doesn’t exist. Determinism will never be more than someone looking over your shoulder saying, “I knew you were going to do that.” It continuously references past events to justify a faith in an already-authored non-existing future. It is an insupportable extrapolation.

The 10-minute video also referenced the determinist argument that we have a “feeling" about having free will, attempting to gaslight our witnessed observations of life. We observe ourselves making free choices, we do not have an intuitive feeling about it. As I have outlined in previous notes, I can sometimes fully describe the very observable reasons that I have witnessed for making my choices. The only justification for gaslighting that free will is an illusion is because it is inconsistent with determinism, which proponents of it of course desire to believe is true. We are told to give up believing in what we do and see for a concept that is unobservable and unprovable.

I cannot choose to be nine-feet tall nor to fly by flapping my arms, or choose many other things. That does not disqualify free choice. I am yet unconvinced to give up on free will because I haven't yet seen any evidence against it, or I do not have the facilities to comprehend those arguments.

I don’t appeal to the quantum level for or against free will or determinism because I think it is an argument that determinists dragged into the mix without justification. We not make choices at that level. I might look out my window in the morning to determine if someone has stolen my car, but I do not look out the window because I question if it still exists.

Unfortunately, in today's world I do not know how to untie philosophy from psychology from physics, nor do I know if we should. If morals are still a philosophical question, I don’t think it’s possible as the question of autonomy is the foundation beneath moral responsibility.

Peter

Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.

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

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