(November 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 2) "Out of character" decisions exist. I'm not the cases when others would consider the decision out of character, but only when the person that made the decision considers it out of character. In these cases, they seem very contrary to any battle of the wills. It seem like the decision was random, and when asked why they made such a decision the answers range from "I don't know" to "just felt like it."

If people don't know why they do things, then this seems to support the idea that the human will is not a possession of the conscious self, but rather a greater force underlying the conscious self.

(November 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I don't buy this argument for 2 main reasons:

1) It assumes that once one will wins, the others are discarded. I remember plenty of experiences where I kept on changing my mind on what to do. In one case, I was deciding on whether or not to take a job or go to school. I changed my mind back and forth for days until I hit the deadline to respond. Only then did was my decision was forced. If no deadline existed, I would of spend a lot longer deciding.

2) "Out of character" decisions exist. I'm not the cases when others would consider the decision out of character, but only when the person that made the decision considers it out of character. In these cases, they seem very contrary to any battle of the wills. It seem like the decision was random, and when asked why they made such a decision the answers range from "I don't know" to "just felt like it."

You should definitely read Schopenhauer's Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will. To summarize, he would (and I largely agree with him regarding determinism from a philosophical standpoint) counter 1) by suggesting that you're confusing wishing with willing. Human beings may possess a variety of conflicting motivations that result in inconsistent behavior but that's not to say that your will, granted your freedom to act as you see fit isn't prohibited, won't ultimately prevail. When a different option becomes more desirable and you change your mind, you're not changing your will as it is properly understood, you're changing your stance towards the motivation that previously won out; new information comes into view that lessens that desire or strengthens an opposing one. Your example, when a "decision was forced" and you couldn't exactly determine what your will was or would be, demonstrates that it is often only after the fact that we come to realize our character and to think to ourselves, for better or for worse, "I did that?!"

As for 2), regarding "out-of-character" behaviors, I'm not so sure I agree given the mosaic nature of personality and the many layers of causation beneath thoughts and actions. When a person does something absent of any apparent reason, or acts uncharacteristically, that doesn't mean a reason doesn't exist, or that they didn't act according to their will. They simply didn't understand what their will, which is their empirical character, actually entailed. That will can be influenced by reason, however, is what fundamentally separates us from other primates, and introduces the concept of morality.

(November 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

---

2) "Out of character" decisions exist. I'm not the cases when others would consider the decision out of character, but only when the person that made the decision considers it out of character. In these cases, they seem very contrary to any battle of the wills. It seem like the decision was random, and when asked why they made such a decision the answers range from "I don't know" to "just felt like it."

---

If people don't know why they do things, then this seems to support the idea that the human will is not a possession of the conscious self, but rather a greater force underlying the conscious self.

Not necessarily, the decision could be picked at random. Lets say you have 5 choices where each have a certain likelihood of being choosen decided by your reasons and wants. A choice can be picked at random. If one of your choices has a significantly higher likelihood than the rest, it will be the most likeliest to be picked i.e. the obvious choice. If two of the choice have about the same likelihood and greater than the others, you can easily flip between the two choices everytime you reexamine the situation. And so on. This setup does allow an out-of-character choice to be choosen because the picking is ultimately random.

I should mention that in my setup the picking is random, but the likelihood distribution is not. The likelihood distribution will be based on the persons character, current avaliable knowledge, rational, emotional state, etc...

---

(November 18, 2014 at 8:24 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

---

I don't buy this argument for 2 main reasons:

1) It assumes that once one will wins, the others are discarded. I remember plenty of experiences where I kept on changing my mind on what to do. In one case, I was deciding on whether or not to take a job or go to school. I changed my mind back and forth for days until I hit the deadline to respond. Only then did was my decision was forced. If no deadline existed, I would of spend a lot longer deciding.

2) "Out of character" decisions exist. I'm not the cases when others would consider the decision out of character, but only when the person that made the decision considers it out of character. In these cases, they seem very contrary to any battle of the wills. It seem like the decision was random, and when asked why they made such a decision the answers range from "I don't know" to "just felt like it."

---

You should definitely read Schopenhauer's Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will. To summarize, he would (and I largely agree with him regarding determinism from a philosophical standpoint) counter 1) by suggesting that you're confusing wishing with willing. Human beings may possess a variety of conflicting motivations that result in inconsistent behavior but that's not to say that your will, granted your freedom to act as you see fit isn't prohibited, won't ultimately prevail. When a different option becomes more desirable and you change your mind, you're not changing your will as it is properly understood, you're changing your stance towards the motivation that previously won out; new information comes into view that lessens that desire or strengthens an opposing one. Your example, when a "decision was forced" and you couldn't exactly determine what your will was or would be, demonstrates that it is often only after the fact that we come to realize our character and to think to ourselves, for better or for worse, "I did that?!"

As for 2), regarding "out-of-character" behaviors, I'm not so sure I agree given the mosaic nature of personality and the many layers of causation beneath thoughts and actions. When a person does something absent of any apparent reason, or acts uncharacteristically, that doesn't mean a reason doesn't exist, or that they didn't act according to their will. They simply didn't understand what their will, which is their empirical character, actually entailed. That will can be influenced by reason, however, is what fundamentally separates us from other primates, and introduces the concept of morality.

I hate reading philosophy books from their original authors. There is too much jargon and run on sentences. So, thank you for summerizing.

Schopenhauer position would say any re-examining of your choices will always lead to the same conclusion unless something caused the desires to change. Lets say say, for argument sake, we controlled for the emotion state and the any addition of knowledge but still got different conclusions. Schopenhauer would state some other factor changed the desires. This makes Schopenhauer position unfalsifiable.

I can think of another selection process where the decision is made at random. (see my responce to BennyBoy)

(November 18, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I hate reading philosophy books from their original authors. There is too much jargon and run on sentences. So, thank you for summerizing.

Schopenhauer position would say any re-examining of your choices will always lead to the same conclusion unless something caused the desires to change. Lets say say, for argument sake, we controlled for the emotion state and the any addition of knowledge but still got different conclusions. Schopenhauer would state some other factor changed the desires. This makes Schopenhauer position unfalsifiable.

I can think of another selection process where the decision is made at random. (see my responce to BennyBoy)

If someone held a long, thin pole standing upright and asked you to predict which direction it would fall when they let go, assuming there is no wind and everything surrounding it appears perfectly symmetrical, would the ensuing results be random? Or would there be, in principle, determinants that might allow an intelligence privy to the current state of every atom in the area to accurately predict the outcome? I don't see any major difference in this scenario and yours involving decisions that will be inevitably influenced one way or another by a multitude of factors that we are unable to consider.

(November 19, 2014 at 1:13 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: If someone held a long, thin pole standing upright and asked you to predict which direction it would fall when they let go, assuming there is no wind and everything surrounding it appears perfectly symmetrical, would the ensuing results be random?

LOL. This reminded me of a physics problem I had to solve. Predict how long it would take for a perfectly upright pencil standin on its tip to fall using Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Depending on the assumptions you make, the answer ranges from milliseconds to minutes.

So the answer to your question is yes it will be random.

Quote:Or would there be, in principle, determinants that might allow an intelligence privy to the current state of every atom in the area to accurately predict the outcome?

I think that would be a local hidden variable. So most likely no. There is a possibility of a non-local hidden variable.

Quote:I don't see any major difference in this scenario and yours involving decisions that will be inevitably influenced one way or another by a multitude of factors that we are unable to consider.

This is exactly why Schopenhauer position is unfalsifiable. The experimentor can never claim that they've taken ALL variables into account. So the claim of a missing variable can always be taken.

Well, how can one consider ALL the variables? Unfalsifiable, perhaps, but only in practice, not in principle.

(November 18, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If people don't know why they do things, then this seems to support the idea that the human will is not a possession of the conscious self, but rather a greater force underlying the conscious self.

Not necessarily, the decision could be picked at random. Lets say you have 5 choices where each have a certain likelihood of being choosen decided by your reasons and wants. A choice can be picked at random. If one of your choices has a significantly higher likelihood than the rest, it will be the most likeliest to be picked i.e. the obvious choice. If two of the choice have about the same likelihood and greater than the others, you can easily flip between the two choices everytime you reexamine the situation. And so on. This setup does allow an out-of-character choice to be choosen because the picking is ultimately random.

I should mention that in my setup the picking is random, but the likelihood distribution is not. The likelihood distribution will be based on the persons character, current avaliable knowledge, rational, emotional state, etc...

Is this real randomness, or is it just unfathomable complexity? If true randomness, then how would it be generated, and by what mechanism or process would a person making a decision access that true randomness?

Also, with regards to being out-of-character: if you are faced with a dilemma so perfectly balanced that only the injection of a random element can tip the balance, then I'd say there are two possibilities: 1) that both choices are highly resolved in the person's unconscious, but are in conflict (love of sex vs. a sense of honor, for example); 2) that neither choice has a "program" to deal with it-- for example, if I had to choice between two floral-patterned wallpapers for my wife's study.


I'd say that BOTH elements of the first dilemma are in-character, and BOTH elements of the latter are out-of-character in a sense. However, I'd argue a kind of meta-character, in which the careful consideration of some kinds of dilemma, and the lack of consideration for other kinds of dilemma, are still under that umbrella of will.

In other words, I'd say nothing is truly random, and no decision can ever be out-of-character. Rather, they are out-of-expectation, i.e. they are surprising albeit inevitable.

(November 19, 2014 at 7:38 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Well, how can one consider ALL the variables? Unfalsifiable, perhaps, but only in practice, not in principle.

You can say the same thing for God. In principle you can look everywhere for God. In practice you can't.

(November 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote: You can say the same thing for God. In principle you can look everywhere for God. In practice you can't.

As a matter of definitions I'd say the concept of causal determinism is on much firmer ground than "God." What would we be looking for exactly?

(November 19, 2014 at 7:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: Is this real randomness, or is it just unfathomable complexity? If true randomness, then how would it be generated, and by what mechanism or process would a person making a decision access that true randomness?

I don't think you can tell the difference between true randomness and unfathomable complexity. The way we can tell if a process is random or not is if we can predict its result given some inputs. By definition, you cannot predict the what the outcome would be from either of those cases. So trying to the distinguish between the two is a pointless endeavour.

I don't know how a randomness would be generated. It might be inherent in the neurons themselves or the environment the neurons are in. I don't know enough about the brain to provide a satisfactory answer.

Quote:Also, with regards to being out-of-character: if you are faced with a dilemma so perfectly balanced that only the injection of a random element can tip the balance, then I'd say there are two possibilities: 1) that both choices are highly resolved in the person's unconscious, but are in conflict (love of sex vs. a sense of honor, for example); 2) that neither choice has a "program" to deal with it-- for example, if I had to choice between two floral-patterned wallpapers for my wife's study.


I'd say that BOTH elements of the first dilemma are in-character, and BOTH elements of the latter are out-of-character in a sense. However, I'd argue a kind of meta-character, in which the careful consideration of some kinds of dilemma, and the lack of consideration for other kinds of dilemma, are still under that umbrella of will.

In other words, I'd say nothing is truly random, and no decision can ever be out-of-character. Rather, they are out-of-expectation, i.e. they are surprising albeit inevitable.

I think you're stawmaning my out-of-character decision by appling it on two equally likely choices you would make. The out-of-character decision requires a choice picked that is much less likelihood of being choosen compared to another choice. A better comparison would be having sex with your wife or taking out the garbage. If you picked taking out the garbage, that would be out of character decision.

---

(November 19, 2014 at 2:19 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote: You can say the same thing for God. In principle you can look everywhere for God. In practice you can't.

As a matter of definitions I'd say the concept of causal determinism is on much firmer ground than "God." What would we be looking for exactly?

Something that can be falsifiable. The deterministic view Schopenhauer proposes outright rejects random events. He provides no justification for this other than claiming there is a hidden variable that we're missing.