Timeline for Brain states, morality and free will: What can we discern from the case of the schoolteacher who became a pedophile post-brain tumor?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2023 at 4:07 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @armand A choice of action based on something does not mean that the action is determined by that something. Of course we have multiple reasons for doing what we do, but none of the reasons actually causes any actions. Whatever the reasons are they only define the results we want to achieve. We have to come up with ideas for how to achieve those results and choose the most beneficial one to be implemented. After all our freedom of choice covers only our own muscles. We can only choose which muscles to move and when. We have no control whatsoever over anything else. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 12:26 | comment | added | armand | On what base do you choose your action? On the base of what you want to accomplish, which is never one single thing but multifactorial. Your model is just too simplistic: people never desire one thing in isolation of others, and this simplification leads you to the misconception that we can choose our action. I.e. one wants to get rich but also not risk jail time, so one choses to work instead of stealing. But as you said people can't choose what they want. If our path of action is selected according to a set of objectives we can't choose, saying we choose our path of action makes no sense. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 6:37 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @armand We don't want to use any method for its own sake. We don't want the actions. We only want the results. We must choose our actions to get the results we want. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 5:58 | comment | added | armand | How can you choose the method you use if you don't choose the mmethod you want to use? This is just special pleading. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 5:40 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @armand We don't choose the goals we want to achieve. But we must choose the methods by which we attempt to achieve those goals. You are hungry, your stomach tells you that you need some food. But your stomach does not tell you how to get the food. You have to choose your actions wisely to get the food you want. | |
| Mar 25, 2023 at 2:12 | comment | added | armand | Do we? Because if we don't chose what we want or don't want to do with those muscles, does it make sense to say we chose to move them? Sure, no one else is involved but are we involved ourself? It's far from obvious from both a logical and materialist viewpoint. Free will is a complicated topic, if "it's just obvious, bruh!" could solve it we wouldn't be having this conversation. | |
| Mar 24, 2023 at 10:59 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @armand No dogma, no argument. A simple obvious fact. You are free to choose which muscles you move in which order. Completely free. There is no-one else involved, is there? | |
| Mar 24, 2023 at 10:14 | comment | added | armand | "We are free to choose..." how do you know this, to affirm it so strongly? There is no trace of an argument, this is all dogma. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 21:48 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Futilitarian No contradiction. The mismatch between the circumstances and your preferences is a problem, you want to change the circumstances to meet your preferences. Your choice of action is your solution to this problem. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 15:46 | comment | added | Frank | @PerttiRuismäki "We are free to choose... Therefore we are morally responsible for our actions" sounds like Sartre :-) (in a very good, existentialist way :-) | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 13:45 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Isn't that a contradiction though? On the one hand you say: 1) "Preferences don't determine the actions". Then: 2) "You choose the actions to get what you want" (Ie: Your preferences determine your actions). It seems contradictory. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 13:41 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Futilitarian I think you have misunderstood this statement. A man's actions are not dependent upon what he wills. Preferences don't determine the actions any more than problems determine the solutions or questions determine the answers. You choose the actions to get what you want. You choose the solutions to the problems you face. You choose the answers to the questions you are asked. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 13:22 | comment | added | Futilitarian | I've always understood Schopehauer differently. When he says, "A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills", I take that to mean that - in the end - he can't actually do as he wills, because what he does is dependent upon what he wills, over which he has no control. Does that make sense? | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 13:19 | comment | added | Pertti Ruismäki | @Futilitarian It is just the old Schopenhauer line: "We can do what we want, but we cannot want what we want." This means that we can choose our actions, but not our preferences (or circumstances). I would not say that we are what we do. I would rather say that we are what we want. Our preferences and needs define our personality. Knowing someone's personality gives only hints about what he might do or how he might respond to some changes in the circumstances. | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:51 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Okay. What interests me is how you have determined that we have no control over what we are, but over what we do? What is the interceding mechanism? Also, some might argue that we are, in fact, what we do. What do you think about that? | |
| Mar 23, 2023 at 12:39 | history | answered | Pertti Ruismäki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |