Intuitive preferences
Hello, Your Honor.
Regarding freedom of will, why is there a preference for applying the principle of lex pacifica specifically by reducing the principle of causality, and not by accepting the explanation of an illusion regarding choice? In the “Peta Morgana” phenomenon, for example, I do accept the fact that my eyes are deceiving me, and I am faced with the illusion of an oasis, let’s say. And I am not trying to argue that because visual intuition shows that there is an oasis, then it is indeed there, and only it disappears the moment I approach, while somewhat skipping the laws of physics.
Here’s an application of the Lex Pacificum principle. Although the laws of physics do not allow an oasis to “jump” from one place to another, since I have a visual intuition about its location, let’s assume there is an exception to the laws of physics that allows such a “jump”.
How is this different from your argument about reducing the principle of causality to accommodate free choice?
Furthermore, is it much easier to intuitively accept (at least for me) that there is an illusion in the ability to choose, (as many other brain illusions have been observed (and proven), than to reduce the principle of causality (of which no other exception has been found other than the one proposed)?
Indeed, causality is a much stronger illusion. So that’s why it’s not an illusion? I didn’t understand this strange argument.
Peta Morgana is an example in favor of my argument. We do not give up our trust in vision, we only qualify it.
And in relation to free will, in libertarianism nothing is defined as an illusion. The intuition of causality is qualified by the intuition of free will. Anyone who chooses causality and gives up free will will decide that free will is all an illusion, and that is a less plausible option.
By the way, the principle of causality has definitely been challenged: free will. And if I may say so, no exception has ever been found for free will either.
And in general, as David Hume showed, no shred of evidence has ever been found for the principle of causality. So what’s the point of talking about finding exceptions? First show me that there is such a principle at all, and then we’ll talk about exceptions.
Well, although there is no evidence for the principle of causality, you seem to advocate the acceptance of ideas also by good intuition. Therefore, one can speak of a “principle” when talking about causality, as long as no exceptions to this principle are found. (According to Hume's view, it is impossible to prove any apparent principle. (At least physical))
The question is rather about the level of intuition and not about proofs, (which do not belong here, both in causality and in free will).
I would like to argue that there is a stronger intuition to give up on free will and classify it as another mental illusion, of which we already have many. than to accept free will as a kind of exception to causality.
And this is because, as in Peta Morgana, when there is an explanation that allows the mind to reconcile vision with physics, then the explanation itself receives intuitive preference and becomes the dominant understanding. Here too, in the contradiction between free will and causality, one must not only consider both sides, causality, versus choice, but one must also consider the explanations offered to reconcile the contradiction. And the explanation of a mental illusion, although it rules out choice, is (in my humble opinion) more plausible and intuitive than an exception to causality.
I have already answered and will answer again. The example of Pata Morgana is evidence for my claim. You are only reserving what you must and nothing more.
Even at the level of intuition, this is the obvious solution. If your intuition is different, then you are probably a determinist. In my opinion, this is really absurd, but I don't see what there is to argue about here. Just remember that now you must throw away all your intuitions, including morality and values, and causality itself of course (after all, you decided that there is causality, and if you are called a determinist, your decisions do not have much meaning). The whole discussion loses its meaning here.
It is clear that you are only restricting what you must. The question is how to choose what to restrict. And if the tool used for this purpose is intuition, then you should choose what is more intuitively plausible, and in my humble opinion, an illusion in sensory perception of choice is easier to digest since similar situations of perceptual illusion have already been found, while no exceptions have been found for the principle of causality, which makes it intuitively difficult to accept an exception.
And if all of this dictates that I am a deterministic machine, I have no problem with it, as long as it is the truth.
Although this view undermines the foundations of all social, religious, legal, etc. perception, this should not affect the need to understand reality as it is.
And why did you decide that if I am a deterministic machine, the discussion is irrelevant? Can a machine that operates by deterministic processes understand reality less well than a libertarian creature?
A deterministic machine cannot understand reality at all. No better and no less good. Understanding involves judgment and deciding what is right and what is wrong. When it is forced upon you, you have no judgment, and therefore your conclusions in any field are worthless.
I did not talk about the moral cost of losing values and about my own desires. I am talking about our intuition that says that there are values and that they are valid and binding. It also stands in opposition to the intuition of causality.
But since we are repeating ourselves, I will stop here.
Well, if you are not willing to accept the conclusions of a deterministic machine, then you also do not recognize every result and conclusion reached by a computer.
My conclusions are a weighting of data and inference, and in this a deterministic machine is at least as good as a libertarian.
And as for your claim that intuition regarding the validity of moral values in our lives also stands against the idea that choice is an illusion, I do not understand why, after all, the feeling that morality is as valid and binding as the choice itself, and it also stems from the ability to choose.
Therefore, if choice is truly an illusion, then morality is simply a continuation of it (if there is a choice, it must be moral), and it is also an illusion. Therefore, you cannot use it as a value separate from the intuition of choice to attack the idea of illusion and the intuition that stands behind it.
I apologize if I repeat myself, this is about the brevity of the concept and the depth of the concept, and the rabbi is the only address I know for deep and complex questions. May your strength be exalted.
Haim, are you sure you're with us? Sometimes I think not.
What's the point of putting a lid on an omelet? The computer does not think. When the computer makes a calculation and reaches a result, I, as the owner of the computer, understand and accept it. The computer itself does not think and cannot reach any conclusions. It also cannot know in any way that whoever programmed it did so in such a way that its conclusions are correct or that he is just fiddling with the kettle.
As for the rest, I have nothing to add. The things are as simple as a proverb, and there is no point in repeating them again and again.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
