Q&A: Questions that came up for me from the book "The Science of Freedom"
Questions that came up for me from the book "The Science of Freedom"
Question
Hi Michael, I’m currently reading your book "The Science of Freedom," and I have to say it’s fascinating, and I’ve learned a great deal from it.
I wanted to ask a few questions that came up for me while reading the book, and I’d be glad if you could answer them and sharpen my thinking about them.
Why is Descartes’ methodological doubt the basis of this book, or the basis of some of its arguments?
In the definition of "free choice," three criteria were listed: 1. both options are objective and exist in our world, 2. both options are "feasible," meaning that a person can choose to carry out either one if he wants to, 3. the person is not influenced by an external factor and is active in his choice.
I wanted to ask why 2 is not included in 1, and if it is, then why is 1 necessary?
In the duplication-and-killing experiments, with the one-million-dollar grant for the clone, I discussed it with my friend and a question came up for us: doesn’t that decision stem from emotions and a survival instinct? It would be much easier for me to force my friend to undergo the experiment because I rationally know that he would be the same person, just richer, but to kill myself, even if I know that I would be the same person afterward (from a physicalist point of view), is something difficult that our brain naturally resists.
In Buridan’s donkey experiment, the reason a person knows how to choose to save himself and not act according to the symmetrical physical considerations he is in—isn’t that because of a person’s past experience? The experiences he had from a young age and that taught him, his survival instinct, and many other reasons.
Answer
Why do you think Descartes’ methodological doubt is the basis of the book? It was brought in to illustrate the point that the mind is the basis that recognizes the body’s existence, and not that the body’s existence is clearer.
I didn’t understand the question. There need to be two paths, and both need to be feasible. The second is certainly not a generalization of the first, but an additional layer. But as far as I’m concerned, you can see it as one requirement. It makes no difference.
If a person refuses because of psychological reasons, then indeed nothing can be learned from that. These are diagnostic arguments, not arguments meant to prove something. Examine yourself and ask whether you refuse because of psychology or because of an evaluative-logical consideration. If it isn’t just psychology, then the conclusion follows.
As for Buridan’s man experiment, it seems you didn’t understand the argument. It really doesn’t matter what influenced him and what didn’t. This is only a mathematical question: in a symmetrical situation, there is no possibility that a deterministic system will act asymmetrically.
As for Buridan, thanks for the clarification, but I still don’t understand why the argument is relevant as a refutation of determinism / or what it adds regarding it, since one can act deterministically in this symmetrical situation on the basis of past experiences and the brain’s deterministic development. I think you also wrote that one can act deterministically in favor of judgment and not make a decision only according to external / purely physical factors.