Leo Fernevak on Nostr: Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think you are correct that we can't measure ...
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I think you are correct that we can't measure someone else's free will, at least not objectively. There is too much that we cannot possibly know about them. Not everything is subject to objective analysis and probing.
Our own abilities can vary drastically over the span of a day. A problem that we are struggling with in the evening may present itself in a completely new light in the morning, in spite of us not having learned anything new from our environment. A fresh vantage point, a rested mind, a new creative consideration, a deeper meditation over a subject.
Returning to the cog-in-the-wheel idea, my thinking is that if we somehow were reduced to being a cog in the wheel, for example via an implanted chip that controlled us, then this would represent the lower end of the spectrum of free will. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent condition but it demonstrates the spectrum.
When we believe in free will and the chance to have free will, we naturally reject the idea of controlling other people because we respect their sovereign decisionmaking. It would be a crime against humanity to destroy or limit someone else's ability to reason. This is why lobotomy and chemical lobotomy is so abhorrent; it is the destruction or degradation of a person's soul, personality or the sovereign core of their being, depending on how we would phrase that.
I caught myself observing recently that I believe the universe to be mechanistic, but not the mind. We can predict orbits of planets, but we cannot with certainty predict a life trajectory. The mind is sovereign and have the ability to change itself, to rebuild its architecture. Not everyone will have an equal ability to change themselves, and the ability may vary during a lifetime.
I think one problem with denying free will is that it implies a deterministic view of consciousness. It assumes that the mind is merely an output based on inputs. It removes the chances of individual and sovereign decisionmaking.
If we were just the mechanistic result of our inputs, then a tyrant with this belief would have no ethical concerns over changing our inputs, i.e. reprogramming us with new stimuli, in order to produce within us the desired result of that tyrant, disregarding our sovereign minds. Not bothering to convince us that something is correct, but instead to force some belief upon us. I think this is the darker side of viewing the human mind as deterministic; it opens up the floodgates to totalitarianism
I think you are correct that we can't measure someone else's free will, at least not objectively. There is too much that we cannot possibly know about them. Not everything is subject to objective analysis and probing.
Our own abilities can vary drastically over the span of a day. A problem that we are struggling with in the evening may present itself in a completely new light in the morning, in spite of us not having learned anything new from our environment. A fresh vantage point, a rested mind, a new creative consideration, a deeper meditation over a subject.
Returning to the cog-in-the-wheel idea, my thinking is that if we somehow were reduced to being a cog in the wheel, for example via an implanted chip that controlled us, then this would represent the lower end of the spectrum of free will. It wouldn't necessarily be a permanent condition but it demonstrates the spectrum.
When we believe in free will and the chance to have free will, we naturally reject the idea of controlling other people because we respect their sovereign decisionmaking. It would be a crime against humanity to destroy or limit someone else's ability to reason. This is why lobotomy and chemical lobotomy is so abhorrent; it is the destruction or degradation of a person's soul, personality or the sovereign core of their being, depending on how we would phrase that.
I caught myself observing recently that I believe the universe to be mechanistic, but not the mind. We can predict orbits of planets, but we cannot with certainty predict a life trajectory. The mind is sovereign and have the ability to change itself, to rebuild its architecture. Not everyone will have an equal ability to change themselves, and the ability may vary during a lifetime.
I think one problem with denying free will is that it implies a deterministic view of consciousness. It assumes that the mind is merely an output based on inputs. It removes the chances of individual and sovereign decisionmaking.
If we were just the mechanistic result of our inputs, then a tyrant with this belief would have no ethical concerns over changing our inputs, i.e. reprogramming us with new stimuli, in order to produce within us the desired result of that tyrant, disregarding our sovereign minds. Not bothering to convince us that something is correct, but instead to force some belief upon us. I think this is the darker side of viewing the human mind as deterministic; it opens up the floodgates to totalitarianism