Pseudoproblem

Is one right and the other wrong? Is there another alternative?
Post Reply
wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Pseudoproblem

Post by wvanfleet »

In math, a point has coordinates within a frame of reference.  It is therefore true that within that frame of reference the point has those coordinates.  Within a different frame of reference, that same point would have different coordinates, and it would be true that within that different frame of reference, the point would have those new coordinates.

But what is neither true nor false is the frame of reference itself.  That frame of reference is just a tool, a model.

"Free will" and "determinism" are just frames of reference within which to talk about and think about our behavior.  Neither is true or false.  They are both just tools.

Bill Van Fleet
Humanian

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Pseudoproblem

Post by REveritt »

That is a very interesting way to pose the problem.  Of course, within the frame of reference that we typically perceive ourselves to have, we seem to have free will.  Whether free will "really" exists is a question for the ages.  My own view is that seeming free will (along with mind-body duality and other perceptions) are unavoidable artifacts of human consciousness.  We think we have free will because our brains work that way.  That being the case, we also seem to have ethical choices.  We cannot avoid these by claiming that free will is "just an illusion".  In any case, it is much more interesting to plunge in and try to build an ethical system that is self-consistent and practical.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Pseudoproblem

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote: That is a very interesting way to pose the problem.  Of course, within the frame of reference that we typically perceive ourselves to have, we seem to have free will.  Whether free will "really" exists is a question for the ages.  My own view is that seeming free will (along with mind-body duality and other perceptions) are unavoidable artifacts of human consciousness.  We think we have free will because our brains work that way.  That being the case, we also seem to have ethical choices.  We cannot avoid these by claiming that free will is "just an illusion".  In any case, it is much more interesting to plunge in and try to build an ethical system that is self-consistent and practical.
I really agree with what you have written.  I think that you have not quite understood, though, why I believe that it is a pseudoproblem, because you write as if it still is an unsolved problem that we would perhaps do best to just avoid as not productive.  I think there is a more definite answer, the one that I gave.  But I know I did not write very much and therefore did not do a convincing job.

I still encourage you to consider the problem (whether we have free will or whether our behavior is determined) a pseudoproblem that does not require an answer, just as whether Eastern time or Pacific time is the correct time.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Pseudoproblem

Post by REveritt »

I think that you have not quite understood, though, why I believe that it is a pseudoproblem, because you write as if it still is an unsolved problem that we would perhaps do best to just avoid as not productive.  I think there is a more definite answer, the one that I gave.  But I know I did not write very much and therefore did not do a convincing job.
My position is that while the question of free will may be interesting from some perspectives (and not necessarily insoluble), it is irrelevant from an ethical perspective.  The whole idea of ethics presupposes free will.  And while we can argue against the existence of free will, we will continue to act as though we have it.

It's like the idealism/materialism debate.  You can challenge the existence of the external material world all you want, but when you get hungry, you are going to head for the fridge.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: Pseudoproblem

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote:
I think that you have not quite understood, though, why I believe that it is a pseudoproblem, because you write as if it still is an unsolved problem that we would perhaps do best to just avoid as not productive.  I think there is a more definite answer, the one that I gave.  But I know I did not write very much and therefore did not do a convincing job.
My position is that while the question of free will may be interesting from some perspectives (and not necessarily insoluble), it is irrelevant from an ethical perspective.  The whole idea of ethics presupposes free will.  And while we can argue against the existence of free will, we will continue to act as though we have it.
And I agree with you, but add that there is no reson to argue against the existence of free will, or the existence of determinism, since both are not issues of fact but instead are just frames of reference, useful under perhaps different circumstances.
It's like the idealism/materialism debate.  You can challenge the existence of the external material world all you want, but when you get hungry, you are going to head for the fridge.
Probably the same principle applies, though I haven't thought about it much yet.

So we seem to be in agreement.

Post Reply