You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

whowhowho comments on My summary of Eliezer's position on free will - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: Solvent 28 February 2012 05:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (100)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: whowhowho 05 February 2013 05:45:28PM *  0 points [-]

Act on desires one happens to have, or act on desires one has originated?

Comment author: ygert 05 February 2013 07:05:11PM 1 point [-]

Can you try to say what the difference is? At this point I think you are tying yourself up in semantic knots.

Comment author: whowhowho 05 February 2013 07:18:30PM 0 points [-]

An obvious objection to "one is free if one is able to act according to ones desires" is that ones desire mught be implanted, eg brain washing

Comment author: ygert 05 February 2013 08:08:40PM 0 points [-]

But it is not obvious where the border lies between brainwashing/indoctrination and simply sharing information. If we are discussing a mutual acquaintance (let's call her Alice) and I tell you that she did some not nice action yesterday, you may have a desire to shun her the next time you two meet. Is that desire "your own"?

One could say that it is because you simply used your knowledge of her past actions to decide for yourself that you should shun her. On the other hand, one could say that I basically am controlling your actions, because me telling you what I said has affected your actions.

You can very easily yourself make lots of other borderline cases like this, and in fact they come up in real life very often. Consider the case where parents "indoctrinates" their kids with their religion. When the kid grows up to follow that religion, was it the kid's own choice? Again, we find that the distinction is not complete. If the kid had not been raised to that religion, he likely would not be following it. But this is how most people in the world got their religion. I doubt that you go around to everyone and say that deep down they don't really believe in it... But that is a separate discussion.

Anyway, what I am trying to say, is that for every desire one has originated, their likely was some (external) reason why they have that desire. Like me telling them how nasty Alice had been, or their parents telling them that god exists. (And maybe Alice was nasty, or maybe she wasn't maybe god doesn't exist or maybe he does, but that has no relevance.) In any case, that desire was caused by the outside factor, which shows that it is not very meaningful to try to separate out which desires where caused by outside factors. (As they all are to some extent or another.)

Comment author: whowhowho 06 February 2013 06:21:48PM 1 point [-]

But it is not obvious where the border lies between brainwashing/indoctrination and simply sharing information.

Lots of borders aren't obvious. Why should that present a special problem in this case?

One could say that it is because you simply used your knowledge of her past actions to decide for yourself that you should shun her. On the other hand, one could say that I basically am controlling your actions, because me telling you what I said has affected your actions.

Anyway, what I am trying to say, is that for every desire one has originated, their likely was some (external) reason why they have that desire.

I don't see why I should regard a desire as being originated when it also has some deterministic external cause. If, OTOH, if a "reason" is just an influence, or partial cause, then it is compatible with partial origination.

I don't see why I would have to do either. I need both the internal disposition to shun her, and the information. It is not either/or.