You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Critique of Critique
You are perceiving a feeling.
No rational person believes a human can "do anything they want".
I'm certain there are a great many things you would do (that you are not currently doing) if it were truly as easy as snapping your fingers.
Your current slate of "choices" are determined by your history and biology. And your ability to make "good choices" is also determined by your history and biology.
A person born with a low IQ cannot "choose" to have a higher IQ.
I don't say that there are no circumstances that limit our freedom. I speak of free will, not absolute freedom. Your framework for action is limited by your current state of circumstances, however, you are free to act as you wish within that framework.
It depends, do you think the IQ is innate?
Do you believe a Chess Grandmaster is "free" to move the pieces "wherever they want"?
Or are they constrained by their training and experience and their goal (desire) of winning?
And as to your second point,
There have been a large number of scientific studies attempting to increase a person's general IQ (including projects like lumosity), and although a (low or average IQ) person can generally improve performance on a specific game with practice, that improvement does not translate into increased general proficiency (they are unable to generalize their problem solving skill and apply it to other systems).
aND, 3 MINUTES,
The metaphor of chess perfectly shows what I tell you, maybe we don't even disagree. The Chess Grandmaster can even throw the table aside if he wishes, he is free to do all the regulatory moves, and even more if he gets creative. But it is certainly limited by the circumstances to do what it does. He certainly cannot fly or be omnipotent to do anything. But if it is free between a certain range of options.
Wouldn't you say they must always choose their best move?
I would say that, and even more, I think he would almost always do it, but he is free to choose another movement if he wishes.
But are they free to wish to lose the game?
Do you "choose" your desires (wishes) or do you simply follow them (like a slave)?
(IFF) the grandmaster wishes to win (THEN) they must always make their best move (like a robot).
(IFF) the grandmaster acts randomly, distracted and without the goal of winning (THEN) they will lose.
It's exactly the same as the physician and the janitor.
Would you prefer to be rescued by a trained professional (programmed and influenced by their training and experience which makes them unfree), or would your prefer to be rescued by a janitor who is just making everything up on the spot (perfectly free)?
I don't believe "freedom" (acting uninfluenced) is ever advantageous in this context.
Right. Experience and personal history are factors of influence on personal freedom and free will.
But wouldn't you say they're inversely proportional?
The more experience you have, the more influenced you are, the less free you are.
The novice is uninfluenced and therefore the MOST FREE!!!
Is a lack of influence advantageous?