RE: Critique of Critique
...however, you are free to act as you wish within that framework.
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).
In his book, Flynn thinks it pointless to continue research on elementary cognitive tasks (e.g., reaction time tests, such as with Jensen’s “button box”). But such tests may provide our first opportunity to measure g in absolute terms (on a ratio scale; Jensen, 2005). Performance on reaction time tests is scored in milliseconds. Unlike IQ scores, time has a zero point and equal-size units. Ratio-level measurement would finally allow us to chart patterns and rates of cognitive growth and decline over the life course as well as over decades. The Flynn Effect might have been explained long ago had we historical data of this sort. *
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?
would rather say the opposite, because an expert can do things right or wrong, but an inexperienced can only do them wrong. In this case, the influence gives them more freedom and not less.
If I want to do something that I do the first time, I can only do it right. !COFFEEA !DRAMATOKEN
The Grandmaster follows the rules. The Grandmaster uses experience and logic to predict the future board-states 3 or 4 turns ahead. This information restricts their options. The Grandmaster is a "best move" robot.
The novice is free to move anywhere or do anything they think of. The novice is not restricted by the rules of the game or by the potential future board-states. The novice is FREE.
You suggest that the Grandmaster is "free" to (EITHER) choose their best move (OR) some other move.
But why would the Grandmaster ever choose a move that wasn't (to the best of their knowledge) their best move?
Are you suggesting there is some utility in knowingly "choosing" a bad move?
I mean, if the Grandmaster was training an initiate, they might make moves that would best train their partner, and not necessarily the best move to win the game as quickly as possible, but that would still be their best move, BASED ON THEIR GOAL OR MOTIVE.
You must always make your best move (unless you are knowingly self-sabotaging).