Does praxeology imply that there is no free will?

Miscellaneous General
41

Any value that you can ‘choose’ is an instrumental value contingent on its satisfying some more fundamental value. How do you ‘choose’ between values? By what standards do you choose one value over another? Are your values determined by some set of meta-values? Can you choose those? Your argument is obviously circular.

The question was if the fact that you act on highest values proves there is no free will. I just wanted to point out that goals and values aren’t pre-determined by some laws in praxeology. So there is still plenty of room for free choice in praxeology.

In philosophy this question if of course much broader and I don’t pretend to have a solution to the free-will vs determinism question. However economics science … all science is utterly pointless under determinism. It is impossible for humans beings to live as if everything was predetermined, even people who strongly belive in determinism aggree that they act as if they had free-will. For purposes of economic science we must assume free-will exists.

42

It just means that peoples actions are determined by their values, which are determined by a host of psychological and environmental factors. Determinism may have controversial implications for ethics but it is perfectly compatible with economic reasoning.

43

You claimed that the distiction between the “internal” world and the “external” world is “false” and “unneccessary”. So I asked you whether you plan to try to substantiate that. At this point, though, it seems that your answer to that question is “no”.

“Physical patterns” consist of things related to each other by their spacial location. So answer this: How far is your frustration from your anxiety?

44

The free will v. determinism debate is inane and pointless, as is (most) metaphysics generally. We do not know the fundamental nature of reality, the universe, matter, energy, etc. We do not know all physical or natural laws. We do not have access to such knowledge, and applying human “logic” or current-day empirics to such arguments is entirely non sequitur as it is epistemologically nonsensical. Metaphysics = guessing.

The human brain is part of the physical universe, it must follow laws just as the rest of the universe, there is no choice as such

Define “physical.” Define “universe.” Specify these “laws.” Define “choice.” If you do that, you’ll see this is a non-debate and not worth wasting time on.

45

Mauthnerian skepticism is so quaint Cal.

46

I have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant (or any other physical constant and law) INSIDE my head is any different from the one OUTSIDE of it. Do you?

Same distance a wave is from the water’s surface.

Z.

47

Mauthnerian skepticism is so quaint Cal.

Do you believe that “logic” gives you direct knowledge of fundamental reality? Are you prepared to argue that epistemology?

48

direct knowledge of fundamental reality

Define please! See how fun this game is?

49

direct knowledge of fundamental reality

= direct knowledge of the nature of the most basic units of existence = the fundamental nature of “the universe” when the universe is defined as the totality of existence = the totality or fundamentality of natural laws = Kant’s Ding an sich = Plato’s ultimate forms, etc.

[“direct” = knowledge of ^ that is not approximative or guesswork i.e. that is objectively demonstrable in the Kantian sense]

If you dispute the equivalence of any of those definitions, just pick one. If you believe that “logic” gives you access to something else epistemologically relevant to metaphysics arguments, state what that is.

50

First of all, I view philosophy as therapeutic. I’m not sure what your point is, or what position you are trying to pigeonhole me into.

Why are you writing “logic” like this? What use is logic to you? What do you mean by “metaphysics arguments”? Maybe you didn’t get the Mauthner reference.

not approximative or guesswork

:sigh:

51

I guess that you don’t understand what the distinction is. To understand what I am talking about, instead call it the “private realm” and the “public realm”. Each of us have a private realm the objects of which other people can’t see unless their effects go into the public realm. Each of us also have a public realm. But the difference is all of us have the same public realm, which is what makes it public. With that said, inside my head and outside my head are both of the public realm. It is pretty uncharitable to think that my position is so absurd as to mean that I think that the laws of physics apply differently depending on whether their object is something outside my head, like a ball, or instead something inside my head, like a blood vessel.

It just is the surface of the water. It is always at the same location simply because a wave is the surface of the water moving up and down in a certain fashion. With your example, they are in the same location because they are different levels of description of the same physical object. But, with my example, it makes no sense to say anything about their locations in space. They have no locations in space. By the way, an other example like yours is to ask how far the boiling of the water is from the molecules of the water vibrating at a temperature of 99.97 degrees celsius or above. The answer is that they are in the same location because they are just different levels of description of the same physical thing. Boiling water just is water molecules vibrating at 99.97 degrees celsius or above. They are not different things.

52

I’m not sure what your point is, or what position you are trying to pigeonhole me into.

I’m trying to pigeonhole you into a position claiming that logic gives you access to the fundamental nature of the universe i.e. the ultimate subject of metaphysical argument i.e. determinism debate so I can then use epistemology and metalogic to demonstrate how silly that claim is.

Why are you writing “logic” like this? What use is logic to you? What do you mean by “metaphysics arguments”?

Logic is great, and we could use a lot more of it in economic method, but it’s not magic. Deductive logic is simply the clarification through formal language (e.g. binary inference) of postulates that we already intersubjectively agree are valid. Through induction and deduction, we may (probably do) intersubjectively agree that we can get closer in approximation to the fundamental nature of reality, but this all rests on our shared assumptions regarding fundamental reality (I exist, we exist, physical matter, first principles of logic, etc.). That we do (may) share these assumptions, that they are intuitively valid, or that they are necessary presuppositions for our communication does not epistemologically mean they give us access to the nature of reality (or necessarily access to anything other than our own perception).

Arguments regarding things outside our intersubjective consensus (fundamental nature of reality) based on standards for things inside our intersubjective consensus (logic, current-day empirics) are epistemologically nonsensical. We don’t know the fundamental nature of existence. The determinism debate is non sequitur.

First of all, I view philosophy as therapeutic.

Maybe you didn’t get the Mauthner reference.

I didn’t get the Mauthner reference, but assumed it was about skepticism of metaphysics… You may view philosophy as therapeutic, but some people take this very seriously (numerous careers are based on this crap) and many incorporate poor philosophy (e.g. misuse of logic) into bad social prescriptions and bad rebuttals to good arguments. I’ve had academics tell me, for example, that Mises was invalidated by discoveries in quantum physics.

It is my speculation that there is no fundamental unit of existence, random, deterministic or otherwise, but rather an effectively infinite regress emergent complexity upon emergent complexity, with different levels of emergent phenomena exhibiting what we would perceive as distinct natures (e.g. quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics).

53

I’m trying to pigeonhole you into a position claiming that logic gives you access to the fundamental nature of the universe i.e. the ultimate subject of metaphysical argument i.e. determinism debate so I can then use epistemology and metalogic to demonstrate how silly that claim is.

So, you are attempting to strawman me because you didn’t understand what I meant? Tsk tsk. I’ll agree that there’s a limit to human faculties and the growth of knowledge. I am a member of the Austrian school, and somewhat a fan of Reinachian essentialism, intentionality and intuitive fullness/emptiness, so you might want to whip out your epistemology and metalogic and entertain me with your demonstration. I didn’t agree at all that those multiple definitions referred to the same thing. They are either unuseful, fatally flawed, or need further explanation to rectify one with another.

I didn’t get the Mauthner reference, but assumed it was about skepticism of metaphysics…

I’m not an expert, because to attempt to be is a waste of time, like reading Marx and others IMO. Mauthner is basically Ernst Mach on crack, rejecting logic and the natural sciences along with metaphysics IIRC. See Toulmin and Janik’s work on the Methodenstreit between Mach and Heinrich Hertz, and how Mach misunderstood Bild in Hertz’ architectonic, and thus the important differentiation between Vorstellungen and Darstellungen. You aren’t going to find anything about Hertz’ philosophy online. I tried reading his Principles of Mechanics but could only get so much out of it because the math was over my head. There’s some important points to his work and I’ve spent tons of time on this, but it’s nothing glamorous like the scientistic fantasies in this thread. I’d start with Peterson’s work on Wittgenstein’s early philosophy, because Hertz greatly influenced Wittgenstien, if you want to start to understand this.

We don’t know the fundamental nature of existence. The determinism debate is non sequitur.

OK, but the “debate” is actually a category error on the part of the adherents of scientism, including mainstream “economists”. Read my first link ITT. Praxeology is empirical, just not in the sense of the word that positivists are willing to accept. The hypothetico-deductive method (versus the axiomatic-deductive one of praxeology) simply doesn’t work for studying the social sciences. It’s possible to conceive that one day it would and Man eventually stops acting, but I’d urge anyone trying to solve this problem to start with something “easy” like modeling anthropocentric global warming first.

You may view philosophy as therapeutic, but some people take this very seriously

Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Foucalt all see it similarly, but for varying reasons. This is very serious. Equivocation on words like “morality” are responsible for millions of dead people.

(numerous careers are based on this crap) and many incorporate poor philosophy (e.g. misuse of logic) into bad social prescriptions and bad rebuttals to good arguments. I’ve had academics tell me, for example, that Mises was invalidated by discoveries in quantum physics.

If I told you that I was the Queen of England, would you go telling academics that you were chatting with her online? Anyhow, I agree that many professional philosophers (and economists) are windbags.

It is my speculation that there is no fundamental unit of existence, random, deterministic or otherwise, but rather an effectively infinite regress emergent complexity upon emergent complexity, with different levels of emergent phenomena exhibiting what we would perceive as distinct natures (e.g. quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics).

Maybe, or maybe we’re somehow ourselves responsible for the whole complex “game” and our conscious, willing experience is some sort of fundamental unit, and we’ve only allowed ourselves thus far to peel back so many layers of complexity or peer so far into the rabbit hole.

54

I’ve had academics tell me, for example, that Mises was invalidated by discoveries in quantum physics.

Where they Quantum physicists?

55

I recommend that you investigate compatibilism. Daniel Dennett is a tremendous scholar in this field.

Yeah, I am something of a compatibalist. There is will (that is, people do things intentionally) but that is not to say there is some metaphysical ‘freedom’; human will is a product of the physical states of the world. To put it another way, people do have reasons for doing things, but reasons are not the same as causes; and there are causes for reasons.