Chosen actions not absolute?

[BRG253]

I'm just getting into the technical details of metaphysics so forgive me if thise question is the "free will" question re-hashed in another form.

Suppose you reflect on a regrettable decision you made in the past. The mistake was due to an error of knowledge; you had bad or incomplete information and were not exposed to better information until after the fact. In this case, was it even possible that you could have made the correct decision, or was your incorrect decision an inevitable result of having assimilated bad information (or having not yet assimilated better information)?

My understanding of Obectivist metaphysics is that it holds that "any choice by its nature could have been otherwise" (to quote Peikoff). I'm struggling to see why this is necessarily true. It seems to be that we make decisions based on the information stored in our minds, which in turn has a biological component, i.e. the neural processes responsible for storing and accessing knowledge, which must be metaphysically given. Exposre to new information, or reflection on past errors may allow us to become more knowledgable and hence, to make better decisions in the future, but it seems to me that many (all?) decisions are likely to be based on factors which are metaphysically given. Where am I going wrong here?

[DavidOdden]

Suppose you reflect on a regrettable decision you made in the past. The mistake was due to an error of knowledge; you had bad or incomplete information and were not exposed to better information until after the fact. In this case, was it even possible that you could have made the correct decision, or was your incorrect decision an inevitable result of having assimilated bad information (or having not yet assimilated better information)?

I could add a bunch of questions to verify your statement that it was based on having "bad information" and not having been exposed to good information, but I'll just take you at your word (sorta...). Then your choice was correct, that is, given your knowledge context, you properly integrated that knowledge and came to a rational conclusion. But, as they say, GIGO.

However, if I were to interrogate you, I'd interrogate you on your handling of that information. Clearly, you did not pursue an investigation of the information with ultimately-satisfactory vigor. Why? That's where I see the potential for evasion creeping in. One answer might be that you had to make a decision by a particular time, and given that fact plus everything else, you could not go about verifying the information. OTOH maybe there was no such time limit, and you simply passively accepted what someone told you, that is, you were not actively engaged in evaluating the information. Never forget that information has to be evaluated.

My understanding of Obectivist metaphysics is that it holds that "any choice by its nature could have been otherwise" (to quote Peikoff). I'm struggling to see why this is necessarily true.

That's kind of what it means to be a choice. You don't have a choice in the fact that it's raining right now.

It seems to be that we make decisions based on the information stored in our minds, which in turn has a biological component, i.e. the neural processes responsible for storing and accessing knowledge, which must be metaphysically given. Exposre to new information, or reflection on past errors may allow us to become more knowledgable and hence, to make better decisions in the future, but it seems to me that many (all?) decisions are likely to be based on factors which are metaphysically given.

Regardless of the fact that we're biological entities, you still have to choose to eat that orange. Past experience with the pleasure of eating oranges does not mean that it is automatic that you will always eat the orange.

[brian0918]

You might find out better information later, but the potential for learning from your mistake is in determining if you could have found out that better information earlier, and what prevented your learning it sooner. Laziness? Time constraints? Evasion? Deception by others? Without knowing that context, you won't know where to place blame, if anywhere.

Edited November 24, 2009 by brian0918

[Bob G]

I'm just getting into the technical details of metaphysics so forgive me if thise question is the "free will" question re-hashed in another form.

Suppose you reflect on a regrettable decision you made in the past. The mistake was due to an error of knowledge; you had bad or incomplete information and were not exposed to better information until after the fact. In this case, was it even possible that you could have made the correct decision, or was your incorrect decision an inevitable result of having assimilated bad information (or having not yet assimilated better information)?

My understanding of Obectivist metaphysics is that it holds that "any choice by its nature could have been otherwise" (to quote Peikoff). I'm struggling to see why this is necessarily true. It seems to be that we make decisions based on the information stored in our minds, which in turn has a biological component, i.e. the neural processes responsible for storing and accessing knowledge, which must be metaphysically given. Exposre to new information, or reflection on past errors may allow us to become more knowledgable and hence, to make better decisions in the future, but it seems to me that many (all?) decisions are likely to be based on factors which are metaphysically given. Where am I going wrong here?

Our decision making process in a specific case depends upon two things: our values and standards; our knowledge. We cannot reinvent ourselves in each case. We rely upon on the self we have created, which includes our knowledge. This is one of the reasons why having the right values and standards matters, including our standard for knowledge. But this is also a learning process, often by trial and error.

In the situation you posed, your question offers and actually requires that you not only review what your knowledge was at the time, but how you decided that you had enough knowledge (time constraint is part of that context), how you acquired the knowledge, and how you integrated the things you knew. Even if you decide that you fell short on any of these questions (perhaps innocently at the time), if you learn from it and correct it, you have acted appropriately. Depending upon the total situation, you might have some earned guilt. If you did what you knew at the time to be correct, both in your processes and conclusion, then you don't. You may still have to take some responsibility for the consequences.

So, in thinking and then acting on your conclusions, you asserted yourself. If you didn't think, or thought poorly, or did something other than follow your own conclusions, then you rejected yourself and things happened differently. The decision of which of these courses to follow is free will.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Bob G