Although now you are fighting the hypothetical by saying the utility coach doesn’t maximize utility, when the hypothetical says it does.

And the question is about ethics, not about preference. So being a utilitarian isn’t about satisfying ones own preferences, but satisfying the preferences of the greatest number. This includes creating a sense of free will as far as necessary to maximize utility. And the question asks whether you would force others to accept the utility coach. This answer is obvious if you’re a utilitarian, in which case everyone must accept the utility coach, but not if you value freedom for its own sake.

I would say that in this case "pessimism" is a strange word choice meant more to get the reader's attention than to accurately describe what is just having a reasonable and balanced view based on the information before you. One could similarly argue for "cautious optimism" and come up with something that ends up sounding more or less the same.

When it comes to matters of optimism, pessimism and so on, I lean more on the virtue ethics angle, in that a balanced approach is what's most logical - you have to be able to see both positive and negative possibilities and realities to come to a realistic outlook. (That said, I find that in application, people who label themselves "realists" are usually closet pessimists, so I don't use that term).

I don’t believe you will have an exact map of unity from your collection; it’s naive optimism. Perhaps a child’s rendition of a map.

That’s likely due to the fact that I am now a Nihilist and Anti-realist.

However, there is a big danger irregardless:

There was a old ambition in scholastic monasteries that one single person could become master of all the studies: Theology, Philosophy (though it technically just theological tools at this point), Law, Medicine, etc.

When the enlightenment finally came knocking on their big oak doors, that ambition faltered, because their finely interweaved premises and conclusions were - strand by strand - proven to be incorrect, and the whole web eventually just collapsed.

You risk the chance of creating a fantasy map pointing to the locations of apparent trolls under bridges and dragons in caves; you risk being shown up when the map’s constituents, and their relation to one another, are proven to be inadequate or totally wrong.

——

If you really want three things which can help you go forward, though:

Firstly, critique your paragraph above and the premises that made you write it. You have to remove any bad meat before you let the rest mature.

Secondly, study Siemens connectiveness theory of learning which “emphasises the idea that knowledge is a series of interrelated webs from not only social interactions, but experiences, digital observations (commercials, websites), or even organizations. In the end, the interconnectedness of all of the knowledge leads to learning.”

Third, recognise that learning is not knowledge; that coming up with a theory of learning and having understanding is not the same as having a genuine absolute accurate map such as knowledge.

>Although the utility coach would maximize your utility, which would factor in your preference for a belief in free will. You would be getting the highest utility possible under the coach.

But I disagree that's the case and I gave you an example of a different coach that would provide greater utility. If the second coach can provide greater utility, the first one must necessarily provide less than the highest possible. Unless I misunderstood what you are saying, Idk.

For the record, I would probably be ok with the one that respects my illusion of free will. It essentially would be equivalent to being able to predict the future subconsciously.

>And the important question isn't what you would choose, but what you would choose on behalf of others. If you're a utilitarian, then it would be a duty to take the coach's offer. But if you believe they should have a right to make the choice themselves, then you value freedom even above utility.

But a lot of people might share the same preference like me, given that pretty much everyone experiences the illusion of free will. I would be much more likely to give the second one, as that also respects their current state of mind.

Also, just because I am a utilitarian, it doesn't mean that I want everyone's utility to be maximised, MY utility has to be. In my case, I think that human fulfilment must be maximised. Therefore, if giving the utility coach to a fascist would result in him creating a dictatorship because that maximises his utility, it would be worth negative utility as that would drastically reduce human fulfilment for a lot more people.

In conclusion, if I could know the result of giving the utility coach that respects free will to someone were worth positive utility to me (maximizing human fulfilment collectively) I would. I wouldn't give anyone the first one, as that entails the removal of the feeling of free will which is very important in most people and therefore doesn't maximise their utility. It could potentially be negative utility if someone values his perception highly enough.

Augustine’s Privation theory of evil might suit you well.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I'm arguing about the idea of free will, and a materialism based on cause and effect. Thus the idea that such is the case. Imagine such a universe, how different would t be to a factory that manufactures automobiles? Now it would be surprising if these acted differently?

Not trolling. Here is another argument, though not my own which demonstrates the determinists problem.

Physical determinism can't invalidate our experience as free agents.

From John D. Barrow – using an argument from Donald MacKay.

Consider a totally deterministic world, without QM etc. Laplace's vision realised. We know the complete state of the universe including the subjects brain. A person is about to choose soup or salad for lunch. Can the scientist given complete knowledge infallibly predict the choice. NO. The person can, if the scientist says soup, choose salad.

The scientist must keep his prediction secret from the person. As such the person enjoys a freedom of choice.

The fact that telling the person in advance will cause a change, if they are obstinate, means the person's choice is conditioned on their knowledge. Now if it is conditioned on their knowledge – their knowledge gives them free will.

I've simplified this, and Barrow goes into more detail, but the crux is that the subjects knowledge determines the choice, so choosing on the basis of what one knows is free choice.

And we can make this simpler, the scientist can apply it to their own choice. They are free to ignore what is predicted.

http://www.arn.org/docs/feucht/df_determinism.htm#:~:text=MacKay%20argues%20%5B1%5D%20that%20even%20if%20we%2C%20as,and%20mind%3A%20brain%20and%20mental%20activities%20are%20correlates.

“From this, we can conclude that either the logic we employ in our understanding of determinism is inadequate to describe the world in (at least) the case of self-conscious agents, or the world is itself limited in ways that we recognize through the logical indeterminacies in our understanding of it. In neither case can we conclude that our understanding of physical determinism invalidates our experience as free agents.”

Indeed.

Although the utility coach would maximize your utility, which would factor in your preference for a belief in free will. You would be getting the highest utility possible under the coach.

And the important question isn't what you would choose, but what you would choose on behalf of others. If you're a utilitarian, then it would be a duty to take the coach's offer. But if you believe they should have a right to make the choice themselves, then you value freedom even above utility.

The "Naive self" as we may call it is a very important concept that needs to be dealt with. If we do not understand ourselves, what we want, and how the world is constructed around us, how can we ever attempt to move forward in a way that is reasonable to our personal wants and needs?

Wonderful suggestion friend.

It absolutely isn't objective at all. Your post is filled with personal judgements. "Frozen smile crowd"? That implies a lot, and is a sort of "I'm better than you" mentality that overall just seems to lead to narcissism. Overall there should be a balance. I think that trying to apply any of these thoughts patterns wholistically is wrong though. Ultimately, skeptical realism is mostly helpful in situations of repeated issues. One cannot predict the future, and one cannot truly know what's in the heart of anyone else. This is why, as a whole, trust is so important to maintain, because without trust in other people there is no life. We need other humans to survive, and that resource becomes unavailable the more cynical you are.

Skeptical realism, or even merely not attempting to put a positive spin on almost everything, seems to look like dark pessimism to the frozen smile crowd, and that last is the stance the Big Corporate Media both fronts and encourages. That theirs is a command and control effort primarily is obvious. It is not pessimistic to observe that it is. It's objectively there.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The lower classes are better off than today than they were in the past, despite the disparity. So yeah the world is still better off. Not to mention horrible diseases we have found treatment for : malaria, polio, Black Death. Maybe you want to talk to a mother? Ask them if they’d rather have a child now or 100 years ago.

Yeah we can compare absolute numbers if you want, but when the global population is 10 times the size it was 150 years ago, it doesn’t make sense. Especially considering slavery has become a regional issue instead of a global one. Roll the dice today and you’re way better off.

Besides every generation from every era in human history thought the world was going to end lol

Your perspective is a result of the fatalist 24 hour news cycle. I saw the slavery headline too..

I'm finding your thought process very very hard to follow. Given that people are not identical, why would one input have an identical output?

You aren't arguing very clearly. If you don't think that physical events have an impact on mental states then you are at odds with all of neuroscience. If you are just trolling, then have a nice day.

I try not to think of it as a net-net equation with a final computed result.

But more like they have both evil and good qualities that co-exist with each other.

Which would mean humans are neither since they cancel out each other, no?

The vaccine for covid 19 has the identical affect on every individual it is given?

Thinking of a reply to your post above changed my mental state.

So if someone were to cut out half your brain, your mental state would remain unchanged?

[deleted]

"We may not know the ins and outs of how physical events lead to mental states, but we do know that they in fact do so."

This.