Improvements to common practices of praxeology Tuukka Pensala 2022-07-02 UNCERTAINTY "The uncertainty of the future is already implied in the very notion of action. That man acts and that the future is uncertain are by no means two independent matters. They are only two different modes of establishing one thing." - Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, Chapter VI, https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/675 The problem: A known risk is an uncertainty, but an actor does not necessarily need to acknowledge any known risks, simply because one can act with full and total confidence. Thus, to be more clear, we need to clarify what particular kind of uncertainty is logically necessary in action. To have choice and control over an object (e.g. a body), an actor must regard the future state of the object as not yet fully determined. He must regard himself as the one who determines the future state of the object -- otherwise he wouldn't understand being in control of that object. Thus the particular kind of uncertainty that is implied in the very notion of action is "indeterminateness". The fact that humans also understand risks does not follow deductively from the action axiom, but is an additional empirical postulate. An improved version of the above quote: "The indeterminateness of the future is already implied in the very notion of action. That man acts and that the future is not determined are by no means two independent matters. They are only two different modes of establishing one thing." THINKING "Action is preceded by thinking. Thinking is to deliberate beforehand over future action and to reflect afterwards upon past action. Thinking and acting are inseparable. Every action is always based on a definite idea about causal relations. He who thinks a causal relation thinks a theorem. Action without thinking, practice without theory are unimaginable. The reasoning may be faulty and the theory incorrect; but thinking and theorizing are not lacking in any action." - Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, Chapter IX, https://mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/pp/713 The problem: One can intentionally choose between e.g. walking and stopping to think. One thinks if he values thinking to be the best use of his time at the moment. Therefore thinking itself is action already. Now, if every action is preceded by thinking, like Mises claims, then thinking would precede thinking, which would precede thinking, etc., leading to infinite regress. Thus not every action is preceded by thinking. It is possible to act spontaneously, relying only on one's present understanding that just happens to be there. Thinking, planning, reasoning and physical movement are all just different kinds of action. Every action arises from uncaused will, but the chosen action plan may have been prepared by thinking or planning. An improved version of the above quote: "Action is preceded by understanding. Understanding and acting are inseparable. Every action is always based on a definite idea about causal relations. He who understands a causal relation understands a theorem. Action without understanding, practice without theory are unimaginable. The understanding may be faulty and the theory incorrect; but understanding and theory are not lacking in any action." THE MIND If thinking is an action, then what are the means of that action? The means are the mental faculties. As one can use his body to produce and manipulate physical goods, one can also use his mental faculties to produce and manipulate thoughts. The mental faculties are part of the mind. The mind is a peculiar kind of object that humans experience and use. Subsequently, the mind can not encompass the actor himself. If everything that an actor controls and knows is disregarded, then the only thing left is an acting consciousness. An actor is an active consciousness that may or may not have some specific mental or physical faculties at his disposal. A human consciousness uses both the mind and the world. This notion of active consciousness (subject) properly bridges the mind (object) and the world (object). ANIMALS "Animals are driven by instinctive urges. They yield to the impulse which prevails at the moment and peremptorily asks for satisfaction. They are the puppets of their appetites. Man's eminence is to be seen in the fact that he chooses between alternatives. He regulates his behavior deliberatively. He can master his impulses and desires; he has the power to suppress wishes the satisfaction of which would force him to renounce the attainment of more important goals. In short: man acts; he purposively aims at ends chosen. This is what we have in mind in stating that man is a moral person, responsible for his conduct." - Ludwig Von Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism, Chapter 1, https://mises.org/library/economic-freedom-and-interventionism/html/p/103 The problem: Animals could also be actors; animals could also have an active consciousness that understands causal rules, practices control and chooses exchanges, although presumably accompanied with less thinking compared to humans. Some simpler animals could even act with only physical understanding, without having mental faculties at all. To me animals clearly seem to behave with purpose. Ultimately, what is and what isn't an actor is left up to interpretation. It's not a-priori impossible to interpret that one is the only actor in the world and that everyone else is an unconscious robot. It's just implausible. But it's also possible to believe in the other extreme, that even a subatomic particle makes a rudimentary intentional choice when its wave function collapses, that is, when its state is determined (or chosen) in a way that seems to be impossible to predict from the outside. (Related: The Strong Free Will Theorem by John Conway, Simon Kochen.) It may be most plausible to reject the elusive line between active and inactive matter altogether, and instead treat activeness and intentionality as properties of all matter.