It is always necessary to clarify the meanings of terms before using them in propositions.
We can start here by arguing about the following definitions. After a certain amount of arguing, I will assert a final meaning and we will move on, using that meaning in the arguments. After that, any deviation from the defined meaning will need a modifier attached to the word to explain the deviation. Our definitions will start with Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary definitions, unless and until the need to refine them is obviously necessary.
FREE WILL
Free Will, it is claimed by some, is without meaning, an empty concept. That apparently is because the claimant has already decided that it does not exist. But that assertion will need proof, we will see. Others have claimed an inability to understand the concept, whatever it is; those will have to step aside until they figure it out.
free will 1. The human will, regarded as free from restraints, compulsions, or any antecedent conditions; freedom of decision or choice.Arguments will be anticipated concerning the additional definitions of “restraint”; “compulsion”; “antecedent conditions”, and the meaning of “freedom”. Perhaps it might help to look at plato.stanford for additional resolution to the definition.
2. The doctrine that people have this; opposed to determinism
Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary; Second ed; 1979.
”’Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about."For our purposes we will grant that there are some constraints, certainly those of our abilities, our environment, our genetic endowment. But these do not eliminate the ability to choose to go to an ice cream store, choose not to buy anything, and choose to leave after robbing it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
Or, for example, our inability to fly by flapping our ears does not preclude our invention of the helicopter to enable our desire to fly. So constraints exist but are not fatal to the existence of free will.
We might be afflicted with compulsions. But not all of us would have the same compulsions and a compulsion afflicting the ability of one person would not necessarily inhibit the abilities of another person. Compulsion is not fatal to the existence of free will.
The term, “antecedent conditions”, needs additional resolution in order to determine which conditions are in play, and whether the individual is entirely captive of those conditions, or whether they influence but do not determine the individual’s choices and actions. For our purposes here we will grant that antecedent conditions influence, without fully determining the decisions and choices which an individual makes. This will obviously be in contention; but it is in no manner a definition of the human condition that a person’s choices and actions are fully determined by antecedent conditions.
AGENCY
a’ gent, n 1. One who performs actions, exerts power, or has the power to act; as, a moral agent.For purposes of human agency, we will use the concept of human causation of effects, those effects being outside the expected causation of the known four physical forces. The example of the invention of helicopters serves again. All the elements of a helicopter are material, and respond to the four physical forces; it is the invention of the helicopter, and its manufacture and implementation which is not an expectation of the four forces, working alone. An additional agent has been added.
2. an active power or force; that which has the power to produce an effect; as, heat is a powerful agent.
SELF
There is currently a school of denial which asserts that there is no self, that what we think of as “me”, is just a combination of belief systems and memories and other mental constructs. However, it is possible to think of those things as components of “mind”, so for our purposes here, the self will be congruent with “mind”. When the concept of “mind” is challenged, we will deal with that independently.
LIFE
There is also a school of thought that the concept of life is meaningless, that the essence of life is merely the possession of DNA, which fully describes the thing which has it. This ignores that dead carcasses also have DNA, and that living things do have characteristics which non-living things do not, a few of which are to take in nutrients and expel waste, adapt to surroundings and to reproduce their kind. There is an acknowledgement of such in evolutionary circles, where the concept of life coming only from other life is necessary for the common ancestor theory.
For our purposes here we will take “life” to mean human life with the attributes of mind, self, agency and free will, until shown conclusively otherwise.
I'm not sure about the self being congruent with mind.
ReplyDeleteI have a mind. I have a relationship with my mind--
I'm not sure the fit is perfect.
Perhaps a bit more about that would help.
Sonic,
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Could you describe that with a little more detail?
For example, is it a mapping issue, as in not pursuing the path you consider optimal?
If there is an internal conflict, is it on the order of emotional vs. rational, or desires vs. reality, or is it an internal conflict of another sort?
What I'm wondering is if a mind which is conflicted is not still a mind, one which reflects a conflicted self?
Or perhaps you have a feel for how your "self" differs from your mind?
Interesting stuff, thanks for your comment.
Stan-
ReplyDeleteI might try to explain what I mean this way--
I might get a song stuck in my mind. I might be able to get rid of it. But sometimes not so easy.
I played basketball. I could shoot. My attention was on the rim- I don't know how the actual force of the shot was calculated.
I think that my mind includes sub-conscious influences. I think some of these influences are repeating-- that is to say they are a feature of my mind that I am not fully aware of and even if I am aware of it (like I know something calculates the force needed to shoot a ball for me) I really don't know how that works exactly.
I have a relationship with my mind.
Am I nuts?
Sonic,
ReplyDeleteFirst,
How about if we define mind as a category containing these elements:
Mind:
1. Autonomic controls: e.g. heartbeat, and other functions not consciously controlled.
2. Semi-autonomic controls: e.g. breathing, which is autonomic but can be overridden.
3. Subconscious functions: e.g. memory access, data transfer.
4. Conscious functions: thought development, creative and purposeful functions.
Let me discuss this with some rambling:
This has been interesting to me for a long time.
There's a term of art called muscle memory, which is the development of neural pathways controlling various semi-voluntary functions. These are developed by practice and repetition until they become semi-autonomic.
I never put enough time into basketball to develop those pathways. But I have done so (sort of) with guitar playing, and it was an extremely long period of development. When I started playing guitar it was uncomfortable and the notes had to be found with a long hard visual search of the fretboard. Now I play with my eyes shut, but only after decades of noise making.
I knew a concert violinist who had to change her vibrato technique with her left hand. It was extremely difficult because of the years (decades) she had invested in the original technique, which made it autonomic, virtually hardwired in.
I agree fully with the statement that we don't know the relationships or gradations between full consciousness and subconscious influence. The necessity of making a decision includes accessing memory for similar situations, rule sets, applying them to a differentiator, making a judgment, and comprehending the impact. (These are John Locke's proposed processes, not mine, but I like them). So there are autonomic steps in the intellectual process, too. That doesn't mean that I haven't made the conscious choice to activate them.
I'm not a great guitarist. But I'm at the stage where I can think of groups of notes, e.g. a certain riff, and then just do it with no regard to forcing the right hand to pick the strings in coordination with the left hand depressing the strings to certain frets. That lick has a neural pathway that I choose to exercise. I can string a number of licks together and change chords with the cadence of a song, and not remember exactly what I did, after it is done.
But I'm not a true musician. A musician makes music, rather than playing notes. That's another level still, where the notes are autonomic and the music is conscious.
Typing is another example. I can type much faster than I can write by hand, and if I have to think about finding the right key, it gets messed up fast.
And there is a difference between autonomic typing and "writing". For example, I can consciously write down thoughts while utilizing the autonomic typing skills which I developed (accidentally - just by doing it a lot). And I really have no conscious knowledge of having tapped on which keys. What I am conscious of is the thought process which is being recorded.
So the Lockean approximation seems to me to cover the bases. All disagreement is welcome! Keep it coming…
Stan-
ReplyDeleteI play music too. Your guitar analogy works to describe what I am talking about.
The inclusion of the 'Lockean approximation' makes the description more complete and accurate IMHO.
Thanks.