From Greg Williams (920521)
Gene Boggess (920520)
"Free will" refers to an abstract concept, not to an observable object;
thus, it cannot be pointed to but must be defined.
Agreed -- in fact, there are several models for several kinds of "free will";
I was speaking of what I have termed "traditional" free will (in the Western
religious tradition).
To me, the definition of free will must involve some concept of
responsibility, of accepting credit, or blame, for the consequences of one's
own choices. In the reality in which we live, credit and blame (both
internally and externally assigned) are quite real; these concepts are
socially sustained and validated.
With "traditional" free will, credit and blame are accorded by the
supernatural, as well as one's (natural) peers. Nevertheless, the notion of
free will you are putting forth seems close to the "traditional" one. As I
pointed out in a post last week, there is certainly a sense in which "I" am
responsible -- at least to society -- for my "choices," since it was "my"
control structure was intimately involved in "making choices." But I still
maintain that the PCT model gives no support to those who want to say that
such "choices" can be solely determined by the "free choice" of "my" "will."
This is not to say that ("traditional," or your similar notion of) free will
doesn't exist, but rather that PCT models (unaugmented by certain types of
"miracles," as defined in my last post) imply that it is an illusion, and
point toward a notion of SHARED RESPONSIBILITY for decision-making -- shared
by an individual's control structure AND the history of that control
structure's "niche."
The next time you have to make an important decision, try to not exercise
free will - just stand there and let the inexorable flow of the forces of the
universe make the choice for you. Resist all impulses to act of your own free
will. Now monitor yourself and see if you perceive any error. My guess is
that you will have a huge error signal, and that the psychological impulse to
take some action will be overwhelming. So deliberately make a choice, and act
on it; then check to see whether you feel responsible for the action you have
taken, and whether others also feel that you are responsible. My guess is
that, in the cognitive and social reality in which you live, the feeling of
responsibility will be quite real, on both sides.
I have never denied the "experiential reality" of free will. But, like
phantom-limb pain, it is a "reality" which conflicts with other models of what
is going on. In the case of phantom-limb case, the patient can come to
understand the illusory nature of his/her experience. I claim that, similarly,
we can come to understand the illusory nature of free will by buying into the
(unaugmented) PCT model.
I am certainly not denying that "ideas have consequences." Surely for us it is
"all models," and we act on the basis of those models. Many decisions were
once made based on the model of a flat earth -- but now many more are based on
the model of a round one. Models can conflict with one another, and one cannot
always believe in both -- one has to give up one as ill-founded or, in some
cases, illusory. This is a different kind of "illusory" than in the package
we buy into when we say that it's all perception. In this case, belief in
unaugmented PCT is incompatible with belief in free will. But the illusion of
free will, which I accept, can be very effective in spurring on certain types
of action. On the other hand, so can the PCT-influenced notion that it IS an
illusion! And the types of action will probably be somewhat different
depending on whether free will is or is not viewed as an illusion. (For
example, PCTers should not be tempted to make fun of a welfare mother who
blames the Establishment, in part, for her current sad state. They should not
say that it is ALL her own fault.)
We can abstractly consider other possible realities, but at each moment we can
live in only one.
But the PCT model says that what we do NOW is the (perhaps probabilistic)
result of the models we have been holding. The ONE model we now "live" has
been engendered by all of those abstract considerations.
[on ethical absolutes implied by PCT]
(I assume continued existence is a self-evident value, as without it there
can be no other values, at least in the reality we are speaking of.) I
therefore claim that allowing other people the opportunity to develop as
effective control systems is an ethical norm implied by the nature of PCT and
by the nature of people as control systems, and is not based on any external
ethical consideration.
You just set the "external ethical consideration," namely that "continued
existence is a self-evident value." Existence of what? You? Other people in
general? Some particular other people? Animals, in general or particular?
Plants, in general or particular? Ecosystems? The Biosphere?
This is what keeps theologians busy.
No doubt, when I die I have no more opportunity to play the "game" called
Life. (Of course, some hypothesize that my "will" will continue to play games
of a different sort!) Yet it is not always "self-evident" that my survival is
more important than that of, for example, one of my sons. In fact, to indulge
in a bit of science fiction not terribly removed from the present, there could
come a time when the indefinite survival of those able to afford it will
conflict directly with the survival of poverty-stricken newborns, because of
burgeoning population pressures. As Warren McCulloch put it, it is appropriate
that the prior generations get out of the way to make room for new ideas.
McCulloch's ideas on this are challenged by some, as is the idea that human
survival is not ALWAYS sacred (even survival of the entire human race,
according to poet Robinson Jeffers). So, various positions on even your "self-
evident value" have been and continue to be held by seemingly sane individuals
in our own society. I won't bother with illustrations from other societies.
"Self-evident" is contextual, as are all other models. And the ethical
grounding it (or another normative postulate) provides for a norm is NOT
absolute. PCT, alone, does not say, "Thou shalt do this." PCT, taken together
with various normative postulates, says, "Thou shalt do VARIOUS things."
Greg