BWE
Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,10:58) | Alan Fox:
| Quote | | random= not predictable? |
That's what I'm suspecting. In the matter of conscious [free] will, I don't think it's valid.
In Richard's link [above] to the post on ScienceBlog, the author identifies the "real question" as being the identity of the agent. S/he then characterizes the position of the 'no free will' advocates as necessitating an external causal agent. Whereas a free will advocate would presume the agent is internal - the person who decided to move the highlighter across Richard's desk.
Just because a team of sci-spies couldn't predict Richard moving the highlighter across the desk, it doesn't mean his decision or action was 'random'. He moved it because he wanted to move it.
It's not the least bit farfetched that my consciousness is the agent of my thoughts and actions. Sure, those thoughts and actions may be in response to something I see, hear, taste, feel or smell (sensory data about exterior things, which my brain processes and analyzes), but that doesn't mean my responses are deterministically caused by the sensory data. I am under no obligation to think about or act on any incoming sensory data. I could as easily decide to act or not act about something I think up entirely de novo that is not based on processed sensory data from the outside. IOW, I could be writing a sci-fi novel or a letter to my mother or...
I can't figure out why anyone would want to deny the existence of consciousness and/or free will, as these things are self-evident even if science can't quantify them precisely. Maybe someday it will, but that won't make people's decisions more deterministic. That the sun appears in the east every morning, crosses the sky, and sets in the west before a similarly extended period of darkness ensues are self-evident facts. Humans - and scientists - have never attempted to assert that these self-evident facts aren't 'real' or don't actually exist, they've just come up with a number of explanations over the millennia to account for them.
But now, when the scientific project to quantify the nature and mechanisms of consciousness is taking off, we get a whole school of self-designated 'experts' trying to deny the existence of the self-evident phenomenon being investigated! Why?
The author frames it thusly:
| Quote | | Nothing we know about physics or chemistry allows for causes to be internal to a person in the sense that we mean when we say "free will". This makes many people feel that free will can only exist if there is a non-corporeal mind operating outside the constraints of physics." |
It looks to me like it's the nay-sayers (Dennett, et al.) who are convinced that "free will" necessitates an outside consciousness as puppeteer. And they're so frightened of that [erroneous, IMO] conclusion that they're prepared to deny the existence of mind, consciousness and free will altogether. Yet by their own admission they've no minds, consciousness or free will to work with, why should anybody who does have mind, consciousness and will believe them?
Talk about 'Woo'!!! |
Hi Joy, I don't believe we've met. I'm BWE. This is a nice essay. As much as I generally dislike Dennett's form of framing his questions using his axioms as fundamental units of 'reality' - for example in consciousness explained when he describes the fireworks example or shakey the computer if you are familiar with that book - in Freedom Evolves he makes a very very good argument for a rigorous definition of the idea that we use when we talk about free-will. And he does not conclude what you appear to think he concludes. It's actually kind of touching and elegant and he doesn't say we don't have it. In fact he says we do. He just forces some meaning onto the idea. As a religious term is literally means nothing at all other than as the answer to our old friend Epicurus' question of explaining evil.
The definition was, until dennett really although he borrows from lots of people (Louis could tell you more about who), literally "The answer to the problem of evil." We can choose. Therefore we are not able to be protected by god or whatever.
Dennett actually goes on to propose a system whereby it actually means something to choose and why it really is free-will in the functional sense even when you boil it down to it's salts and proteins and pineal glands or what have you.
He may poke a little fun at people who take themselves too seriously but if it makes you feel better, he takes himself too seriously usually too so you are probably welcome to poke back.
When you do, tell them it's Quine's fault. He'll know what you mean.
Anyway, it's a very moving book and you would probably really like it judging by your well-formed sentences in your post. The agent part is relatively consistent but not necessarily with action. It turns out the parts have an awful lot of autonomy. But that isn't a negative really.
It is ignorant to say consciousness is the brain or the senses. If you are arguing with these guys about it I'll help you out because they should know better. You should red the book. It's very good in places.
Again, it's a pleasure to virtually meet you.
--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far
The Daily Wingnut
|
