Free Will and Will
Perhaps there is no Free Will, but only Will.
Free will in how the term is used seems to require consciousness. It suggests that free will enables a person to act outside of deterministic constraints. But then it also suggests that one, the actor, is aware or conscious of the factors -- all of the factors -- that determine or influence one's response to a situation -- and also one being aware of the totality of the situation or environment. In other words, it is difficult, or even be impossible, to actually be conscious of all the factors, influences, that might contribute to a particular decision.
Furthermore, one could argue that a manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible to be aware of all influences on one's behavior, since the act of becoming aware of an influence would change the influence, and therefore change or remove from consciousness the influence on behavior, or change the behavior itself from what was being posited as being willed, to something else.be
This suggests that for behavior to be "free" it cannot be consciously willed.
This suggests that the closest we can get to a Western idea of "free will" is behavior that is "spontaneous" in the sense of Zen spontaneity or following the Tao.
But that is not the basis of the arguments for or against "free will". Free will in a political or moral context is the basis of assigning of guilt or causal responsibility -- they had a choice about whether they did or did not do something, and for their choice, they are held responsible. The particular reaction of society to the choice, then, is a matter of punishment or reward: let the person walk free or kill him, shower him with money or take his house, ignore him or punish him for every rule violation.
The algorithm that guides or provides the structuring of human interactions determines to a high degree of probability the outcomes for an individual or a group of people. If the algorithm does not make the distinction between individual and group as regards a specific characteristic,
Perhaps, so long as humans are able to discriminate among members of a group/people, will create social/status hierarchies. We might try to eliminate/prohibit creating and operating social hierarchies. But that seems to be a quest that is constantly expanding. Perhaps that the pursuit of hierarchies, or being first on the hierarchy is something that humans by nature seek to posses.
One, then, should be treated not by position on a hierarchy, but as a member of a more general set, all of whose members are treated equally. All members can be members of smaller groups/hierarchies, but the more general principle of their human interactions is guided by the the more general characteristic, shared humanity.
But since we generally don't do this, perhaps that is a sign that the Golden Rule is too difficult to understand and apply. Its application in any significant interaction is impossible to understand and apply unless I had the empathy to understand my other. However it may be more immediately profitable to simply kill the other, and depend on probability that karma never comes around.
Free will in how the term is used seems to require consciousness. It suggests that free will enables a person to act outside of deterministic constraints. But then it also suggests that one, the actor, is aware or conscious of the factors -- all of the factors -- that determine or influence one's response to a situation -- and also one being aware of the totality of the situation or environment. In other words, it is difficult, or even be impossible, to actually be conscious of all the factors, influences, that might contribute to a particular decision.
Furthermore, one could argue that a manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible to be aware of all influences on one's behavior, since the act of becoming aware of an influence would change the influence, and therefore change or remove from consciousness the influence on behavior, or change the behavior itself from what was being posited as being willed, to something else.be
This suggests that for behavior to be "free" it cannot be consciously willed.
This suggests that the closest we can get to a Western idea of "free will" is behavior that is "spontaneous" in the sense of Zen spontaneity or following the Tao.
But that is not the basis of the arguments for or against "free will". Free will in a political or moral context is the basis of assigning of guilt or causal responsibility -- they had a choice about whether they did or did not do something, and for their choice, they are held responsible. The particular reaction of society to the choice, then, is a matter of punishment or reward: let the person walk free or kill him, shower him with money or take his house, ignore him or punish him for every rule violation.
The algorithm that guides or provides the structuring of human interactions determines to a high degree of probability the outcomes for an individual or a group of people. If the algorithm does not make the distinction between individual and group as regards a specific characteristic,
Perhaps, so long as humans are able to discriminate among members of a group/people, will create social/status hierarchies. We might try to eliminate/prohibit creating and operating social hierarchies. But that seems to be a quest that is constantly expanding. Perhaps that the pursuit of hierarchies, or being first on the hierarchy is something that humans by nature seek to posses.
One, then, should be treated not by position on a hierarchy, but as a member of a more general set, all of whose members are treated equally. All members can be members of smaller groups/hierarchies, but the more general principle of their human interactions is guided by the the more general characteristic, shared humanity.
But since we generally don't do this, perhaps that is a sign that the Golden Rule is too difficult to understand and apply. Its application in any significant interaction is impossible to understand and apply unless I had the empathy to understand my other. However it may be more immediately profitable to simply kill the other, and depend on probability that karma never comes around.
posted by Godel at 7:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home