by Terry 159 Replies latest jw friends
absolve everybody of any sin or crime, right?
We tend to mitigate consequences due to intention and motivation in Western society. But we don't ignore behavior whether it is choiceful or not. We don't punish the intent per se (except in terms of level of response), we punish behavior.
Still begging the question of measurement. When you can determine which "choices" are choices, and which determinism, you have a practical discussion.
We *think* it is our choice, but in reality there are many unknown forces at work that influence our though process.
But we can also decide that we don't like the way we act in an irritated mood and decide to take steps to change that behavior.
You are actually thinking about this RECURSIVELY like a man looking at a mirror reflection of another mirror's reflection.
Once you identify an event and the subsequent reaction ........you are presented NOT WITH THE SAME SITUATION but a reframed
reflection. The "taking steps to change that behavior" is not actually taking steps to change that behavior at all. It is taking steps to
change ___another similiar__behavior in a subsequent setting.
Go back to the person who is deeply phobic about snakes who reads about a person having a heart attack from misidentifying a garden hose as a snake. Now the situation is RECURSIVELY informed and can never be the same situation again.
Why?
Because, while genetically predisposed, we are learning minds with the ability to adapt our contexts. This adds a new layer to our predisposition.
The boulder that sits atop the mountain cannot learn nor can the smoke in a campfire nor the ocean when the moon is nigh.
What makes humanity a singularity in nature is the recursive nature of our thought-framing and contextualizing of our genetic predispositions.
Example?
FEAR.
We can modify the way we perceive the object of our fear and lessen our immediate knee-jerk response.
Is this choice? No. It is adaptation.
What is the difference?
We cannot help but learn and adapt cognitively (above a certain level of I.Q.)
Even our adaptive skills are themselves innate!
But decisions are based on probabilities more than absolutes. There may have been a 98% chance that I'd wear the clothes I'm wearing today, but if so, there was always that 2% chance that I'd have somehow ended up wearing something else.
Is this in any way experimentally provable/falsifiable, do you think?
Interesting post... A small nit-pick:
Mathematicians will tell you there really is no such things as "random".
You cannot program a computer to generate an actual "random" number.
There is always an algorithm underlying it.
Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.
Its true that no algorithm can produce random numbers (duh!), but randomness is certainly found in quantum mechanics, and chaos theory tells us that in many natural systems with feedback mechanisms these (totally random and indeterministic) changes will make the macroscopic state of eg. the brain behave in a random manner. That is, even if i knew exactly how your neurons was wired and the cells behaved, and i could control every last photon that came to your eyes or electron in the spinal cord, i could only predict your behaviour for a very short time.
Now if this actually correspond to choice is something else entirely, but since there is no theory of how consciousness actually work it is hard to have an oppinion on an undefineable concept :-).
Speaking in a practical sence, i am quite convinced that most things that feel like choices are actually our rationalization of what the 'autopilot' do when we are not thinking.
To cite some emperical work on this front, I have done extensive experiments on driving bicyles intoxicated, and it is certainly possible to deside to run red lights, drive on the walkway, stear into bushes etc. even though you are not aware of it untill afterwards.
But, our environment, family, friends, and experiences will help develop our personality and will eventually influence our choices.
How about we call it: confronting situations which trigger the expression of our genes?
A Mozart or Bach had a genetic predisposition toward musical genius. Had they been born in an enviornment in which NO MUSIC was heard and no musical instruments were available---those musical predispostions WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED nor expressed. (Unless they set about banging on logs or coconut shells :)
How can a measurement be made? Unless you can see into anothers mind their is no way to measure. Even then you are measuring with your own yardstick.
I have a friend who forced to retire when I did- he was single and had many choices, but his financial situation wasn't very good, due to many real estate and credit card debts - I thought he had freewill , but I wonder if he really did. Here were his apparent choices that he discussed with me.
a- walk away from his debt and file bankruptcy , then pack up and move to the Philippines to meet and maybe marry a single lady he had been corresponding/talking to for the last 7 years who was 15 years younger than him- he could live like a rich person with servants on his pensions in the Philippines.
B- sell everything and walk away from his underwater real estate and file bankruptcy. Then start a new life in a state that offered him a good homestead protection and use his retirement account after a year, to buy a new home or condo in Florida or Texas paid for in full.
C- Get lucky and find a job and try to salvage his dire financial situaltion- if nothing happens go bankrupt and look at A or B.
D- cash in his retirement account and try to keep living just like he always did and "hope" everything works out.
What do you suppose he did? Yes, he picked D and now over a year later he is broke, behind on his mortagages and credit cards and is looking at being foreclosed on and forced to file bankruptcy. He can't easily rebuild his life as he cashed in his retirement account and he will end up renting a small apartment when the dust settles. I am still trying to figure out why he CHOSE the worst possible course of action- we talked and talked about it and he agreed that he was functionally bankrupt, but he refused to make a proactive decision. Some sociologists say that stupid people out number intelligent people by a 10 to 1 margin. They might be right.
Well, the logical consequences of this theory would pretty much absolve everybody of any sin or crime, right?
No CHOICE, no GUILT?
If the boulder on top the mountain rolls down the side and smashes somebodys patio door in---the boulder is GUILITY, right?
No. We don't attribute guilt to inanimate object (or lower animals, usually.)
We've assigned a special category to the consequences of actions and called it "guilt."
Damage done is damage done.
Law and Justice are concerned with "restoration."
Categories of INTENTION are assigned.
1.How long did the person think about an action before behaving in a destructive way?
2.Was the damage done with the full focus of the mind fully aware of the consequences?
The above are addressed in courts of law because "states of mind" are what we use to assign "guilt."
If an old lady living by herself is awakened in the middle of the night by hearing a stranger in their bedroom she might well reach for her handgun and blow them away.
It turns out the neighbor walks in his sleep and wandered into her house (she forgot to lock her patio door!).
The Court could take the position she PREMEDITATED the killing by having purchased the handgun IN ADVANCE!
You see, the point is this---we arbitrarily assign states or conditions to actions and reactions and then ACCEPT THOSE STATES AND CONDITIONS as though they aren't pure inventions!
Guilt or innocense are constructs for the purpose of regulating behavior in society and creating a redress to damage done by seemingly "willful" acts.
Nothing more to say on the matter
Acolytes
