Interesting, Brandon. Thanks for this explanation. Would be interesting to explore more.
Maybe in March, after the Stoa Communal Dialogos series we can set up some other TOK discussion events, like on the concept of choice, determinism and free will.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Brandon Norgaard
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Robert Kane argued that the seeming randomness of events could be evidence of agency behind the scenes, where complex factors interact but where there is agency
to narrow the possibilities and influence the outcome. He didn’t appeal to a metaphysical soul as the mechanism through which this would happen. He felt it is possible that the agency is within the brain/mind. This is one notion of what “random” might mean:
a sequence of events that we can’t ascertain the exact reason why the occurred exactly as they did. That is the epistemic definition. It is a lack of deep knowledge of what happened, what were the causes/effects. The metaphysical notion of randomness is
that there is no cause for events to occur as they do. When I was using the word “random” in my earlier message, I meant in the epistemic sense. At a metaphysical level, one factor could be moral agency. That is, at least, the overarching assumption of
our society, and Kane argues that it is plausible without appealing to substance dualism or that sort of thing. I think that this is what lies as the “center” of your influence matrix, Gregg. I think there is some indeterminacy that takes into account valence
and self-vs.-other and the agent narrows the possibility space – at least I think that happens
sometimes in our lives. Our society has this assumption built in and it is plausible at the neuro-biological and physical level as well. This could be disproven, but at the moment, it seems plausible.
Brandon Norgaard
Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 11:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will
Brandon,
My take is that this is an Enlightenment Gap issue and we are confused about physic and phenomenology and cause and effect across different planes of existence. I am self-consciously choosing to write this email and I take responsibility
for what I write.
Regarding this point, I think it is fine to point out that quantum mechanics rules out certain forms of physical determinism. The future has NOT been predetermined by the current state of the universe because of the inherent randomness
at the quantum level (assuming this is correct).
But I would not want us to try to find the “freedom” associated with being a responsible person in the stochastic randomness that we have found at the quantum level. Indeed, the nature of that kind of randomness is that it is
objectively random. That is essentially the complete opposite of something that is self-determined in how I mean the term. And it would actually undermine the idea of responsibility.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Brandon Norgaard
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Whether determinism is true or not, I actually feel that
believing that we have some degree of free will, or some mild version of it, has the effect of widening the possibility space of our actions. If one believes that their actions are entirely predetermined, that narrows their possibility space because
they will tend to be less open to new ideas and they will tend to spend less time and expend less mental energy deliberating and considering possible actions. Our legal system is based on the notion that people have some degree of agency. Of course there
are causes and influences for our actions, but we don’t attribute people’s actions 100% to external factors. That is just not how our society is structured. If we look at quantum mechanics, there are interpretations that are not entirely deterministic.
The brain has high energy density and thus it is plausible that there could be indeterminate quantum events occurring within it. If that is true, I think that there would be a little bit of leeway for some of our actions, depending on how much mental energy
and time we utilize for deliberation. I figure this hypothesis could be investigated if we understood the deep mechanism of how the will is manifest at the neurological level and also within individual neurons. They might eventually find evidence that there
is some indeterminacy deep within our minds. Much of this is pretty speculative, but it seems plausible and it also seems plausible that our minds become more deterministic if we believe that to be the case.
Brandon Norgaard
Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will
Peter,
For me the issue is about understanding the nature of “choice” and describing what we mean by “choosing” at the level of Matter-Object, Life-Organism, Mind-Animal and Culture-Person.
I am not a fan of the concept of “free will”. I don’t know what it means, and I think the strong version blends into equating the self with God. That is, some separate essence that freely decides what to do in a way that would violate
the laws of physics. I prefer the concept of “self-conscious determination”.
Nevertheless, I found the video laughable because it flips it around to say that, because an extreme or common version of free will does violate the laws of physics, then we can say that your behaviors are reducible to the laws/descriptions/mechanisms
of physics. That is silly. Rather, we need to be aware that different kind of behaviors take place at different planes of existence.
At the Matter level, we do not need the concept of “choice”. It is meaningless to say the Earth wants or chooses to go around the sun.
At the life level/plane, however, there is something there. Cells are complex adaptive systems. There is no magic elan vital substance, but there is a novel powerful arrangement, such that we can consider cells as having “proto-cognition”
and they engage in decisions.
At the level of animals, we see another layer of choice. Indeed, one of the major domains and distinctions in the brain/nervous system is “automatic” versus “voluntary” behavioral control systems. It absolutely is meaningful to say a
cat decided to jump out of a tree (voluntary behavioral control systems) versus a cat fell out of a tree. Notice that “voluntary behavioral control” only is a useful concept at the level of the animal, and it contrasts with the more basic physiological processes
at the level of Life.
At the level of persons, self-conscious awareness and explicit anticipation and the fact that voluntary control systems and narratives feedback back on what happens to then cause what will happen means a “strange loop of awareness, anticipation,
cause, effect”. It absolutely makes sense to say Person X was responsible for y behaviors and should be held accountable, but was not responsible for x behaviors.
Indeed, I make this point in this blog on addiction.
Self-conscious self-determination is a fundamentally and qualitatively different set of behavioral processes than those that are accidental. Indeed, as Peter Ossario noted, they are the behaviors of persons. However, a “physics only”
vocabulary will not be useful in differentiating those properties. This is why I chuckle when the physicists wade into this territory.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK 12 minute video on Why No Free Will
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Gregg,
While I fully agree with you that "consciousness is not an autonomous center of control," I do not see that as an argument against free will. I am unsure if you do.
As per my last note, I think that it is unreasonable that the requirement for behavior to be classified as intentional and autonomous, it must be conscious. As per that note, we can consciously load ourselves with influences for the purpose
of creating subconscious behaviors of which we anticipate becoming conscious. I do not see any issue therefore in claiming my subconscious behavior as being mine and of being intentional and purposeful, leading to conscious behavior leading to more subconscious
behavior...
Peter
Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080
Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.