Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: External Influences
Message-ID: <532@spar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 09:41:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.532
Posted: Fri Sep 20 09:41:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:48:04 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 136

>>>... on the other hand, if you are going to allow memories of past events to
>>>count as external factors, you have given away the whole argument. [Frank?]

>>     Sorry again -- I'll try once more...
>> 	What remains of past experiences has been incorporated into one's
>> 	memory, habits, etc...  They were only external influences when they
>> 	crossed from external to internal.
>> 	Exactly where they `cross the boundary' and become integrated into
>> 	the person is arbitrary, though I suggested later in the same
>> 	article that this point occurs at the moment of one first
>> 	becomes aware of the experience. 
>>     Anyway, external or not, pleasant memories, knowledge, skills, good
>>     habits, etc, increase one's freedom by opening the mind to healthy and
>>     varied interests. [ME]

>I wouldn't call it "freedom".  What is increased is our flexibility in
>action, that which makes us different from supposedly lower animals.  What
>Torek and I have referred to as rational evaluative analysis of stored
>knowledge constructs (possibly not even at a conscious level). [Rich]

    I wouldn't call it free will either; however, those who stress
    rationality as the highest possible virtue would be entirely
    justified in selecting r-e-a as their definition of free will.

>The moment one first becomes aware is an arbitrary point indeed, because the
>stored experience may have an effect on your decision making without your
>being aware of it at a conscious level.

    Fine! As long as the effect is to increase my freedom, I'm eager to
    incorporate such an experience into myself. Most experiences do, in fact,
    widen my ability to respond or initiate action creatively.

    It's the unfortunate traumas (usually resulting from lack of experience)
    that can be constraining. Tragically, some misfortunates suffer so
    many of these that their freedom is forever broken..

>But, back to the original point,
>calling it freedom sounds Orwellian to me, because clearly we are "free"
>only to do what our experiences and mind constructs lead us to do.  This may
>be perceived as a "conscious choice" if the monitoring brain happens to be
>monitoring that process (i.e., is conscious of it), but...

    I challenge you to prove this highly dubious assertion!!

    At most, the empirical evidence shows that past experiences only
    partially restrict my behavior -- and QM downright contradicts
    strict behaviorism.
    
    Furthermore, I am frequently quite successful at NOT monitoring my
    behavior -- except when I really need to.

    BTW, any lawn mower engine (or even electron, for that matter) arguably
    makes `decisions' that are not fully determined by antecedent causes,
    yet display primitive intelligence in their `choice' of action -- if
    relative independence from antecedent causes is paramount, there are
    entities possessing free will all over the place.

>>  In fact, LACK of past experiences -- parental neglect, poor education,
>>  insufficient human contact, boredom, etc -- is probably as constraining to
>>  personal freedom as traumatic or bitter experience. 

>But there's no difference at all.  One case constrains you to do one set of
>things, the other constrains you to do another.

    You mean a person whose development was so blighted that they cannot
    relate with other aware beings (even in written form) has as much
    freedom as a person who can enjoy friendships, careers, literature, or
    other life-opening experiences that come from human interactions?

    If so, your concept of freedom has little to do with the ordinary
    meaning of the word, my friend.

>>  Finally, the strict Behaviorist belief that past experience totally
>>  determines one's actions is NOT fact.
>
>So, what is "fact" here?  If "strict" behaviorism is not true, what are you
>assuming to be true.  I assume that by "strict behaviorism" you mean that
>all our behaviors are determined by things in our brains, which were
>accumulated as a result of past experiences, which were...  If not this, 
>what?

    Only highly causal entities like digital computers and billiard
    balls approach strictly deterministic behavior (and even they
    display high-level random behavior when they break).

    Whitenoise phenomena whose high-level behavior is of quantum or analog
    nature are in principle random -- like Brownian motion or noise between
    radio stations, admittedly boring, but nonetheless not precisely
    determined by past behavior --  we can predict how such things will
    behave with mere statistics. Even the most perfect vacuum theoretically
    possible (in which electromagnetic radiation is totally minmized)
    possess such statistically random behavior. 

    Then we have more interesting phenomena possessing high-level
    deterministic nonlinear behavior that magnifies whatever fluctuations
    are present at the bifurcation points -- the n-body problem is in this
    category, and the ultimate outcome is in general theoretically
    unpredictable because the amount of accuracy in knowledge of the initial
    conditions rapidly encounters quantum limits for long-range prediction.
    In this case, antecedent conditions determine everything except the
    intermittent critical decisions, where chaos reigns. At best, we can
    categorize the possible outcomes and attach a probability to each class.
    
    The most interesting case is dissipative structures, where the chaos of
    nonlinear thermodynamics (possibly augmented by noncausal quantum
    connections) is driven by an energy source and evolves into
    progressively higher levels of order -- living and growing things.
    Here, antecedent causes are but a mere background that, only in
    exceptional cases, have noticeable effect on the integrity of such
    highly nondeterministic and autonomous entities.

    Science hardly understands intelligent life, of course. Somehow animals
    resonate with surrounding patterns so well that they  mirror the
    surrounding world, anticipating future events more than reacting to past
    ones. My earlier quote from Bergson seems appropriate here:

	Free will is the breathing manifestation and unpredictable
	creativity of evolution: Evolution is truly creative, like the
	work of an artist. An impulse to action, as undefined want, exists
	beforehand, but until the want is satisfied, it is impossible to
	know how nature will satisfy it. For example, we may suppose some
	vague desire in sightless animals to be able to be aware of objects 
	before they were in contact with them. This led to efforts which
	finally which finally resulted in the creation of eyes. Sight could
	not have been imagined beforehand. For this reason, evolution 
	[even within an individual] is unpredictable, and determinism cannot
	refute advocates of free will. 
        [History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell]

    Yet another whimsical definition of free will for you, Rich:

        Autonomous behavior determined by future events

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

-michael