Posted by jojo on November 17, 2000, at 16:25:34
I have found that accepting this worldview eliminated
my guilt about accomplishing so little during extended
periods of depression. I would be very interested in
how others on this board respond to this, and if
experiencing clinical depression has changed their view
of "Free Will""What is troubling us is the tendency to believe that
the mind is like a little man within."
Ludwig WittgensteinThe word "responsibility" is so tied up with the
concept of "free will" that it's meaning, except when
referring to future events, can not be discussed
without confronting it. The meaning of
"responsibility" in reference to future events is
relatively clear. It means one's duties, or things
that one understands, either explicitly or implicitly,
are to be done, or whose accomplishment must be
insured by oversight. The use of the word when
referring to past events, however, is so ambiguous
as to suggest that a subterfuge is occurring,
masquerading as every-day common sense. There is the
meaning that follows directly from the 'future events
usage', as "you did not complete the sales report,
which was your responsibility". Here, "responsibility"
refers to your job description. The other use of the
word when referring to past events involves
judgements, either legal, or moral.
(The questioning of the ….. ???…of "free will"
will appear …What is it that you question when you
question whether one has "free will"? Is it the
existence of free will? Exist where? It's a mechanism
. Or is it actually something that can have
"existence"? When we say a person "has free will",
we seem to be speaking of something other than
something that he "has, something tied up to the vague
concept of "consciousness".) I believe we are talking
about a theory of how something functions.
Contemporary Western culture would generally confine
the discussion to the "higher" forms of organisms,
humans and possibly other "higher" mammals.
Fundamentalist Christians might only consider it in
regard to humans, and then, possibly, only to affirm
it's …function.
I think the concept of "free will" is an ideal
candidate for Cappanari's Law". Cappanari (I'm not
sure of the spelling) was a professor of Anthropology
at Wayne State University in the late 50s whose Law
states that whenever the great majority of mankind
believes something for which there is no evidence,
that belief is incorrect. There is also a corollary,
which states that if there is an opposite to that
belief, it is the opposite that is true. First, what
is the evidence that mankind "possess" or functions by
(the rules?) the mechanism of "free will"? As far as
I can see, it is only the innate, subjective "feeling"
that one can make a "free choice". If "choices" are
determined by existing conditions (how else could an
event be determined, or "decided"?), and the feeling
of "free will" was only appended after the
"determination", how could we tell?If I am expressing the doctrine of "free will"
correctly, it would demand that for a given set of
circumstances, external conditions, history, anatomy,
neurochemistry, psychology,"soul", a "decision"
could be made in more than one way. "Choices" that
"occur" due to the uncertainty of the position of
subatomic particles, based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principal, are excluded, as they are unknowable by
definition. I find that incomprehensible. Of course
can imagine someone choosing this or that based on a
whim, but it IS BASED ON A WHIM, and that whim is
determined at the time it practices its whimsy.
Available scientific evidence (psychoanalytic, PET
scanning) points to actions being determined.
PET scanning shows that when one makes the "choice"
of moving a finger, and determines the time of that
choice by noting a number flashing on a screen, that
the neural structures necessary for the movement have
already been activated The brain "already knows" that
the person will "choose" to move his finger, and only
awaits the person to exercise his "free will" to move
or not to move it.Intimately connected with "responsibility" is
"excuse"- a false reason for not fulfilling ones
"responsibility". This concept has the distinction of
having the same meaning as its negation. "That's no
excuse" means "That is an excuse". And the opposite
of "excuse"? The "real" reason, or the "actual" cause
comes to mind, but can a word that means the same as
its negation have an opposite? The New World
Dictionary: Excuse: a real or pretended reason or
explanation. They're both excuses, because what we
demand is blame. We may want to know what makes an
engine misfire, why the planets revolve around the sun,
and what steps are involved in a cell becoming
malignant, but when it involves human behavior we want
to praise or blame. If "responsibility" means
suffering the consequences of one's behavior, then
responsibility can never be avoided. Consequences
follow acts. People must be held accountable for their
acts under the law because we accept the functioning
of "self control". Although this presents
philosophical problems, the exercises of "self control"
appears to influence outcomes, even though whether
that control is exercised or not is determined! So I
think that the law must hold people accountable for
their actions, but its judgement must be tempered by
circumstances.
Violations based on personal gain are possibly the
most clear cut. He robbed the bank to get the money
to buy nice things that he wanted. But when the gain
is not apparent-take the boy in Colorado recently
sentenced to two life terms for killing his parents-the
judgement of the law should be much more circumspect.
Certainly he must be prevented from repeating similar
acts-but does punishment per se serve any purpose? Do
people not kill their parents because it is against
the law? People involved in the trial actually sang a
song mocking the boy's attempts to explain his actions,
which were committed "in a state of" schizophrenia.
"Well, he knew it was wrong, so….."
poster:jojo
thread:2826
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001117/msgs/2826.html