And even More Homework!

• How might the Schacte & Singer Experiment support a compatibilist view?
• Would you accept that the participants in the second experiment were ‘free’ and ‘responsible’?
• Is the knowledge we receive also a physical force? 
• Does knowledge determine actions? 

Ryle

How does Ryle’s example of the Chess game help us understand the different ways of interpreting ‘causal laws’?  (Due Friday)

The 'Jake Clause' does not apply here! (no stripy jumper 'get-outs' available)

We desperately need to finish this module off by middle of next week, so that we can dash through the last one and still have several minutes left to revise before the exams!!!:/
So, by Tuesday you must:

• read very carefully p. 329 - 336 in the text book and make sure you have listened to both podcasts linked below. Then you'll be able to answer to answer some excellent Q.s in the lesson on Tuesday.
• Finish answering the 'compatibilism' Q (below in previous post) if you haven't already.
• Answer the questions below (we started these in Friday's lesson, but if you were doing fizzicks or being a malingerer (look it up Joe) you'll still be able to do them if you read the text book (as above) v. carefully and have  bit of a think.

1. Could a society that completely accepted the idea of (hard) determinism and physicalism, justify the use of praise, blame and responsibility? 
2. Dysfunctional, or psychologically damaged individuals can still have free will.  Explain how a determinist a compatibilist and a libertarian might responsd to this statement.
3. Explain and illustrate (give an example) the principle of ought implies can. 

You may have noticed that I'm trying to get you to write more (Will will tell you why :)) 

The point is the more you are able to think things through for yourself and the more you practise writing in a methodical 'philosophical' way, then the easier it gets even if you are not completely sure of the exact details of every 'ism' and philosophical concept. Once you can play the game you can 'blag it' a bit - that's what I do - had you noticed? 

Unfortunately you can't 'blag it' if you really don't know what you're doing. 

More Homework:)

This needs more than a scribbled paragraph to do properly. I know it's a teachers' cliche, but you're doing it for your benefit not mine. Every moment spent thinking / writing philosophy is a step towards a better grade. And vice versa. 

Q. How would compatibilists (soft determinists) reconcile causal accounts of character with free uncoerced actions?

In other words How can a compatibilist make sense of the idea that someone is a product of physical causes and yet can still have free will?

Vital Homework except for those named Jake and wearing stripy pullovers

Free Will & Determinism

1. Why do neither theories of ‘randomness’ or quantum physics support the libertarian case for human beings as self-determining  / autonomous agents?
2. How does Cartesian dualism account for free will? And how does Gilbert Ryle’s notion of ‘the ghost in the machine’ attack Descartes’ claim? 
3. Explain Sartre’s idea of ‘the gap’ - what it is and how it allows for free will. 
4. Why might it be true to say that Sartre’s emphasis is on the future?
5. Why does Patricia Churchland attack libertarian attempt to find ‘causal vacuums’ as ‘flat earth’ philosophy? 

Also I've put a lot of stuff on here recently that I think will help you get some of these ideas straight. Please read it. Above all you must listen to theses podcasts:
Thomas Pink on Free will at  http://cdn1.libsyn.com/philosophybites/PinkMixSes.mp3?nvb=20090516103152&nva=20090517104152&t=05fb3f41be06ea130b9b1


and David Papineau on Physicalism at  http://www.philosophybites.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=242858

Thomas Pink: Compatibilism & Libertarianism

Thomas Pink says some very enlightening things about free will in his podcast with the lovely Nigel at http://cdn1.libsyn.com/philosophybites/PinkMixSes.mp3?nvb=20090516103152&nva=20090517104152&t=05fb3f41be06ea130b9b1

He explains how for compatibilists actions need a 'goal' or purpose to make sense as actions rather than meaningless events. (The difference between a muscle twitching a leg that moves a foot that impacts your leg and me kicking you because you are idle). He suggests that goals or purposes only make sense if they have a prior cause. This view is very similar to Hume's.

For me, compatibilism makes sense if you see actions and choices and decisions as events on a timeline:

> CAUSE empty belly (physiological)> EFFECT hunger > Should I have a chocolate biscuit or a carrot? (social conditioning etc. influences / determines? my CHOICE > my GOAL or purpose is either to stay slim and gorgeous or enjoy the chocolate biscuit and I imagine those possible futures as I decide > ACTION I eat a biscuit. My biscuit eating is a result of my choice, my choice gives it a goal and purpose and makes my ACTION intelligible (understandable) as an act of free will which forms part of a 'causal chain.'

So, for compatibilists, free will: choices and decisions, only make sense as part of this chain. Without the causes, the prior events that inform my choices and my goals, free will would seem meaningless and randum, as if it had nothing to with my life.

However, Thomas Pink thinks that we 'can have uncaused intelligible actions' (my emphasis). He says that 'action involves a self direction at a goal' and that 'the goal is provided by the very content of the mental event of choosing.' and in that sense it is 'internally generated'.

For Pink, choosing is about putting options and choices before 'the mind's eye' and then directing your yourself at the option or goal you choose.

Although he claims to be a compatibilist, he admits that he is closer to a libertarian position. I think he is a libertarian really.

Talk of a 'mind's eye' worries me (homunculous alert!), and I don't think Pink's position is all that convincing philosophically, but I want to believe him because I think politically I ought to be a libertarian.

Pink & the Animals

You must read the blog on Pink below and the article Thomas Pink on The ethics of humanity and its enemies – the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before you read this.

The main point of Pink's article (certainly the one we might talk about in the exam) is that; 'given the almost universal academic scepticism about our possession of an actual ability or freedom to determine for ourselves' there is a danger that the ideas promoted by science and many philosophers, about what a human being is and the rights they have, will be redefined in a way that, for Pink, is threatening and dangerous.

His point is that if we come to see human beings as not having free will, as not being autonomous, not having any control over the course of their lives, then their worth, their 'value' seems to be less. Pink fears that this will mean that the vulnerable, the less able, the less skilled, the less productive, will be treated badly.

He also fears that this view of humanity as just another 'animal', just another lump of physical stuff, will encourage what he sees as dangerous genetic experiments.

This is another example of how philosophy and science have huge political implications.

You must read the article to get this. Here's another link to it on my website http://www.mrbrodie.com/Philosophy/Resources,_Essays_%26_Links.html

Hume's Compatibilism - a crisis!!

I'm currently reading this


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/


Why don't you join me? :)


More later. Probably much later. What does this 'weekend' thing mean?


So far, we seem to have a problem because we agree with ... err ... Kant!!! :\  He describes Hume's account of moral freedom as a “wretched subterfuge” and suggests that a freedom of this kind belongs to a clock that moves its hands by means of internal causes. 


HOMEWORK


You must:

• read all of both Hume extracts
• read the text book to p328 'The Implications of Determinism'
• Listen to the Pink podcast (link below)
• read the Pink article (links below)
• Or FAIL.

Sartre & the Nazis

It is important to understand that ideas around free will and determinism have enormous political implications. If human beings are not autonomous - in charge of their own lives - then it becomes difficult to talk about morality or any conception of praise or blameworthy behaviour. It also becomes very difficult to say why human beings should have human rights as the whole notion of what a human being is seems to be in doubt. (See Pink and the Animals - I've put this on the web site as a .pdf here http://www.mrbrodie.com/Philosophy/Resources,_Essays_%26_Links.html  (find the Agent Smiths)

 - the original is - I'm too good to you people!! http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/a-gross-assault-on-human-nature-–-by-thomas-pink-reader-in-philosophy-kings-college-london/) 

Sartre had a largely deterministic or materialistic (materialism is very similar to determinism, but is associated with Marx which is why I use it here) view of humanity: his politics were based on Marxism, but he rejected Marx’s idea that ‘life determines consciousness’ believing instead that we choose our lives through the power of our free will: ‘consciousness determines life.’

The context of Sartre’s philosophy is key to understanding his position. Sartre lived through the second world war and fought the Nazi invasion of France. For someone who was aware of the horrors of the holocaust etc. a view that allowed a human being to excuse their behaviour on the grounds that it was determined - caused by prior events and outside their control, was unnaceptable. (Many Nazis attempted to excuse their crimes by claiming they were only following orders.)

Sartre’s comment that anyone who claimed their actions were determined was ‘scum’ is best understood in light of this historical context.

Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism & Libertarianism

Sartre was an existentialist. He believed that 'existence comes before essence'; this means that we are not born with a particular 'nature' but must 'create'  ourselves as we go along. We respond to our experiences of the world, but we are not determined by them, we are free to choose who we are and how we live. Sartre claims that 'man' isn't simply 'what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills.' (my emphasis).

Roughly speaking Sartre believes that the very nature of consciousness is what enables human beings to have free will. He thinks that being conscious of - being able to imagine the different possible futures that might come about from different actions, enables us to choose our path.

THE GAP: For Sartre, being conscious of the world seems to allow us to stand back from our lives and interpret them in different ways. This seems to open up a distance between our consciousness and the rest of the 'physical' world. This is what Sartre call 'the gap' and it is the gap that allows us to have free will. Easy.

Although sympathetic to Marx's political philosophy, Sartre reverses Marx's belief that 'life determines consciousness', claiming instead that 'consciousness determines life.'

Whereas Marx believed that the way we think about the world and how we act is determined by our experience of the world, Sartre believed that we choose our experience of the world by the way we think about our place and role in the world.

For Marx the world makes us who we are. For Sartre we make ourselves who we are, and by doing so we make the world. Because he thinks that human beings have free will Sartre can be described as a libertarian, but we should be clear that he is a libertarian for different reasons to Descartes and Thomas Pink.

COWARDS and SCUM

Sartre is rather hard on determinists, he says,

Those who hide from this total freedom ... with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary ... I shall call scum.

He claims that there two kinds of 'beings': humans are 'beings for themselves', everything else, rocks, trees are 'beings in themselves.' (He doesn't mention animals!). More of this next year possibly, for now the fact that he thinks consciousness gives us free will is enough.

Please leave a comment if you've read this.

Dennett & Determinism

The bearded Mr Dennett says some very interesting things about free will in his excellent and highly recommended book 'Freedom Evolves'.

He thinks that free will is only possible at all in a deterministic and therefore regular and predictable universe. He thinks that human beings have evolved to a level of consciousness (a kind of highly advanced awareness of our surroundings) that enables them to anticipate and predict different possible outcomes from different choices of action. If I duck the stone will miss my head, if I don't it will hurt: these predictions, made possible by our experience of similar events and the predictability of our deterministic world allow us to avoid events that we could not have avoided if we weren't conscious. (A football cannot avoid being kicked).

So, even though we are subject to causation - we are part of the causal chain - causes do not affect us in inevitably, we can avoid some effects (the stone hitting us). To describe this situation Dennett coins the term 'evitability' - the opposite of inevitability. For Dennett this gives us a kind of free will.

This is a draft ... I'm still working on it.

Determinism

HARD DETERMINISTS (obviously not as hard as Joe) & Physicalists  think that free will is an illusion. They think that all the choices, decisions and actions of human beings are determined by prior physical causes. Just like the atoms that form the rest of the physical world we are subject to the forces of cause and effect, we cannot do other than what we do do: we are subject to causal necessity. We are no more in control of our lives than an autumn leaf tumbling on the wind. (Ooh, lovely image!) As Baron d’Holbach put it

“Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant ... he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. . . . Nevertheless, in despite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is pretended he is a free agent, or that independent of the causes by which he is moved, he determines his own will, and regulates his own condition.”

The problem that this brings about is that if we are without free will, then we cannot be held responsible for our behaviour. How can we justify praising or blaming anyone for anything if they could not have done anything else. Clearly this view has profound implications for our notions of morality and justice.

OUGHT IMPLIES CAN

The whole point of morality is that it implies a choice: we can choose to do 'the right thing'. We know that we ought to do the right thing. But it make no sense to say we 'ought' to do something if we have no free will? The word 'ought' implies that we can, but we can't! See?

Free the animals.

Podcasts for your listening pleasure

Physicalism:
http://www.philosophybites.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=242858

Tom Pink on Free will
http://media.libsyn.com/media/philosophybites/PinkMixSes.mp3

Listen and pass :) ignore and fail :(