Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff
From: jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
Message-ID: <445@aiva.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 16 May 88 15:55:12 GMT
References: <8805151907.AA01702@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: Dept. of AI, Univ. of Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 95

In article <8805092354.AA05852@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU (Eyal Mozes) writes:
1 all the evidence I'm familiar with points to the fact that it's
1 always possible for a human being to control his thoughts by a
1 conscious effort.

In article <434@aiva.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
2 It is not always possible.  Think, if no simpler example will do, of
2 bsessives.  They have thoughts that persist in turning up despite
2 efforts to eliminate them.

In article <8805151907.AA01702@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU (Eyal Mozes) writes:
>First of all, even an obsessive can, at any given moment, turn his
>thoughts away from the obsession by a conscious effort. The problem of
>obsession is in that this conscious effort has to be much greater than
>normal, and also in that, whenever the obsessive is not consciously
>trying to avoid those thoughts, they do persist in turning up.

That an obsessive has some control over his thoughts does not mean
he can always control his thoughts.  If all you mean is that one can
always at least temporarily change what one is thinking about and
can eventually eliminate obsessive thoughts or the tune that's running
through one's head, no one would be likely to disagree with you,
except where you seem to feel that obsessions are just the result
of insufficiently rational thinking in the past.

>So, indirectly, even the obsession itself is  under the person's
>volitional control.

I would be interested in knowing what you think *isn't* under a
person's volitional control.  One would normally think that having
a sore throat is not under conscious control even though one can
chose to do something about it or even to try to prevent it.

2 Or, consider when you start thinking about something.  An idea just
2 occurs and you are thinking it: you might decide to think about
2 something, but you could not have decided to decide, decided to
2 decide to decide, etc. so at some point there was no conscious
2 decision.

>Of course, the point at which you became conscious (e.g. woke up from
>sleep) was not a conscious decision. But as long as you are conscious,
>it is your choice whether to let your thoughts wander by chance
>association or to deliberately, purposefully control what you're
>thinking about. And whenever you stop your thoughts from wandering and
>start thinking on a subject of your choice, that action is by conscious
>decision.

But where does the "subject of your own choice" come from?  I wasn't
thinking of letting one's thoughts wander, although what I said might
be interpreted that way.  When you decide what to think about, did
you decide to decide to think about *that thing*, and if so how did
you decide to decide to decide, and so on?

Or suppose we start with a decision, however it occurred.  I decide
read your message.  As I do so, it occurs to me, at various points,
that I disagree and want to say something in reply.  Note that these
"occurrences" are fairly automatic.  Conscious thought is involved,
but the exact form of my reply is a combination of conscious revision
and sentences, phrases, etc. that are generated by some other part of
my mind.  I think "he thinks I'm just talking about letting the mind
wander and thinking about whatever comes up."  That thought "just
occurs".  I don't decide to think exactly that thing.  But my
consciousness has that thought and can work with it.  It helps provide
a focus.  I next try to find a reply and begin by reading the passage
again.  I notice the phrase "subject of your own choice" and think
then write "But where does the...".  

Of course, I might do other things.  I might think more explicitly
about that I'm doing.  I might even decide to think explicitly rather
than just do so.  But I cannot consciously decide every detail of
every thought.  There are always some things that are provided by
other parts of my mind.

Indeed, I am fortunate that my thoughts continue along the lines I
have chosen rather than branch off on seemingly random tangents.  But
the thoughts of some people, schizophrenics say, do branch off.  It is
clear in many cases that insufficient rationality did not cause their
problem: it is one of the consequences, not one of the causes.

As an example of "other parts of the mind", consider memory.  Suppose
I decide to remember the details of a particular event.  I might not
be able to, but if I can I do not decide what these memories will be:
they are given to me by some non-conscious part of my mind.

>This is why I consider Ayn Rand's theory of free will to be such an
>important achievement - because it is the only free-will theory
>directly confirmed by what anyone can observe in his own thoughts.

As far as you have explained so far, Rand's theory is little more
than simply saying that free will = the ability to focus consciousness,
which we can all observe.  Since we can all observe this without the
aid of Rand's theory, all Rand seems to be saying is "that's all there
is to it".

-- Jeff