Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Free will and responsibility (was Re: Making fires...)
Message-ID: <17743@cup.portal.com>
Date: 29 Apr 89 07:34:34 GMT
References: <10992@bcsaic.UUCP> <16878@cup.portal.com> <2792@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <17374@cup.portal.com> <10268@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <17473@cup.portal.com> <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 110

In article <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> arm@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Macalalad) writes:

>> [comments about superseding ineffective controls based on free will with
>>  effective ones based on science]
>This brings to mind a few books like A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World,
>and 1984.  In all of these books, scientific advances enabled governments
>to control and modify the behavior of its citizens.
>
>That someone could even suggest that this is a good thing to do shocks
>me.

     Did I say government?  I said society - one's fellow humans. 
Completely different.

     In any case, I can see that my major downfall was in failing to note
that the control runs in both directions; both from the government to the
citizens, and from the citizens to the government.  Everyone controls
everyone else in what amounts to a dynamic non-linear system.

     Incidentally, people controlling other people goes on all the time. 
But the control is quite imperfect, a hit-and-miss affair, and since it is
based on the notion of free will, it will remain imperfect.  The citizens
control the government and other citizens, and the government consists of
individuals controlling each other and the citizens.

     I am controlled, you are controlled, we are all controlled - by our
history as reflected in our brain state, and by our current input.  You can
do anything you want - more specifically, you can only do what you want -
that is, you can only do what you want most _at this particular instant_.

     Any time you try to convince someone of something, you are controlling
them.  In fact, any time you communicate you are controlling people,
because all information gained affects behavior.  Now, whether the effects
of this control are something you can predict is another issue.

     When we have a conversation, I control you and you control me.  The
communication is not the only source of control, of course;  but it is _a_
source.

     I am _not_ advocating totalitarianism - that is one of the least
efficient ways for a society to run.  Just because science allows more
accurate control of others and more knowledge of both the short and
long-term effects of that control does not mean that it must be used to
decrease everyone's standard of living, sense of freedom, and other things
held dear.

     It seems to me that totalitarianism results from a _lack_ of knowledge
of regulating society's behavior;  terror is a crude method of control.  It
is sometimes effective, but often backfires on its users.  In any case, it
is inefficient.  One draws more flies with honey than gall.

     Odd you didn't mention "Walden Two" in your list of famous books
dealing with behavioral control of society.

>In controlling another's actions, you replace his will with another.
>Who, then, is responsible for his actions?  He certainly isn't anymore,
>since it isn't his will.  Of course, from your point of view,
>responsibility is "out the window" and therefore a moot point.

     Anytime you communicate with another human being you are controlling
his actions.  You have become part of his input.  It is simply that as long
as one clings to the notion of free will, there can be no progress in
determining whether the control you actually are exerting is anything like
the control you think you are exerting.


>There is more to responsibility, though, than assigning blame or reward,
>and I certainly have never thought of responsibility as a vehicle for
>controlling others.

     But that is _precisely_ what the notion of responsibility is for.  It
is society's way of controlling the individual for the benefit of the
group.  Usually society manages to ingraine the notion so deeply that the
individual thinks that he has responsibilities to _himself_.  It's also
often used by individuals to control other individuals.

     It's just not completely effective.


>(Perhaps you are a behaviorist at heart? :-) 

     Perhaps I am.  :-|.  Just because a notion is not currently
fashionable does not make it wrong.  There are certainly flaws in Skinner's
behaviorism, but I find the metaphysics to be sound.

     Data 'disproving' behaviorism usually takes the most simplistic
possible interpretation of it and then destroys that, something which is
not so difficult to do (particularly since behavior shows increasing signs
of being non-linear and highly sensitive to initial conditions).

     This can be done with almost anything.  Imagine a theory of fusion
which says "You get fusion energy by ramming hydrogen atoms together.".  So
you take two beakers of water, smash them together, and when no extra heat
or nuetrons result, conclude that there was no fusion and the theory is
wrong.

     The problem is that you've disproved the wrong theory.


>Responsibility is a concept intimately connected to self-actualization and
>self-identity.  Taking away responsibility also takes away any concept of
>the self.

     Nah.  Free will and the self are orthogonal concepts.  And I'd like to
see definitions of self-actualization and self-identity that mean something
comprehensible.  Seems to me that a lot of these terms are use for the
connotative (is that a word?) value of the words that comprise them.


Dan Hankins