Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <17754@cup.portal.com>
Date: 29 Apr 89 22:16:39 GMT
References: <10333@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <3850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <387@nbires.nbi.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 104

In article <387@nbires.nbi.com> matt@nbires.nbi.com (Matthew Meighan)
writes:

>This argument -- that we're controlled anyway, so we should choose our
>poison -- is an extremely pernicious and evil one.  I also believe it is
>utterly insincere and cynical in that it is not put forth by those who
>would be controlled, but by those who would impose control on others.
>
>In other words, "If I don't control you, someone else will.  And they
>are worse than me.  So embrace my control, it is the best thing for you."
>
>This is the argument of a would-be facist dictator and nothing else.
>Look at history; they've all said this very thing.  It's morally
>equivalent to telling a rape victim, "Look, you're going to get raped
>sooner or later.  And I'm gentler than most.  So you should be glad
>this is happening to you."

     Nah.  I'm a free-market-pacifist anarchist.  The extent to which I
wish to control you is simply to change your mind about the oxymoronic idea
of free will.  But not to the extent of exerting any form of coercion on
you.  I think that coercion is probably one of the least efficient and
effective means of influencing another's behavior.  It is certainly not one
that is desireable.   _This_ method, that is having a conversation, is I
believe much more desireable, if not very efficient or effective.

     I'm certainly not going to try to get the government to try to _force_
you to agree with me.

     Control runs in all directions.  To some extent, I control you, and
you control me.  To some extent, you control yourself.  This is _not_ free
will.  Controlling yourself simply means that your self-concept and
memories have a greater influence on your behavior than external input
does, all of which is determined by the laws of nature.  Of course our
communication with each other is only a part of the input of each;  there
are all sorts of other inputs.  The shape of your computer screen and the
color of the sky are also a part of your input.


>People who seriously advocate this are a real danger to humanity and
>should probably be summarily imprisoned.  By their own argument, they can
>hardly complain about this -- they're going to be controlled anyway, so
>why not be in prison.  Of course, the real thrust of their argument is not
>that THEY will be controlled, but that YOU will.

     I will be controlled, and if people like you have their way, I suppose
I will be summarily imprisoned.  But on the other hand, I will exert
control even as it is exerted on me - I will try to stop you from
imprisoning me.

     I think that imprisonment is probably a very inefficient method of
control, as is terror and all the other tools of a totalitarian state.

     Why not be in prison?  That's not the kind of control I wish exerted
on myself, or on you, for that matter;  although I will attempt to change
your opinion on this matter, I won't go so far as to recommend your
imprisonment.  I am strongly in favor of free speech.


>The argument is utter nonsense unless we are prepared to accept its
>premise -- that we are going to be controlled anyway by a street gang
>boss, a GM exec, or somebody.

     How about being controlled by one's own memories and experience? 
There is no form of control that is total except for the laws of physics
and perhaps brainwashing (which is quite inefficient, and often
ineffective, and in any case undesirable).

     You are controlled anyway.  So am I.  I prefer to be controlled by my
own memories and experience, rather than external constraints created by
other people where reality comes out of the end of a gun.

     Self-control, or self-determination, or whatever you call it, is _not_
the same thing as free will.  Instead, it's a nonlinear feedback system.


>But this premise flies in the face of history, and to accept it takes us
>not only "beyond" our freedom and our dignity, but our humanity as well. 
>Skinner's title alone makes it plain what he is advocating -- that we give
>up our dignity as human beings and volunteer to become lobotomized slaves.

     It's clear that you've understood little of Skinner, even
misinterpreting the title.  He is _not_ advocating that we give up our
feelings of dignity and lobotomize ourselves to become slaves.  To see how
ridiculous this is, simply look at the word slavery.  It means to do menial
and degrading work and live in poor conditions as a result of coercion by
others (reality coming out of the end of a gun, again).  Neither he nor I
wish this on anyone.


>Personally, I'll take freedom and dignity over Skinner's soul-less (not to
>mention utterly fanciful and unobtainable) utopia.

     Skinner welcomes you to have your feelings of freedom and dignity.  It
is the notion that there is an uncaused causal agent in charge of your
behavior that he wishes to dispel.

     It is interesting that you should mention his 'utterly fanciful and
unobtainable' utopia.  I have read that several communities have been
started which follow the model of Walden Two.  Although they have had rocky
periods, and not all of the ideas in W2 turned out to be workable or
effective, the communities survived and remained viable.


Dan Hankins