Bill’s belief
in free will gives him big trouble in sorting out the
difference between objectivism and subjectivism.
I am ever so grateful
to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The
quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and
my comments are marked "[GB: ".
The
Mind-Brain Muddle (Part 6 of 7)
TSW: "... if only one reaction is possible for
each movement, then actions seen as altruistic must be regarded as the only
ones possible under existing conditions."
BW: In which case, there is no such thing as ethics. If humans are just "atoms" bouncing against each other in pursuit of equilibrium, then there can be no "guidelines" for human behavior: you always do what you have to do. No human action can be considered altruistic or selfish, since those are motives in the pursuit of beneficial objectives (either for self or others). By your characterization, humans can't chose to benefit self or others, they must do what they are required to do. Whatever they do is "correct" and necessary, so no human action is good or bad. The serial killer is just as good as the creative inventor.
BW: In which case, there is no such thing as ethics. If humans are just "atoms" bouncing against each other in pursuit of equilibrium, then there can be no "guidelines" for human behavior: you always do what you have to do. No human action can be considered altruistic or selfish, since those are motives in the pursuit of beneficial objectives (either for self or others). By your characterization, humans can't chose to benefit self or others, they must do what they are required to do. Whatever they do is "correct" and necessary, so no human action is good or bad. The serial killer is just as good as the creative inventor.
[GB:
Sorry, but ethics are road maps to appropriate behavior. People find them
extremely useful whether they believe they have free will or not—makes no
difference. The map will get you to the same place regardless. We determinists
have all kinds of guidelines (that is why we are still alive). We judge
behaviors as altruistic, selfish, good, or bad just like normal folks, which is
what we are required to do by the causal chain that determines our behaviors.
Our unfree will has trained us to lock up those serial guys so they won’t harm
us or anyone else. Our decisions each have an infinite number of physical,
material causes that we can never hope to discern, although we will not deny
that they have occurred.]
TSW: "... it all depends on the observer’s point of view."
BW: Subjectivism. But that's just an illusion, as you describe it: no action a person takes is motivated by their point of view (about ethics or anything else): every action is necessary.
[GB:
Sorry, Bill, but a person’s “point of view” is a very real entanglement of
nervous interconnections in the brain. Every
“action a person takes is motivated by their point of view.” A dead brain has
no point of view and no motivation. Again, you seem to be thinking that the
alternative might be some kind of magical, free, motivation floating around in
the air. I guess you would need something like that to be a believer in free
will. Maybe this will help: The word “motivated” suggests a physical cause, as
in Newton’s Second Law of Motion. What gets the ball rolling? Motivation is
required for action. That is why motives are of primary concern in detective
work.]
TSW: Whitehead ('in one of his better moments'): "Every organism requires an environment of friends, partly to shield it from violent changes, and partly to supply it with its wants."
BW: Except Whitehead's characterization isn't consistent with your description. One can't acquire "friends" unless they have good will or respect for your actions. That isn't possible, since none of your actions are chosen, so there can be no relationship based on good will or respect. Anyone "friendly" to you *must* be friendly: they have no choice in the matter. So, Whitehead's premise that all organisms (specifically, people) "need" friends does not require that they *seek* friends, by any means or mode of conduct. By your formulation, they *have to be* friends, irrespective of whether you want them as friends or they want to be friends; totally independent of anything you or they might do or say, intend or desire.
TSW: Whitehead ('in one of his better moments'): "Every organism requires an environment of friends, partly to shield it from violent changes, and partly to supply it with its wants."
BW: Except Whitehead's characterization isn't consistent with your description. One can't acquire "friends" unless they have good will or respect for your actions. That isn't possible, since none of your actions are chosen, so there can be no relationship based on good will or respect. Anyone "friendly" to you *must* be friendly: they have no choice in the matter. So, Whitehead's premise that all organisms (specifically, people) "need" friends does not require that they *seek* friends, by any means or mode of conduct. By your formulation, they *have to be* friends, irrespective of whether you want them as friends or they want to be friends; totally independent of anything you or they might do or say, intend or desire.
[GB:
Huh? This was one of the few times that Whitehead was correct. Again, it looks
like your free will idea has once again gotten the better of you. Your
statement clearly shows the resulting confusion and error of your analysis.
Like other indeterminists, you apparently are attempting to put “choices” on
some non-existent, imaginary, higher non-physical plane. Again, return to
univironmental determinism, the observation that what happens to a portion of
the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without.
Even without my physical or your magical choices, some microcosms will find
themselves in a more favorable macrocosm than others. The ones existing in a
“friendly” (cocktail party?) macrocosm are likely to survive longer than the
ones in an “antagonistic” (battlefield?) macrocosm.]
BW: Standing alone, Whitehead's statement is an assertion of natural *selfishness*. He says you only create the illusion of being altruistic because you need others in order to achieve your own security and obtain values from them: selfishness. So, on his statement alone, there are no ethics, only illusion, subterfuge, deception, and exploitation. And you call his statement a "better moment"?
BW: Standing alone, Whitehead's statement is an assertion of natural *selfishness*. He says you only create the illusion of being altruistic because you need others in order to achieve your own security and obtain values from them: selfishness. So, on his statement alone, there are no ethics, only illusion, subterfuge, deception, and exploitation. And you call his statement a "better moment"?
[GB:
Gee, you sure got a bunch of stuff out of his simple innocuous statement about
how nice it is to have friends. Are you sure there wasn’t a bit of Rorschach at
work there? One can always see other’s behavior as either good or bad. In
scientific analysis, we try to avoid making such judgments. Words such as
“selfishness,” “altruism,” “good,” and “bad,” often say more about the person
using those terms than it does about the person they are used upon. That is why
scientists such as Margaret Mead and Jared Diamond avoid those terms when
studying foreign cultures. Their job was descriptive, not prescriptive. There
may be occasion to be prescriptive—even a radical social activist, but we
should not claim that our “good” and “bad” proclamations have any foundation in
scientific analysis.]
TSW: "Sociobiologists have interpreted this as a genetic rather than a spatial relationship. By their reckoning your genes somehow prompt you to be the most altruistic to those with whom you share the most genes in common."
BW: What they're claiming is not that genes themselves are "little buggers" that motivate altruism, but that having genes in common (being one of a "kind") facilitates "empathy". That is probably true for vertebrate offspring (though not every organism), since children have a natural affinity for their mother (as noted above), who suckles and coddles them. So, they equate survival and pleasure with the maternal (to some degree paternal) relationship ... which automatically gets applied to others of the same "kind" (species). Genes don't "know" or "care" about anything, self or other: they are inanimate chemicals.
TSW: "Sociobiologists have interpreted this as a genetic rather than a spatial relationship. By their reckoning your genes somehow prompt you to be the most altruistic to those with whom you share the most genes in common."
BW: What they're claiming is not that genes themselves are "little buggers" that motivate altruism, but that having genes in common (being one of a "kind") facilitates "empathy". That is probably true for vertebrate offspring (though not every organism), since children have a natural affinity for their mother (as noted above), who suckles and coddles them. So, they equate survival and pleasure with the maternal (to some degree paternal) relationship ... which automatically gets applied to others of the same "kind" (species). Genes don't "know" or "care" about anything, self or other: they are inanimate chemicals.
[GB:
Remember that the horrible title of Dawkin’s book is “The Selfish Gene.” Now
tell me again that he didn’t really mean that. Actually, my main beef with all
this stuff is that behavior is motion and motion cannot be inherited. Behavior
is a univironmental interaction between a microcosm and its macrocosm. The
behavior never occurs unless both the microcosm and the macrocosm have
properties and motions that allow the microcosm to move in a particular way.
One can inherit genes and perhaps whole neurological scripts with algorithms
that swing into action when triggered by a change in the macrocosm. This is
analogous to your computer, which does not do anything until you turn it on.
Although infinitely more complicated, the relationships you describe are not
the only ones possible. Adopted children perform all the behaviors you
mentioned and our relationships with other species often
are not all the different either. As I maintained in "The Scientific
Worldview," the love (pleasure association) and altruism displayed in all
these relationships is more dependent on physical distance than anything to do
with genes.]
BW: Of course, it is true that sentients (conscious vertebrates) "share" more with those in proximity. That's just a physical reality: if they don't ever encounter a particular member of their species, how can they have any "feelings" about them at all?
BW: Of course, it is true that sentients (conscious vertebrates) "share" more with those in proximity. That's just a physical reality: if they don't ever encounter a particular member of their species, how can they have any "feelings" about them at all?
[GB:
Now you are getting somewhere.]
Next: Ethics
(Part 7 of 7)
cotsw 055