Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lindagarrette I suggest you read Dennett's work for several reasons. First, it will clear up the misconception that without free will we are merely robots, and that determinism means predeterminism. |
Linda -- I've been reading Dennett's writing on evolution, and find him a cogent and accessible critic of many ideas that we've had for centuries that now call for review. Can you give me a reference -- book title? -- on this subject?
In
Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he has a chapter on "Cranes and Skyhooks" that seems to fit in here. Both lift things from low to high altitude, but one is "real" and other "imaginary". The popular concept of free will is of a skyhook sort -- granted from above, not part of the physical universe. But the popular notion of many things is flawed, being our conscious interpretation of what are, at root, emotional events. It's not that the concept of free will has no value, but it's very likely that it's not what it appears on the surface.
This is one of things that drew me to Hypography -- the potential to be challenged and develop beyond the boundaries we all can't help but live with.
I understand the rancor this topic engenders, but it's good for science if we can get past it. I have a book on parenting teenagers that points out the following: "If the emotion you're feeling is anger, then you're in a power struggle..." Power struggles arise because of incommensurable, or seemingly incommensurable, ideas for which both sides have their justifications. The way out, in science, is to elevate the discussion to the next level of abstraction and see if some synthesis is possible that can show the opposing viewpoints to be instances of a higher class. There are plenty around that can't currently be so resolved (God or no God, god or no god, etc.)
I have a feeling (take for what it's worth) that free will and determinism, long considered polar opposites, may not actually be opposites at all. We are talking about some pretty high level abstractions, here, e.g., "determinism", "cause and effect", "freedom", and the like, all of which are substantiated by elements of prior worldviews, and at least some of which have been thrown into question (e.g., by ideas of chaos theory, quantum, evolution, etc.), but which haven't percolated down to lower levels or infused other areas of discourse.
That's why I'd like to see what Dennett has to say. In DDI (
Darwins's), Richard Dawkins credits Dennett with teaching him (Dawkins) about what he (Dawkins) had written. The risk is having to assimilate some difficult new concepts. The hope is that we can re-illuminate an old debate and come away agreeing on a new perspective that unites our disparate views.
The other major alternative in power struggles is to gird our loins (which is damned uncomforatble) and to to war. Unsavory...
