Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

--- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> Some philosophers have seen this [the determinism of logic] and have swung to
indeterminism, to
> randomness, in order to allow for choice. But there is no choice in true
> randomness, for things just happen. If I throw dice, I can't be blamed
> for the numbers shown. I may be blamed for gambling or commended for
> playing with the children, as the case may be. But what the dice show is
> out of my power, unless I've picked loaded dice, which involves a
> different moral decision. So random products are not the basis for
> morality, for rational decisions, etc., though some have foolishly tried
> to account for human freedom through the randomness of quantum effects.
>
Agreed. I don't know whether this is a factor or not, but it seems to me that
introducing randomness in an effort to understand human free will may in part
be motivated by the unpredictability of human choices. I can sometimes predict
how a friend will react to a given situation, but frequently not. And maybe I
could try to model his choices by introducing an element of randomness. But my
friend is not making random choices. The randomness in the modeling is only
because of my ignorance of all the criteria he is applying and all of his
priorities.

> Free will demands self-determination, the individual's choice making the
> difference--causally. The choice may be narrow, even between undesirable
> alternatives. In this situation, morality requires choosing so as to
> cause the lesser evil. Other times it may be the good over an evil.
> Unless there is this possibility, there cannot be moral behavior.
>
> Self-determination is not something that fits into a scientific
> framework. A sociologist or anthropologist may report on the behavior of
> the group, contrasting it to the professed standard. An obvious example
> is the strict monogamy professed and the serial polygamy of practice
> common in the West, though marriage is giving way to shacking up and
> casual sex. They may measure the effect on the group, but "moral" is not
> a proper term within the disciplines, except as describing the professed
> standard. In sum, there are matters that do not belong within scientific
> disciplines. Trying to wedge them in gets Miles and those he criticizes
> into difficulties.
> Dave

Agreed.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri May 5 10:58:52 2006