Imagine that there's a very large rock poised precariously on the edge of a precipice. Tremors from an earthquake shake the ground beneath it just enough to dislodge it and send it falling to the ground far below where it shatters into several pieces. This is causality in nearly its most elementary form; basic physical interaction, the shaking ground disturbs the rock and causes it to fall. But let's suppose for a moment that this rock was equipped with retractable claws or hooks which could be deployed to anchor it and keep it from falling. We see a possibility of saving the rock, but of course the rock doesn't see this. It's just a piece of inert matter, incapable at any rate of deploying the claws itself. So, unless a second chain of causality reaches the rock by another path, and some other physical force interacts with the rock, say a smaller rock falling against a button on the rock that deploys the claws, then the earthquake will dislodge the rock just as it did before, and it will again fall and shatter.
Clearly this is a rock in need of a fighting chance. The claws alone aren't going to do it much good without the means to deploy them. So let's equip our trusty rock with a certain basic level of consciousness, say an animal consciousness, one that relies on instinct rather than intelligence. We'll assume for the moment, hypothetically, that it's incapable of transcending these instincts. Now the rock possesses its own internal means of deploying the claws, but it can only do so on the basis of its instincts, and unfortunately it's instincts only drive it to use the claws as a defense mechanism in the presence of dangerous predators. So, unless there's a predator in the area when the earthquake strikes, the tragedy will unfold just as did before. We've graduated to a more complex level of causality, but it is still causality nevertheless.
I'd say we've increased the rock's odds of survival to some degree. Rather than relying on a small object to hit a certain exact spot on the rock, now all we need is a wild animal in the vicinity. Still, it seems that the rock's survival is out of its hands, and beyond its control. It needs a little something more to give it an edge. So, instead of just consciousness, we're going to give it human intelligence as well. Now the rock has the means to appreciate the predicament it's in. When the earthquake hits, it should be able to take matters into its own hands...or claws...or hooks...or whatever.
When the quake hits this time, the rock is now capable of understanding the alternatives it faces: to hold on or to fall, to live or to die. The question provides it with the means of understanding this, by enabling it to split the outcome into different possibilities which it can choose between. So it deploys its claws and chooses life. Seems like a fairly easy choice; one might even be tempted to call it an inevitable one, having every appearance of causality behind it. The rock desires to live, therefore it chooses to hold on. Simple as that. But as the quake goes on, and the rock grows tired and weary, another desire comes into play: the desire to let go. It grows in intensity with every passing second. The choice the rock faces is a perpetual one, and the alternative begins to look more and more appealing. It goes from alluring to downright seductive; a moment of sweet relief, then pain, and then the ordeal will be over. Meanwhile, the desire to live is still there as well, burning like a desperate, ragged thirst. But then there's the rock itself, not the physical thing perched on the edge of the precipice, but the consciousness which we endowed the rock with. It views these conflicting desires as though from an eye of calmness in a chaotic storm. It is not the the desire to live. It is not the desire to let go. It is...something else, something which is aware of these desires, something which can consider them as objects, something which can question them and consider their possibilities. In short, it is something with a will of its own to choose between them. So the rock chooses to live, and it throws the full weight of its will behind this desire, fanning it like a flame, and that will extends from the core of its consciousness all the way out to the tip of its claws which it digs in tighter with an even deeper resolve.
But wait. Surely, you say, there must be some causality behind this will, something which determines it to throw itself towards the desire to live with such abandon. Ah, but you're forgetting that the choice is a perpetual one, and the struggle goes on. Now, only a fraction of a moment later, the rock isn't the thing which threw itself behind the desire to live. It is an awareness of this thing, and as such it can consider it, question its motives. The rock is in control now, and it may even flirt with the desire to let go, loosening its grip ever so slightly, enticed by that thought of sweet relief. Fortunately, the rock isn't the thing flirting with the desire to let go. It's an awareness of that flirtation, and it can second guess it, and question the reasons behind its moment of weakness. It renews its resolve and its fast grip. But the rock isn't the thing that renewed it's resolve either. The struggle goes on, and consciousness continually slips away, perpetually faced with the choice. Second by second it has to choose to live all over again, and it constantly has to re-evaluate the reasons for making the choice. The thing controlling the claws can not be locked down securely with causality. It keeps falling back behind cause, splitting it into possibilities with the incredible fission of the question. This may not lead to an atomic detonation, but it results in something every bit as cataclysmic. It opens a tiny point of nihilation, releasing the "worm coiled in the heart of being", and providing the opportunity for Free Will.
When the quake hits this time, the rock is now capable of understanding the alternatives it faces: to hold on or to fall, to live or to die. The question provides it with the means of understanding this, by enabling it to split the outcome into different possibilities which it can choose between. So it deploys its claws and chooses life. Seems like a fairly easy choice; one might even be tempted to call it an inevitable one, having every appearance of causality behind it. The rock desires to live, therefore it chooses to hold on. Simple as that. But as the quake goes on, and the rock grows tired and weary, another desire comes into play: the desire to let go. It grows in intensity with every passing second. The choice the rock faces is a perpetual one, and the alternative begins to look more and more appealing. It goes from alluring to downright seductive; a moment of sweet relief, then pain, and then the ordeal will be over. Meanwhile, the desire to live is still there as well, burning like a desperate, ragged thirst. But then there's the rock itself, not the physical thing perched on the edge of the precipice, but the consciousness which we endowed the rock with. It views these conflicting desires as though from an eye of calmness in a chaotic storm. It is not the the desire to live. It is not the desire to let go. It is...something else, something which is aware of these desires, something which can consider them as objects, something which can question them and consider their possibilities. In short, it is something with a will of its own to choose between them. So the rock chooses to live, and it throws the full weight of its will behind this desire, fanning it like a flame, and that will extends from the core of its consciousness all the way out to the tip of its claws which it digs in tighter with an even deeper resolve.
But wait. Surely, you say, there must be some causality behind this will, something which determines it to throw itself towards the desire to live with such abandon. Ah, but you're forgetting that the choice is a perpetual one, and the struggle goes on. Now, only a fraction of a moment later, the rock isn't the thing which threw itself behind the desire to live. It is an awareness of this thing, and as such it can consider it, question its motives. The rock is in control now, and it may even flirt with the desire to let go, loosening its grip ever so slightly, enticed by that thought of sweet relief. Fortunately, the rock isn't the thing flirting with the desire to let go. It's an awareness of that flirtation, and it can second guess it, and question the reasons behind its moment of weakness. It renews its resolve and its fast grip. But the rock isn't the thing that renewed it's resolve either. The struggle goes on, and consciousness continually slips away, perpetually faced with the choice. Second by second it has to choose to live all over again, and it constantly has to re-evaluate the reasons for making the choice. The thing controlling the claws can not be locked down securely with causality. It keeps falling back behind cause, splitting it into possibilities with the incredible fission of the question. This may not lead to an atomic detonation, but it results in something every bit as cataclysmic. It opens a tiny point of nihilation, releasing the "worm coiled in the heart of being", and providing the opportunity for Free Will.
I guess you can put down the innate desire to survive in order to perpetuate the species, possibly to protect a mate or already produced young which seems to be hard wired into our cortexes as causality. Anything following that, including the internal arguments of whether to live or die, as evidence of free will.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would make the counter-point that suicide alone proves that the desire to live isn't a 100% foolproof, but yes, I agree that it's a very powerful drive.
ReplyDeleteBut that's exactly why I choose such an extreme example, to show that sometimes even life and death come down to choice and will.
Now the rock possesses its own internal means of deploying the claws, but it can only do so on the basis of its instincts, and unfortunately it's instincts only drive it to use the claws as a defense mechanism in the presence of dangerous predators. So, unless there's a predator in the area when the earthquake strikes, the tragedy will unfold just as did before.
ReplyDeleteIs this rock really the Incredible Hulk?
The thing controlling the claws can not be locked down securely with causality. It keeps falling back behind cause, splitting it into possibilities with the incredible fission of the question.
Didn’t I read about this Rock Hulk in the previous post? Whether that is “Free Will” is purely a semantic question. Either Free Will is the ability to do what one most wants even when the desires is not chosen by the exerciser of Free Will, or it is not. As you convinced me, perhaps unwittingly, in our last discussion, the question is purely semantic.
I have to say, I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say that the problem is "semantic." I mean, I suppose we could dismiss anything as a matter of semantics if we convinced ourselves that our understanding of it was corrupted by language. However, I'm not sure specifically what you mean.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'd be better off not asking. I might be opening a can of worms here ;)
(On a side note to whomever it may concern: I've been considering switching to black text against a white background. I like the layout the way it is, but I've heard that people have a hard time reading white text against dark backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteSo, if the layout has been hurting anyone's eyes, or if you like the layout the way it is, this is your big chance to speak up.)
I wish I could make an intelligent comment, but I cannot get my head round your example. If you had used a bird or beast in a tight spot - a worm even - then that would have made some sense to me.
ReplyDeleteSometimes after rain in these parts, slugs take advantage of the wet sidewalk to migrate from A to B, according to methods of their choosing which science may not have fully studied. It's unfortunate that their world-view does not include the knowledge that some young persons walk these streets who are driven by some instinct, poorly understood by me and perhaps scientists too, to systematically squash them, every last one.
Here is a case where I would argue that the slug makes an intelligent free-will choice to go travelling, but the human is compelled by determinism to do something stupid and pointless.
Furthermore, inspired by one of your comments above, Bryan, which mentioned "opening a can of worms", I have decided to start a Worm Liberation Front, and open every can of worms I can find, to let the poor creatures return to their natural habitat, where they can help the world by conditioning the soil & creating compost before being eaten by birds or (it's a cruel world) being put back into another can of worms.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the same thing that drives kids to fry ants with a magnifying glass.
ReplyDelete...and yes, I know you're on a kick now about how the animals are so much more superior to us. Whether they have Free Will, I'm really in no position to say. I can hardly fathom what goes through my own mind, let alone the mind of my dog. I'd like to believe that they have a measure of free will, because I'd like to believe that difference between us and them is one of degree and not of kind. However, they don't seem to be able to advance beyond their instincts. We build the better mousetrap, but they build the same old mouse hole. But, again, I really don't know enough about it. I actually qualified the example of the rock's animal consciousness as "hypothetically" with you in mind. I only wanted to demonstrate an advance of levels, not make a definitive statement about the cognitive functions of our furrier associates.
You got that second comment in there, while I was still replying to the first.
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of the Worm Liberation Front.
I wonder if there are actual cans of worms out there?
ReplyDeleteI suppose if the contents of a normal can were compromised, then one might unwittingly open it to find it filled with worms. Hence the saying.
ReplyDeleteEither Free Will is the ability to do what one most wants even when the desires is not chosen by the exerciser of Free Will, or it is not.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like maybe the dispute is not so much over whether people have free will, but rather what each person means when they declare that they have the answer.
As far as our desires go, I would say that we have little to no control over feeling our basic physical urges: hunger, fatigue, and so on. I don't think anyone would argue against that any more than anyone would argue that you have no control over feeling pain if someone chops your leg off with a hatchet. As far as our more complex emotional drives, these may be a bit more malleable than you might think, indirectly influenced by our outlook and fundamental ideas about things. However, in the moment, when the mood strikes us, we have little control over the actual feeling of it.
ReplyDeleteBut you have to understand, the issue isn't so much what we feel, but what we do about it. The choices we make. Do you indulge the hunger, or resist it? Do you wallow in the depression, or try to overcome it?
I wish I could say something intelligent about freewill etc, but it makes no sense to me. What happens happens and we all know it at first hand. To ask whether it is freewill or not is to go away from feeling into reasoning, which to me is the sphere of unreality. Or perhaps I have proved the existence of freewill by refusing to respect reason, no matter how compellingly it presents its case.
ReplyDeleteSorry to raise this old point again, Bryan. I merely meant to introduce the result of my researches into live canned worms. I found them at Amazon.com - where else? But it says "Currently unavailable.
We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." A sure sign that Quality Control must have opened the cans to check they were still alive, with the proverbial consequences.
Other research I personally carried out courtesy of Messrs Google & Co revealed this: that many suppliers cheat by cooking the worms inside the can to ensure they don't escape when it is opened. That is what we British call not giving the creatures a sporting chance.
Nice.
ReplyDeleteI just tried to look it up myself (wondering if you were making all this up), and all I could find was a reference to can of bait. I just assumed that it was like I said above: a can gets exposed or punctured, larvae take up resident, and then someone gets it down from the pantry, excepting to enjoy some canned beans, and instead they find.... To me this makes perfect sense, and it would be an apt metaphor for someone unwittingly unleashing a mess of trouble. I'd be disappointed if that wasn't the case, but that doesn't mean that it is, I guess.
Furthermore, I used that handy search box at the top there, to see how many posts I used the phrase "can of worms" in. I was surprised to find that there were only five. And that's out of 104! Maybe I'm not as repetitive as I thought. (Of course, that's not counting comments either.)
ReplyDeleteDo you indulge the hunger, or resist it? Do you wallow in the depression, or try to overcome it?
ReplyDeleteI am loathe to get into a semantic argument, but I do whichever desire is strongest.
Of course it will live. Rock will never die!
ReplyDelete@John: I do whichever desire is strongest. *sigh* You're like a broken record. I won't explain yet again why you have a choice about which desire to throw your will behind. You can believe your actions are determined all you want John, if that makes you happy. I won't try to convince you otherwise. You have no control, not choice. You're at the the mercy of your desires. Enjoy.
ReplyDelete@Doug: Hey, Hey, My, My....
So! How about them Cardinals, eh?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how they keep the worms still long enough to get the lid on the can?
I think we've opened a can of worms with this talking about a can of worms.
ReplyDeleteDo the white text against the black background bother you? (I'm taking a poll here.)
You can believe your actions are determined all you want John, if that makes you happy.
ReplyDeleteI believe I already recanted that idea in favor of the idea that the entire question is a semantic puzzle we made up.
Well, then you can believe that if you like.
ReplyDeleteWell, then you can believe that if you like.
ReplyDeleteAlas, I have no choice.
white text on black background is not a problem on computer screen, but is hard to read on the Kindle. So I would vote for black on white.
ReplyDeleteI had wondered about that. Wouldn't want you to run out of electronic ink ;)
ReplyDeleteDoes it show up as an inverted image, or can you not see it at all on the Kindle?
can see it on Kindle but the black background is less reflective and the text is therefore harder to read, even after zooming. Can translate it to "article mode" but that doesn't show you comments.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I'm not sure I'll change it just for that, but I will take it under consideration and chalk it up on the "con" side. Thanks for the feedback.
ReplyDeleteThe white on black is a bit of an issue for those of us with old eyes. Kind of glaring. Didn't want to bring it up because the whole thing looks so good otherwise. I can read the blue text on the sidebar just fine, though.
ReplyDeleteThere, I toned it down slightly. Does that help?
ReplyDeletetoned down the white or the black? Either way you will have reduced the contrast. It's still perfectly fine for these old eyes on the computer screen.
ReplyDeleteWhite on black is nice, I think. Better than white on poop brown.
ReplyDelete@Vincent: I toned down the white to a very light blue.
ReplyDelete@Doug: Well, there's one vote in favor of the current design...I guess. "It's better than poop" is always a strong argument.
I think "Better than poop" would be a great header for your blog, Bryan! BTW, I researched the origin of "can of worms" and found that it goes back only as far as the 1950s. It refers to cans of live bait that had tops on them. Once they were opened, the worms wiggled out very quickly and were difficult to get back into the can, thus, the expression, meaning something that becomes a lot of trouble once you begin.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the word a day on my site is a little program you can add from the Word a Day site. I have nothing to do with choosing the words. I just like to learn new words!
Nice post and blog! Following!
ReplyDelete@Mouse: Yeah, I found the same thing. I like my explanation of contaminated canned goods better, but what are you gonna do? Facts are facts. *sigh*
ReplyDeleteI'll have to look into that word-a-day widget.
@Brian: Hey, it's a Brian with an "i".
Thanks!
You have quite an amazing mind. I wish looking at a rock told me all of that. But, since it doesn't, I'm glad I have you. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks :)
ReplyDelete