Free Will and the Choice to Focus

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Since man's only hope for survival is thru actions generated by a focused/cognitive mind, you'd think free will would be a handicap.

That's a good question.

The "choice to focus" isn't really between focusing and blanking out; since "focus" is an act of selective attention, to focus on one thing is necessarily to ignore something else.

When people evade the truth, I don't think it's usually done by literally "blanking out" and emptying their mind of any content. What seems to happen is that they DO focus; they focus on something they feel more comfortable with, in order to push the truth out.

There's a game I used to play in high school; whoever thinks of "the game" loses the game and must declare it. It was fun because whenever one person loses "the game" there's usually a period of time where everybody who heard them lose will also lose and continue losing, until something distracting comes up.

I just lost the game, again.

It reveals a lot about the nature of evasion and the choice to focus because, no matter how much you command yourself not to lose (I just lost the game again), you can't stop losing unless you distract yourself with something.

So the capacity that allows people to evade reality and act as their own destroyers would be exactly the same capacity that allows people to think about things (such as pendulums, gravity or the time/space continuum) in our uniquely human way; it's a byproduct of the thing that allows us to build cars, power plants and rockets.

So from an evolutionary perspective it's no more of a handicap than the T-Rex's ridiculous arms, which allowed its jaws to become so powerful.

Edit:

I just lost the game.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Similar to the choice to focus being the minimum sense of volitional, X happens, perform Y is the minimal sense of instinct.

"How does a bee find a hive? It actually figures out with the position of the sun, as well as some habitual patterns. ... There is some sort of thought - bees aren't machines as Descartes believed of all non-humans.

In "if X do Y" Eiuol is using "X" to mean one unintegrated sensation while DA is using it to refer to any particular situation which evokes a single response.

Both are correct. "If X do Y", read as individual sensations, really only describes the actions of paramecium; read as any perceptual response, it describes any animal behavior as well as a wide range of human behaviors. If read as including conceptual and symbolic stimuli as well, I'd take that as a description of general human intelligence.

If we define what's allowed into the X and Y slots then this can be a useful way to think about it.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold

[New Buddha]

What I've been trying to convey is that essentially ALL animals possess a way to act with alternatives. Volition should not and cannot be conflated with conceptual thought.

 

+1

[Devil's Advocate]

Can you experience anyone other human being's awareness of self?

...

 

I'll take that as a "no".

 

Volition is an expression of willpower, or to cite common definition, "control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses", as to alter an instinctive response.  To say an awareness of self necessarily precedes an act of volition doesn't reverse the primacy of existance.  It simply acknowledges that deliberate actions require actors who understand they have caused something to happen.

 

Yes, man isn't the only animal capable of unscripted action.  But it's nonsense to say man is the only animal who wasn't given a script.

[dream_weaver]

I'll take that as a "no".

 

Volition is an expression of willpower, or to cite common definition, "control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses", as to alter an instinctive response.  To say an awareness of self necessarily precedes an act of volition doesn't reverse the primacy of existance.  It simply acknowledges that deliberate actions require actors who understand they have caused something to happen.

 

Yes, man isn't the only animal capable of unscripted action.  But it's nonsense to say man is the only animal who wasn't given a script.

You may take it as a no, however it is the data-of-sense from where you start your inference.

 

Why is it that when a wild animal, simply exercising its 'volition and will', takes to killing human beings is simply hunted down and killed, rather than be brought to trial?

[Eiuol]

Volition is an expression of willpower, or to cite common definition, "control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses", as to alter an instinctive response.  To say an awareness of self necessarily precedes an act of volition doesn't reverse the primacy of existance.  It simply acknowledges that deliberate actions require actors who understand they have caused something to happen.

On a more poetic angle, this makes volition a matter of struggle, where man is constantly working to restrain and control his mindless impulses. Man may succeed, but not without first recognizing that he has bare desires that have existed since he was born. Within us all there is a script compelling us to act, while our volition operates completely unconstrained, allowing us to overcome all and any rules placed upon us as instinct.

 

The problem is, what about all the rules of concept formation? What about the near-universal ability of humans to learn language before a baby knows the concept "I"? Sounds like you say the "script" that allows a baby to master language must be thrown away later, and serves no conceptual purpose. A choice to focus fixes any issue here with volition, and itself is a sort of script. No one "learns" to choose to focus. Yet, all our actions must rest upon that choice and "script", as adults and children.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

 

Why is it that when a wild animal, simply exercising its 'volition and will', takes to killing human beings is simply hunted down and killed, rather than be brought to trial?

 

Why are you still using quotes to indicate a form of something that varies from definition?  If your wild animal isn't interacting with its environment in a manner other than routine behavior, it isn't exercising volitional willpower.  Complex routine behavior doesn't imply volitional action.

 

On a trip through Yellowstone I noticed several cars on the side of the road and stopped to investigate.  What I saw was a large group of tourists following a grizzly bear into the woods, some of them climbing over fallen trees with children in their arms to take pictures.  Fortunately the bear continued its retreat in what was clearly a fight or flight response to being pursued.  The bear was acting instinctively; the people were acting non-instinctively (in this case behaving deliberately stupid).  Had they managed to corner the bear it would have shifted from flight to fight, again instinctively.

 

We don't haul wild bears into court for actions harming humans that are instinctive in nature.

[Devil's Advocate]

...

 

The problem is, what about all the rules of concept formation? What about the near-universal ability of humans to learn language before a baby knows the concept "I"? Sounds like you say the "script" that allows a baby to master language must be thrown away later, and serves no conceptual purpose. A choice to focus fixes any issue here with volition, and itself is a sort of script. No one "learns" to choose to focus. Yet, all our actions must rest upon that choice and "script", as adults and children.

 

The script I'm refering to is routine, instinctive behavior.  Whether or not babies learning language is volitional, depends on a determined effort to do something non-instinctive.  No one throws away instinct; it's not either/or.

 

If we saw a goose separate from the flock during a southern migration to head north, we might suspect some flaw in its sense of direction...  or just perhaps a volitional choice to go its own way.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[Eiuol]

 Fortunately the bear continued its retreat in what was clearly a fight or flight response to being pursued.  The bear was acting instinctively; the people were acting non-instinctively (in this case behaving deliberately stupid).  Had they managed to corner the bear it would have shifted from flight to fight, again instinctively.

 

Part of the issue is you're making a claim that bears can't and don't evaluate anything. For one, that's not actually what a bear does, they don't merely react. "Flight or flight" is okay to call an instinct, but that hardly answers if bears do that or if a physiological reaction is enough to cause a bear to act. In fact, some sort of mental act is part of what any animal does.

 

"Routine" is irrelevant, even complexity doesn't matter. Volition is a mental act, and I don't know of any mental act that doesn't require a conscious selection or focus. If a mental act happened but took no focus, it's not actually a mental act, it'd be closer to a plant that is passive. Bears are not passive.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm not claiming bears can't evaluate anything (see my goose example above); I'm saying that positing volition doesn't become relevant until we can observe behavior other than what we would expect qua animal.

[Eiuol]

Sure, doesn't answer the OP question though. Maybe it doesn't "matter" if an animal acts expectedly, or is easy to predict, but lots of people also act as expected. Doesn't mean they aren't using volition - it still takes an act of focus to work at all. That is really my whole original idea: the instinct idea doesn't get at fundamentals, while the choice to focus does. I'd still say "instinct" is an invalid concept, but even if it is valid, the only sensible way to get instinct to work is by some degree of focus.

[dream_weaver]

Why are you still using quotes to indicate a form of something that varies from definition?  If your wild animal isn't interacting with its environment in a manner other than routine behavior, it isn't exercising volitional willpower.  Complex routine behavior doesn't imply volitional action.

 

On a trip through Yellowstone I noticed several cars on the side of the road and stopped to investigate.  What I saw was a large group of tourists following a grizzly bear into the woods, some of them climbing over fallen trees with children in their arms to take pictures.  Fortunately the bear continued its retreat in what was clearly a fight or flight response to being pursued.  The bear was acting instinctively; the people were acting non-instinctively (in this case behaving deliberately stupid).  Had they managed to corner the bear it would have shifted from flight to fight, again instinctively.

 

We don't haul wild bears into court for actions harming humans that are instinctive in nature.

In a case of a bear being pursued to the point of being cornered, I'm not sure I would join a posse to hunt down an animal that killed under the described circumstances. Such brazen activity on behalf of human beings make them potential candidates for a Darwin Award.

[Devil's Advocate]

Sure, doesn't answer the OP question though. Maybe it doesn't "matter" if an animal acts expectedly, or is easy to predict, but lots of people also act as expected. Doesn't mean they aren't using volition - it still takes an act of focus to work at all. That is really my whole original idea: the instinct idea doesn't get at fundamentals, while the choice to focus does. I'd still say "instinct" is an invalid concept, but even if it is valid, the only sensible way to get instinct to work is by some degree of focus.

 

For clarity, you aren't arguing against human instinct qua animal, so much as questioning its relevance to positing the initiation of focused volition in infants, correct?  It certainly takes some degree of focus to improve on instinctive behavior, and instinct responds to the OP by providing a baseline of behavior we can use to posit activity that clearly varies from expected patterns as approaching something volitional, e.g., an infant interrupting suckling to engage in playful behavior.  In such cases, moms often recognize dialing for Moscow as moving into a new stage of development.   So unless you're claiming instinct is a nonstarter, I suggest the emergence of playtime as a good indication that something willful is beginning to make volitional choices.

[Eiuol]

So unless you're claiming instinct is a nonstarter, I suggest the emergence of playtime as a good indication that something willful is beginning to make volitional choices.

On post #28, I said instinct is a nonstarter to the OP's question.

[Devil's Advocate]

You said, "Instinct is a non-starter for explaining the foundation of choices before even one concept. I doubt you'd say 'the choice to focus is an instinct'".  And I agreed in post #32 that, "You're correct; I'm not saying that volition is instinctive."  Before and after that I clarified that instinct is relevant to volition as a contrast of behavior, i.e., a means of identifying unfocused reaction from focused interaction.  I don't get the need to dismiss a "form of knowledge" in order to discuss choices based on knowledge, but carry on.

[New Buddha]

A young wolf abandoned in the forest will not survive.  A captive-raised wolf pup, turned loose into the wild, will not survive.  Instinct is not at play here.  A wolf must learn to be a wolf by observing other wolves.  In this, human toddlers are not much different from wolves.  A successful wolf pack has been handing down learned knowledge for 10's of thousands of generations - predating their species, even.  The elders of the pack provide encouragement and discipline for good and bad behavior, respectively.  This is learned behavior, and varies from species to species.  The ratio of instinct to learned behavior is probably inversely proportional to the complexity of behavior of the species.  So too is the length of childhood.

 

It's only when a human child reaches a certain stage of development that he can begin to imagine behaving in a way that is not expected of him in a given situation.   This type of thinking is, of course, unique to humans. 

Edited July 28, 2015 by New Buddha

[Eiuol]

Before and after that I clarified that instinct is relevant to volition as a contrast of behavior, i.e., a means of identifying unfocused reaction from focused interaction. 

My main beef is mixing specific scientific claims with broad philosophical claims to make broad philosophical claims. Instinct, if we look at the behaviors you label as instinctual, are not "unfocused behavior", they're non-conceptual behaviors. All animal behavior takes a degree of focus. There is no contrast or opposition between instinct and your "volitional behavior". NewBuddha made a similar error. It's all on a continuum, whose measure is degree of focus. The focus part is my philosophical claim, and it does work in reality down to small details.

[DonAthos]

My main beef is mixing specific scientific claims with broad philosophical claims to make broad philosophical claims. Instinct, if we look at the behaviors you label as instinctual, are not "unfocused behavior", they're non-conceptual behaviors. All animal behavior takes a degree of focus. There is no contrast or opposition between instinct and your "volitional behavior". NewBuddha made a similar error. It's all on a continuum, whose measure is degree of focus. The focus part is my philosophical claim, and it does work in reality down to small details.

 

I've been following along with the conversation (or attempting to), and I'd like to see if I can clarify your position a touch for myself.

 

The behavior of, say, salmon in swimming upstream back to their birth river to breed... that's learned?  Chosen?  An act of focus?

 

Do some salmon evade?  Or is there something you would describe as "instinctual" in such certain behaviors?

[Devil's Advocate]

A young wolf abandoned in the forest will not survive.  A captive-raised wolf pup, turned loose into the wild, will not survive.  Instinct is not at play here.  A wolf must learn to be a wolf by observing other wolves.  In this, human toddlers are not much different from wolves.  A successful wolf pack has been handing down learned knowledge for 10's of thousands of generations - predating their species, even.  The elders of the pack provide encouragement and discipline for good and bad behavior, respectively.  This is learned behavior, and varies from species to species.  The ratio of instinct to learned behavior is probably inversely proportional to the complexity of behavior of the species.  So too is the length of childhood.

 

It's only when a human child reaches a certain stage of development that he can begin to imagine behaving in a way that is not expected of him in a given situation.   This type of thinking is, of course, unique to humans. 

 

Your comments sparked a memory of the following news article:

 

"A nursing dog foraging for food retrieved an abandoned baby girl in a forest in Kenya and carried the infant to its litter of puppies, witnesses said Monday."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/stray-dog-rescues-abandoned-baby/

 

Learned behavior??

[New Buddha]

Learned behavior??

Very much a learned behavior.  It is well known that certain, complex species of animals, who are raised by humans, often times make for very poor mothers.  They did not observe, as adolescents, how mothers should behave towards young.  They did not participate in the play/acculturation of other infants themselves as they grew into adulthood.

 

I can one up you.

Edited July 28, 2015 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

There are many incidents of animals acting protectively towards human children, or members of other species.  Nurturing as such appears to transcend what one would expect from the learned behavior of a particular kind of animal toward its own.  It seems to me less the result of Parenting 101 than a maternal instinct.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[New Buddha]

There are many incidents of animals acting protectively towards human children, or members of other species.  Nurturing as such appears to transcend what one would expect from the learned behavior of a particular kind of animal toward its own.  It seems to me less the result of Parenting 101 than a maternal instinct.

I would argue that it is a combination of both learned behavior (through observation) AND what can be termed instinct - and that the ratio varies from species to species and are inversely proportional to the complexity of behavior of the species. 

 

What I see missing from your posts is any account of learned behavior in animals, other than humans.  You seem to be saying that animals (such as wolves/dogs) are born with innate behavior, and never learn from experience.  If this is your position, you would have to account for my original example of the difficulties of reintroduction of captive-raised animals back into the wild.  Among more complex animals, the mortality rate is extremely high.  

[New Buddha]

Three links to some writings that currently shape my understanding of the role of consciousness:

 

The first is by a Psychologist with an Objectivist background, Lee Pierson:  What is Consciousness For?

 

The second is a Ted Lecture by Daniel Wolpert.  Google Scholar has many of his papers if interested.

 

The third is a book which I'm about half way through, by Rodolfo R. Llinas, "I of the Vortex, from Neurons to Self".

 

All three intimately link consciousness with an animals need to move in it's environment - this includes man.

Edited July 28, 2015 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

I would argue that it is a combination of both learned behavior (through observation) AND what can be termed instinct - and that the ratio varies from species to species and are inversely proportional to the complexity of behavior of the species. 

...  

 

That's a nice way of putting it and I tend to agree.  Thus far I've been primarily occupied trying to get acknowledgement that humans qua animal retain any instinctual base.  It's somewhat of a relief to read your reference to "what can be termed" instinct, but even this appear to qualify it as "a form of" instinct.  Animals have instinct or they do not.  Humans are animals, therefore there's a degree of credibility at stake to assert that animals survive by a "form of knowledge" that humans don't possess.  It seems that the effort to maintain such a philosophical distinction is primarily aimed snipping Man's evolutionary roots.

 

Certainly animals are capable of learned behavior, which accounts for the success of domestication in most cases.  It's worth noting that not all animals can be domesticated, but I prefer to view that more as a lack of desire than ability to learn.  Human trainers are quite resourceful and perhaps animals lack that kind of ambition, as I mentioned earlier, or perhaps they simply choose not to play with humans.

 

The point is routine behavioral patters are observable, and to the degree an animal actor doesn't invent something new it's fair to say, and accurate by definition, that the animal being observed is acting instinctively.  One cannot predict much about the behavior of a pinball other than that it will travel downward rebounding from whatever obstacles it encounters along its path of travel (that's instinct).  We can begin to discuss volitional free will the moment it changes course to avoid obstacles and moves upward.  

[New Buddha]

The point is routine behavioral patters are observable, and to the degree an animal actor doesn't invent something new it's fair to say, and accurate by definition, that the animal being observed is acting instinctively.

And I take the position that there is sufficient behavioral evidence to differentiate between instinctive behavior and nurtured/learned behavior.  Having two concepts is justifiable.

 

And as to sniping humans from evolution, that's what I see you trying to do, lol.  I see your argument more in-line with Descartes' Automata animal vs. Human non-animal dualism. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by New Buddha