On "Free Will"

"This doctrine, that of the ghost in the machine, strictly separates the mind or soul from the body...It splits the world of the mind from the world of science. It is often supposed to protect our cherished free will." - Simon Blackburn

For something like two millenia, philosophers have seen a fundamental conflict between deterministic causation, and our conception of ourselves as free agents. Determinism, the doctrine (some would say, the observed fact) that all events have prior causes, appears to raise serious difficulties for materialistic theories of mind. For if whatever happens is related in law-like fashion to some previous state of affairs, and this applies to mental events such as decisions, then at any given moment, only one "choice" is possible. We have no genuine control over our lives.

To most commentators, disagreement with the above paragraph is just sophistry. Either you insist on old-fashioned Cartesian dualism - thereby excluding mentality from the constraints of physical law - or else you embrace science and materialism, and reject free will entirely. So entrenched is the traditional approach, it often goes unquestioned in debates about human freedom. Yet behind the assumed dichotomy lies a deeply misleading standard: that in order for your decision to have been "free", you must have been able to choose otherwise.

This popular benchmark for free will may appear straightforward, perhaps even obviously true, but on closer inspection it is incoherent. We can expose the conceptual misstep by considering that an agent (if it is awake and thinking clearly) will only make "choices" that express internal goals. Yes, your decision must have had antecedent causes, however, your conscious objectives - the outcomes you wanted! - were actually among those causes. So the possibility of acting differently is meaningless. Indeed, acting otherwise than intended (contrary to your goals) is not only irrelevent to the discussion, but the opposite of free will as traditionally understood.

Once you accept that your internal structure - your conscious rationales, and personal history as an agent - should be included among the factors which determine your behaviour, it becomes obvious that even if you had wanted to act differently, this would only have amounted to a change in starting conditions (say, a different configuration of your brain) - and so, an alternative scenario altogether. All of which suggests a better standard than the one we started with: Could you have chosen otherwise had you decided to? This, of course, was Hume's analysis of the free will quandary, but it has not been widely accepted by philosophers.

To rephrase this more modest question: Would an alternative course of action have been within your capability, given another set of objectives from the outset? If the answer is yes, then we can say that you did choose freely. Perhaps you discover later that your decision had undesirable consequences. In that case you are likely to form new strategies, which will influence your future choices under similar circumstances - and so on throughout your life. It's this capacity for conscious, flexible decision-making over time which should be identified with "free will". Despite enduring appeal, the traditional approach is misconcieved.

Paul Haywood 2008.

16:38 - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Reasons to Live
Category: Life

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

What inspires me, is the chaotic swirl of the galaxies; the seemingly infinite diversity of living things; the baleful roll of approaching storms; the rustle of wind in indifferent trees; the idle chunter of sleepy birds on summer nights; the unimaginable depth and darkness of the ocean; the way that great frozen rafts of water can carve glacial scars on the land - whole ravines, canyons gorged out of solid rock; the brief and sudden eruption of pink blossom in spring (which, by the time it is noticed, is already adrift like confetti, revealing fresh greenery beneath); all the majesty, turmoil, stillness and mystery, of nature and the universe at large.

Of course there are pleasures closer to home - the warmth of shared laughter, the helplessness of love, the easy silences among friends - but save those for another blog. My question is this: Why, when this mundane world we can all see and touch has so much to offer, and remains such an endless bounty of insights and marvels, do so many of us want to populate it with devils and gods, demons and angels, and other denizens of ancient myth?

Open your eyes, and breathe deeply. Life is wonderful enough already.

05:02 - 11 Comments - 10 Kudos - Add Comment

Was Bush Behind 9/11?
Category: News and Politics

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" - from Rebuilding America's Defences, drawn up by Project for the New American Century for Vice President Cheney and others, Sept 2000

"...the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" - report prepared for the US government by the Baker Institute of Public Policy, April 2001

"...the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" - General Myers, US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, April 2002

"The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence" - John Loftus, former US federal crimes prosecutor

I doubt Bush actually orchestrated 9/11; it was more a case of political opportunism. What seems clear, is that the administration planned to take military control of the Middle East prior to the attack, as is evidenced by documents released by the Project for the New American Century (the full Pax Americana blueprint is available on-line and is, frankly, terrifying). Bush did nothing about the prospect of terrorism on US soil, despite what we now know amounted to significant intelligence. There is possible historical precedent for this in Pearl Harbour, where advance warning of a Japanese strike somehow never reached the ground. In that case, Roosevelt used the ensuing outrage to persuade a reluctant public to join the war effort.

Bush seized on 9/11 as a pretext for mobilizing public opinion, to secure American geopolitical objectives abroad. After the Towers came down, his Republican cronies launched a campaign of propaganda and disinformation, duping Colin Powell into presenting their lies before the UN, using their own think-tanks to stovepipe false intelligence to the President, circumventing the CIA and other agencies (when they could not be bullied into conformity) and doing whatever necessary to fabricate a link between Saddam and Islamic extremists. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no Iraqi bid to secure weapons-grade plutonium. Iraq was not a training ground for international terrorism (although it is now, thanks to the failures of American foreign policy).

I think the world has good reason to fear Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocon cabal. Step by step, these people are trying to bypass or dismantle the institutional checks and balances which keep central government honest. Theirs is an attempt to concentrate presidential authority, to form a militaristic regime with no accountability either within government or to the wider American public - and in contempt of international law. The prestigious Commission of International Law Jurists drew up a document in 2003, to warn the administration that their invasion plans were clearly illegal, and that any aggressions against Iraq would constitute prosecutable war crimes. The President went ahead anyway, favouring his own uncredentialed sources.

Meanwhile, we have modern day gulags in Guantanomo and beyond, in which at least 50,000 people are currently imprisoned - many without charge or legal representation - and routinely tortured by anonymous goons. We have widespread human rights breaches by US forces in the Middle East, notably in Abu Ghraib prison, including reports of deaths in custody. Reliably documented by humanitarian organisations, among them Amnesty International. In light of such abuse, just how is the neocon embrace of pork barrel politics, manipulation of intelligence agencies and the media, suppression of internal dissent, unilateralism and omnipotence for the Commander in Chief distinguishable from fascism? Where is all this madness leading?

06:26 - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

The Unlikelihood of God
Category: Religion and Philosophy

03:56 - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

For the True Heads...
Category: Music

There are at least two stellar, must-have MC/producer collaborations out this year. The first is between legendary battle rapper Percee P, and equally revered, off-the-wall beatmaster Madlib. Percee is famed for a bewildering array of bullet-proof guest spots for the likes of Jaylib, Big Daddy Kane, Kool Keith, Jedi Mind Tricks, Maestro Fresh Wes and many others. Madlib is the production guru behind Quasimoto, Lootpack and Dudley Perkins to name a few. He might be the greatest hip hop producer of all time (although of course, the late Jay Dee a.k.a. J Dilla - collaborator with Madlib for the Jaylib projects - is a strong contender for that title). The album will be called Perceverence and should impress.

The second is between Gorillaz' producer Danger Mouse, and hip hop's hardest working rapper and hype man, Black Thought of The Roots. Danger Mouse is the brains behind The Grey Album, that infamous mash up of Jay Z's Black Album and The Beatles' White Album, dubbed "the ultimate remix record" by The Rolling Stone. He is also the production half of Gnarles Barkley, eccentric wig-wearing duo responsible for the first ever track to top the UK singles chart based on downloads alone. Late master of rapid-fire flow Big Pun has given Black Thought props, and according to ?uestlove (drummer and manager of The Roots) he is also Nas' favourite MC. Could there be higher praise than that? Inevitably, the project will be titled Dangerous Thoughts.

Fans of real hip hop, make sure you cop these records!

14:51 - 4 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

America is Dreaming
Category: News and Politics

"Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions...and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs" - The Economist, Dec 29th 2004

America takes pride in being the Land of Opportunity - the ultimate meritocracy, where anyone can be a success - and we are led to believe by the US intelligentsia that American-style capitalism and democracy are paradigms to which the world should aspire. But in terms of exit rates from poverty, America actually has less upward mobility than any European country. It also has far greater polarization of wealth, and less opportunity for access to higher education, employment and health care for the poorest members of society. Not only that, but the strengthening grip of rich, dynastic families on the political system makes American "democracy" almost a sham.

Regional development patterns are uneven, and wealth disparity is on the rise in the world's most prosperous country. Recent trade liberalization has led to an increase in communities lagging behind economically. In 2003, almost 25% of the nation's counties had per-capita incomes below half the national average. Low-wage manufacturing industries are collapsing. Core urban areas of Detroit, Washington DC, Los Angeles and Michigan have persistently high levels of poverty and unemployment, and few effective means of advancement for residents. Deplorable inner-city education has left 46% of American 18 year-olds with no vocational or academic qualifications (the figure is 10% throughout Europe). Gang violence and gun crime have reached proportions found nowhere else in the industrialized world: among 10 - 24 year-old Afro-American males, the leading cause of death is homicide.

So are we really better off in Europe? Well, if it matters that whatever your start in life, honest graft can pay off (and even translate into political influence) then yes. One reason is that there are different trade-offs between capitalism and civil society here. Historically, American capitalists have been hostile to the idea of a "social contract", which they see as a threat to Liberty. By contrast, in Europe there is an Enlightenment-generated view that a healthy public realm - with provision for education, community initiatives, social care and such like - forms the bedrock of any properly-functioning society. Our belief in a Social Contract ensures a different balance of forces between labour and capital, welfare and profit this side of the water. Crucially, we expect private enterprise to uphold the same values of justice and fairness.

Yet American economists continue to portray Europe as a quagmire of social sclerosis, sagging productivity and over-regulation, and champion instead a more laissez-faire, anti-State, pro-greed business model, in which the corporation is seen simply as an engine for generating shareholder profit. Which is why in the US public life is dominated by big business, and why American companies accept so little responsibility for the wellbeing of their own workforces - let alone the wider community. Companies are accountable only to their shareholders. Thatcher tried to import these precepts over to Britain (a favourite hair-brained dictum was "there is no society, only individuals") in the Eighties, with disastrous results.

According to US economists, the promotion of ruthless self-interest leads to prosperity for everyone, "trickle down"-style. Greed is a virtue. The basic idea is that with markets de-regulated to help the rich get richer, the resulting bouyant economy will cause more opportunities to open up for the disenfranchised...as if by magic? I think this is a really wacky idea, and suspect that Europe has been badly misrepresented by the conservative advocates. The American Business Model simply does not perform as advertised: in fact, it comes with tremendous social and economic costs, often ignored or rationalized away by America's right-wing zealots and think-tanks. All it really does, is foster neglect of civil infrastructures - and inevitably, concentrates ever more wealth and power in ever fewer hands.

America is still a great country, but we should be more critical about what we allow ourselves to be spoon-fed by the American right. It is a movement in which ideology long ago replaced evidence and reason.

Paul Haywood 2006.

13:26 - 3 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment