Part 1: Why Amateurs Are Sometimes Better than Experts at Conveying Information

Part 1: 

In my first blog post, "About My Blog-My First Post," I discussed some of my reasons for creating this blog and posited some of the things/benefits I hoped to convey to my readership.  I would like to touch on that subject again; however, the attempt here is to cover new ground by answering a simple question: "Why comment on subjects when I do not have an expertise in those fields?"

On first glance, this appears to be a valid question.  I have a dearth of knowledge about politics, philosophy, etc. in comparison to the information that an expert in the subject might possess.  As such, some of my posts will perhaps contain amateurish or even incorrect views.  Additionally, an expert in a field will almost certainly be able to posit more in depth views on topics that are in his/her field of study.  Some would say, "These people often devote their lives to studying these topics, so they should be the ones who are most capable at conveying this information to the populace?"  In some cases, the answer to this question is yes; however, I would bet that in many more instances, the experts on a topic are the least able to transmit their learned knowledge to the public.  The reasons are evident.

The experts on a topic also tend to be specialists.  They may know a lot about one specific area of a field; however, they know very little about the other areas.  Sometimes, their lack of a more general understanding of their field may incorrectly bias their viewpoints about the field in general.  Either way, most of their papers, lectures, and scholarly focus on a narrow topic area.  Additionally, their writings are intended for other experts in the field and contain jargon, arcane symbolism, etc.  How many busy "average Joe's and Janes" have the time to spend to puzzle through dozens or even hundreds of these texts to build a generalized knowledge of a specific topic, such as free will, evolution, culture, etc.?  Besides, most of these journals are inaccessible to the "average person" anyway, unless one happens to live near a library that contains a sizable journal collection or wants to pay significant sums for individual submissions.

Even when an expert in the field does create a book or an article that is intended for the general public, the work does succeed in disseminating information to the general populace.  One could point to a number of reasons for this failure, including poor marketing, length, etc.  However, in my opinion, these books fail to enlighten many non-academicians because they are boring reads.  The writers text based comments are not entertaining.  Just as importantly, expert authors often fail to connect with their readership because they can't build any empathetic connections.  As such, large numbers of potential readers will choose not to read a book on history, culture, philosophy, etc. because they cannot "connect with it."  Other people, who do read the book, will not remember much of what they read because it will not "stick in their minds." As a case in point, how many people have read Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time?

Perhaps worse is when a tiny passage from an academic publication or a high brow book written for the masses is taken out of context (thereby skewing its original meaning and purpose) and disseminated throughout the population.  Few people questions the erratum because only a tiny percentage of them read any part of the original text.  They sometimes readily accept its message because it comes from an expert on the subject.  This event occurs so often that it's not worth listing any specific examples, we can all think of numerous ones.

This situation would (to quote an oft used cliche) "be fine and dandy" if most people living outside of academia were automatons, or specialists who didn't need to concern themselves with anything that didn't involve their jobs or families.  It would also be fine if our cultural, economic, and political situations were simple, and we lived in societies whose rules, values, etc. changed slowly if at all.  However, this is not the case.

To be continued....

Free Will Revisited

See my last post on the topic of free will.  In addition to posting a response to Coyne's article on the USA Today site, I also posited another copy on to a philosophy blog--'Talking Philsophy.'  You can find this response under a blog post by Russell Blackford that is titled, "Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris on Free Will." at: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4045.

My post is a response to a blog response posted by Michael.  You can find his text at the link above (under Blackford's article).

@ Michael...I probably guilty in conflating two arguments.  One thrust of my post/response sought to find weaknesses in Coyne's argument.  The other presented statements supporting the potential existence of "free will."

As to your first question, the randomness argument does not support the existence of free will (nor does it necessarily undermine it).  However, if some human actions are random, it most certainly weakens Coyne's hypothesis which imputes that all human actions have a direct causal antecedent.  One can still posit the that human actions are not free; however, he/she would have to use an argument that did not rely on pure causality.

I think it would be possible to test this hypothesis--actions are predetermined versus actions are sometimes predetermined.  A researcher could take an organism (perhaps a mouse) and place it in the exact same situation more than once (probably numerous times).  The analyst could them stimulate a response using a fear vector and see what happens.  If the organism does not respond in the same way each time, ie. the mouse jumps to the right once, to the left another time, etc., then that provides strong evidence refuting Coyne's hypothesis. 

On evolution: I think Coyne needs to demonstrate that evolution favors the development of human beings with no free will since he relies on evolutionary statements to bolster his hypothesis.

My first attempt at connecting free will and evolution was kind of weak and opaque, so let me try again.  Numerous organisms, such as wolves, chimpanzees, dolphins, etc. engage in complex, social behavior.  None of these organisms exhibit (to the best of my knowledge) self-awareness much less any sense of control over their actions.  They live in the moment.  Ergo, evolution has tended to favor organisms that are non-self aware and at the same time can create complex societies.

With that said, the burden of proof is on Coyne to demonstrate why human beings would differ from these other organisms.  Namely, why would evolution favor the development of a species with an enlarged cerebrum (and all of the problems that come with this development) if the only benefit this organ part provides to human beings is one of deception?  This is an especially pertinent question given that many other, non-aware creatures successfully engage in highly complex social networks.

Also, I think we are all approaching this subject from a biased stance.  However, by acknowledging that fact and trying to overcome it, perhaps we are demonstrating that we are not automatons after all.  :wink:

Finally, I agree with other posters that it is important to define what I mean by free will.  I would equate free will with the ability of an organism to choose from a limited set of possibilities.  This action is not predetermined.  I would also add that it is not important whether the subconscious or the conscious mind makes the decision, as long as the choice is not predetermined (by an internal or an external process). 

I don't think any of the posters have mentioned it and maybe I am incorrect in this assumption--however, I believe that the first question we need to ask is not, "Does free will exist?"  Rather, we need to query, "Can an organism create?"  A free choice (if extant) is an act of creation whereby a predetermined choice, like a birth, is a result of predetermined actions.  If human beings have the ability to create (as defined above), then they have the potential to possess free will.  If not, they do not have the potential to be free.

Do Human Beings Have Free Will? And Just What Is Free Will Anwyay?

I thought it would be worthwhile to post my response to an article on USA Today's on-line publication that deals with the subject of free will.  The author, Jerry A. Coyne, is a strict determinist who disavowed any belief in free will.  My response attempts to rebut his hypothesis.  Please note that I wrote it without edits.  As such, the response represents a visceral (and ironically perhaps non-autonomous) response to Coyne's remarks.  You can find Jerry A. Coyne's article, "Why You Don't Really Have Free Will" here:

 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-religion/52317624/1

I posted an additional response clarifying some of my remarks on a blog...I will posit that entry later on tonight...For now, here is my response to Jerry Coyne:

Jerry Coyne's hypothesis seems to be flawed.  I have listed some of my reservations to Coyne's analysis below.  Perhaps, apologists in the "no free will" camp can provide valid rejoinders to these queries.  As an aside, this list represents my immediate concerns with Coyne's article; I could probably posit a more erudite, lengthy list if I had the time to devote to research the issue. 

From an Evolutionary Perspective:

1) If I recall, isn't 1/3 of the human brain devoted to higher-end, thought processes (ie. not subconscious but conscious actions).  If that is the case, and assuming no free-will, human minds are horribly inefficient.  We should have been out-competed by organisms which utilized more efficient means to overcome the problems inherent in living in complex societies (mentioned in Coyne's piece).

2) From my view, wouldn't evolution favor organisms with free will over animals whose behavior was wholly determined by their genes and past experiences?  The more dynamic and fluid a creatures have the best chance of overcoming unique environmental occurrences long enough to maximize the number of off-spring they produce.

From a Statistical Perspective:

Even in closed systems, it is impossible to predict some outcomes, which is due to the inherent randomness in these systems.  The existence of this randomness calls into question Coyne's view that all human actions are  predetermined.  It is impossible to say that something is foreordained if the same object placed in exactly the same conditions behaves in differently in each test. 

From a Biological Perspective:

It is possible that free will, as such, could be an emergent trait and thus is "more than the sum of its parts."  While this may seem unrealistic, it is worth noting its possibility, given the existence of another emergent trait--consciousness.  In regards to consciousness, it really should not exist.  Its antecedents cannot be traced (ie. it does not seem to emanate from any part of the brain), and it does not seem to derive its powers from any particular grouping of cells. 

From a Sociological Perspective:

Even if we assume that people could not make free choices if they were closed entities (ie. made up of and controlled by genes and environment, it is worth noting that human beings are not closed systems.  Individuals  interact with each other and transmit ideas, information, feelings, behaviors, etc. via these social interchanges.  Further, these interactions are dynamic.  In other words, people don't act as passive entities in these interactions; they respond in both active and passive ways.  Their open-ended relationships provide them with the impetus and occasions necessary to make decisions which run counter to their internal programming.

From a Neurological Perspective:

It appears that Coyne's article conflates two types of choices that human beings make.  He refers to scientific research (which might or might not be flawed; I have not reviewed the literature) to debunk instantaneous choice-making.  It would make sense that human beings would rely on their subconscious when making quick decisions, ie. which button to push.  One wants to be able to process a decision quickly (ie. via the subconscious) when making instantaneous choices.  However, I think it would be more difficult to prove (or disprove) that human beings utilize free will when making decisions after thinking on the matter for some time.

Conclusion:

Personally, I think that this issue is complex.  On some occasions, we certainly rely on instinctual behaviors to guide decisions.  In these instances, our choices are foreordained (not a free choice).  In other instances, we do not consciously make a decision; however, our unconscious choice is not predetermined (so the choice is free to some extent).  In both of these cases, our conscious minds trick us into believing that we made conscious, free choices.  At other times, we are able to exert some conscious control over our choices; however, we make a decision from a limited set of possibilities (greater freedom of choice).  Finally, I cannot conceive of it ever happening, but it is always possible that someone, relying on the input of numerous other individuals, is able to make a free decision from an almost unlimited set of potential choices (absolute freedom of choice).

Quick Fantasy Football Post

Fantasy Football Recap:

I owned/managed four fantasy football teams this season (see previous posts related to fantasy football).

2 teams finished 1st (2 10-team draft and play leagues).
1 team finished in 3rd place (10-team draft and play league) but did secure the regular season and total points title(s).
1 team finished in 4th place (12-team keeper/auction league).

All in all it was a good year.  Wait, who am I kidding, that is the best year I have ever had. :)  Maybe I can build on that success next year.  I think that I benefited from having played (often poorly) in previous years.  Hopefully, I have learned from my "rookie" mistakes and am ready to do well every year....Nah, probably not...