Re: "unconscious" choice

From: Bill Spight (bspight@pacbell.net)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 15:08:39 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Some questions"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA12363 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:10:09 GMT
    Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:08:39 -0800
    From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net>
    Subject: Re: "unconscious" choice
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Message-id: <38CE55F7.C33A232D@pacbell.net>
    Organization: Saybrook Graduate School
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-PBI-NC404  (Win95; I)
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-Accept-Language: ja,en
    References: <00030515230703.00439@faichney> <3.0.5.32.20000320120119.0080d3f0@rongenet.sk.ca> <3.0.5.32.20000327194003.007ef100@rongenet.sk.ca>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Dear Lloyd,

    > >Dear Lloyd,
    > >
    > >> Note: "unconscious choice" is an oxymoron.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Au contraire. Most choice is unconscious. Cf. Sartre, Nietzsche.
    > >
    > >Best,
    > >
    > >Bill
    >
    > Dear Bill and others,
    >
    > I am not really a semanticist but it seems to me that if what you do is the
    > result of drives or motivations of which you are not aware then you are
    > really not making a choice.

    The question of choice is a subtle one. However, if these drives
    and motivations dictate choice, what does it matter if you are
    aware of them or not? "The Devil [drug, whatever] made me do it."

    > The appearance of choice is illusiary.

    *Not* the position of Sartre, Nietzsche, Gurdieff, or me. I
    referred you to the existentialists because choice is central to
    that philosophy. Gurdieff stresses the automaticity of typical
    human existence and the possibility of awakening from that.

    > We
    > become like a programmed robot. The choice has already been made by whoever
    > or whatever is responsible for the program.
    >
    > Some philosophers and pure behaviorists suggest that is all we are:
    > programmed automatons. It takes considerable sophistry to hold to this
    > position and explain how I could be carrying on this conversation. Once a
    > robot becomes aware of the programming does he then have the potential to
    > change his own program?
    >

    Skinner thought so. (Cf. "Walden Two".) Self-programming robots
    seem to be chaotic, but are not in principle unfeasable.

    > This is where the analogy breaks down. Our program, if we can be said to
    > have one, contains no injunction that prevents us from changing it but to
    > do so we must become "self aware".

    Maybe not. :-)

    > I suspect that this is a necessary but
    > not sufficient condition.
    >
    > Much of the programming to which we are subject is memetic in nature. We
    > are programmed by our cultures. To become self-programming we have to go
    > beyond the limits set by those cultures.
    >

    How do we overcome our conditioning? When I was a teenager I
    enlisted the aid of random numbers. ;-)

    I do not believe that there is the sharp dichotomy that you
    indicate. Things are more complex and subtle.

    > Galileo demonstrates this point. His culture dictated that he should see
    > the points of light near the planet Jupiter as rather like fire flies zig
    > zagging to and fro, sometimes "blinking out" in an erratic orbit around
    > Earth.

    As I understand it, some of the intellectuals of the day regarded
    the moons of Jupiter as illusions. What you see in a telescope on
    Earth was real, they thought, but you could not trust it when you
    trained it on Celestial regions.

    > He went beyond the conceptual limitations of his culture in
    > suggesting those points of light were really moons circling not us, but the
    > giant planet.
    >
    > My problem with Joe Dees is that he seems to want a Galileo monkey doing
    > creative things to the rocks he throws at herdsman before he will grand
    > that troop a culture. I would argue that such a creature would have, in
    > fact, gone beyond the culture of his troop.
    >

    Best,

    Bill

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 15:10:20 GMT