Genetic Tendencies

By -
Continuing the tradition of inter-blog discussion between Crash Landing and the Austro-Athenian Empire, I'd like to comment on a post by Roderick Long on genetic tendencies. Roderick considers whether or not probabalistic tendencies arising from human biology are compatible with free will. He writes:

"Suppose I have an innate tendency to choose X over Y. Now that might mean that although I won't always choose X over Y, I will do so in, say, 75% of future instances. But that too seems incompatible with the free will axiom; if it's already settled that I will choose X over Y 75% of the time, then I’m not really free to plan my future conduct."

However, can't the existence of such tendencies be made compatible with free will if they are viewed as applying to populations rather than individuals? I believe so, if the tendency is not taken as exerting some “drag” or "force" on any individual’s decision. In such a view, decisions are freely made, but, given human nature as it is, 75% of people typically choose X over Y.

For example, people obviously (if we accept free will) are free to choose earthworms or fine steak for dinner, but most of them are so constituted that they will choose the steak. Thus, we might theorize that there is a 99% tendency to choose the steak, without any implying that any specific actor is compelled to choose steak 99% of the time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more