Meditation Four: Causality and Freedom

The problem of the freedom of the will has a long history in philosophical and theological literature. Unfortunatly, this long history has only resulted in added confusion, instead of clarity. The reason for this is because the problem of the freedom of the will involves many elements or dimensions. To understand the problem, let us observe how the classical school of the Stoa dealt with the problem of the freedom of the will.  
     For the classical Stoics the problem of the freedom of the will was an either or question.That an agent could either identify herself with the divine reason of the universe or not. If the agent identified with the divine reason of the universe; she would be brought to a place of blessedness by accepting the reason of the universe. If the agent chose not to identify; she would live a life of resentment and be doomed. An agent had only one choice to made, everything else was determined.
 This answer was taken up by the primitive Christian church in classical times. An agent is saved by accepting christian teaching or is damned by not. It must be admitted that this way of framing the problem has a great deal of utility, but it is hardly a solution. When the utility of the answer is spoken of, it is to be understood that in intolerable conditions this may be all that is leddt of an agents freedom and dignity. We of course are refering to cases like that of Admiral Stockdale. How he used the philosophy of Epictetus to survive in aa nightmerish prisoner of war camp in North Viet Nam.      The answer the Stoics give to the problem of the freedom of the will brings out the the problems in framing the issue of freedom. To begin with there are metaphysical suppositions made. There must be either a cosmic reason or God for the agent to identify with. Then there is a looseness in the terminology, and the assumption that freedom is an either or proposition. To make progress on the problem of freedom; we need definations of the terms: self, freedom,and  causation. Most people do not regard the problem of freedom as an either or question that is only made once.The problem of freedom must be brought into the sphere of everyday life , and not remain a metaphysical abstraction. As in previous parts of these meditations; if we are to proceed correctly, we must regard freedom as an element in the continum of consciousness. That freedom has evolved with agents self-awarness of the world they live in and interact with.
   The poet Wordsworth, and the philosophers Schelling and Whitehead all saw a conflict between the realm of the organic and the realm of the inorganic. That life is involved in a fight  for its existence aganst the nonliving worsd. To posit thes in a negative formulation: life is always fighting its own dissolution. In other words life is a struggle aganist entropy. How and ohy some bit of matter started to resit its own entropy is one of the great mysteries of the cosmos. It is the question: How did life begin? To get back to understanding the conflict between lide and the nonliving; we must not be content with a negative formulation. The desire or appetite of all life is to expand; to expand its existence in space and time. All the drives or appetites that are observed in living agents are but different manifestations of the appetite to expand in space and time. The desire for food; is the appetite to expand in time. In that the purpose of nutrition is to slow or repair the entropy in an agent. The sex drive is both an appetition to expand in space and time; by reproducing more agents the species is allowed to expand in both space and tiime. Anyone who has studied biology cannot help but be impressed how life has expanded into every niche that is able to support life. The above discussion should give us the definition to one of the key terms in" the freedom of the will."  The name given to the appetite to expand that underlies all our other drives is "will."  The will is the appetite to expand that is operational in all life. L ife seeks to expand; thes leads to conflict with the inorganic world. this conflict is what leads to living agents having inner states; because life is concerned with maintaining its existence along with expanding its existence. This is why living agents have both inner and outer states, the inner state is the key to the conflict aganst an uncaring outer or inorganic world. Arock has no outer states because it has no inner states; a rock neither knows nor cares that it is a rock, or what is  to be its fate. In the first meditation it was observed how plants used instinct to accomplish their will th expand. That an image world trigger anactivity in the plant. The example used: When the temerature drops to a certin level, trees drop their leaves. If the tree lives in a tropical climate where the temperature does not drop sufficently to provide the trigger for a tree to drop its leaves; the tree shall still drop its leaves at some point, because of the internal will of the plant to expand in space and time. It is not the trigger that provides the motive for a tree dropping its leaves; the will is the deeper reason why the tree sheds its leaves. As was noted in previous parts of these meditations, that when we move up the continum to agents that have intellect along weth instinct they have more flexability in how they use images as triggers. Let us observe one of the most famous experiments in psychology: that of Pavlov's dogs In the experiment Pavlov would ring a bell when he fed his dogs. He made sure to do this at every feeding. He then noted that at the ring of the bell the dogs would salivate, without the smell or sight of the food. What Pavlov discovered is that dogs can be trained to respond to image triggers that are not part of their natural habetat. In other words dogs have a lot more flexability in the use of image-triggers than insects or plants. Many people have misunderstood Pavlov's experment; as to thinking it means that everything is determined by something else. Before examining all the meanings of the word "causation" , let us try to make the meaning of Pavlov's experiment more clear by the use of the classic example of a billard ball. If you ring a bell everytime you strike a billard ball with a cue , the billard ball shall never ready itself to be struck. It shall never move on its own after the bell is rung or steady itself, or do anything except act like an inert billard ball.  What Pavlov discovered is that dogs have some freedom in that tey can adapt there activity to different triggers or can be trained by their environment. In other words the intellect allows dogs a greater flexability to adapt to changes in the environment. Dogs can be trained by others or the environmint; it is only humans that can train themselves. To understand freedom we must undestand causateon.
   To get a better understanding of freedom we must first get a better understanding of causation. The philosopher, R.G.
 Collingwood distinguished three senses of  meaning of the term "causation." The first sense is: when we say something has motivated a person to undertake some action. An example: a person feels hungry, so she goes to get something to eat. The second sense: when an agent does something that causes a change in nature. The practical sciences would be an example. The third sense is when things happen independently of human involvement; the mechanistic view of nature.
     The first sense of causation must be what those who tell us that as long as we have any desire or motivation, we are not free are using. This seems to be an unimaginably high standard for freedom.  This would be the freedom of a rock; a rock has no desires or motives, because it has no concern for its fate. This is a freedom that no one wants. We feel free when we caan fend methods to achieve our goals not when we have no goals. The third of Collingwood's senses of causation is also used th argue aganst freedom. That we are determined like the bellard ball that gets struck by the cue stick. That is that outward events totally determine our actions. It has already been shown that our inward states exist just because life is a revolt against outward forces determing us. That life fights aganist entropy and tries to avoid harmful situations. As was said before the billard ball never tries to avoid being struck nor does it care if itis struck or not. The third view as Collingwood pointed out is a holdover from eighteenth century science. If one looked for causes in this sense, she would very quickly end up with the whole Absolute. For example to make the billard ball move: the frictional force of the table must be just so much, the laws of gravity must be in effect, someone had to make the pool table, there must have beem trees to get the wood for the table, etc. This would be the freedom G. W. F. Hegel spoke of when he said freedom is not being contingent or dependent on anything else. Again this conception of freedom is unimaginably high. We feel free when we can use circumstances to achieve our goals, not when there are no circumstances. And as was said freedom is a continum; there may be no complete or perfect freedom. only varying degrees.
   This leaves us with Collingwood's second sense of causation. When through our actions we cause something to happen. This is when a given state of affairs exists and an agent seeks to alter the state of affairs for her purposes.  The name cause is give to the action that alters the given state of affairs. This definition of causation is not exclusive of freedom, it is the very mechanism of freedom. That an agent can alter a state of affairs to bring about another state of affairs that the agent desires. Freedom is when an agent knows or con find a way to achieve her goals.
     There is no denying that our thinking is caused in this sense of the term. The causal character of thought has long been recongized. Schelling joked that even the first woman Eve did not have to have causation explained ot her. The serpent in the garden of Eden never had to show how eating the apple and gaining the knowledge of grood and evil connected. In a previous meditation, we examined individual, private and standard minds. Each mind whether standard, private, or individual is a causal nexus. Minds are built up from abstract ideas. abstract ideas are image-triggers that have been sublated so that the agent just imagines the activity instead of acting out the the activity. The standard mind is the easist to use as an example to show how minds work as causal nexus. If a person is going ot become an attorney or a biologist, she has to learn a standard termionlogy and pracitice that are used by everyone in th egield. This is so everyone in th efield understands and is able to evaluate what everyone else is doing. If terms and practices were not standard there would be no communication or ability to evaluate the wrok of someone else in the same field. when a person is doing biology or law, the practices and terms are like a series of levers that are pulled to get a result. With a standard mind anyone who takes the time and trouble to learn the discipline can duplicate the results of everyone else in the field. the difference with individual minds is that all the image-triggers have not been sublated, so different people may have different reactions ot the same image-triggers. To summarize  causation is the mechanism we nuse to alter existing states of affairs to bring about a changed state of affairs that beenfits us. to do this human-agents have developed minds, which are causal nexus. They are a way to pull the levers of nature of communication ot achieve the goals of an agent of group of agents. It is through minds that humans can train themselves and this is where freedom and a higher level of copnsciousness go together. That humans are not locked into one mind or causal nexus. That humans can train themselves to master different enviorments and circumstances.
   Before trying to bring all of the above into everyday thinking, we must again deal with emotion and reason(abstration) and why we believe what we believe, and why we act on those belifs. As was said in a previous meditation, emotion is contentwithout clarity and reason is clarity without content; they are again a continum. Mathematics is all clarity with almost no content. This is the reason mathematics is so useful; it can be applied to almost everything. On the other end of the continum, there are religous and idealogical belifs, that are full of content to the agent that holds them but lack clarity. Examples of this type of belif would be: being reunited with dead relatives, socialist utopias, or gaving forty virgins in heaven. What is it that motivates agents to adopt belifs or to seek scientific discoveries? It is the will, whether it is expanding intellectually in scientific discovery or existing forever in heaven. The ancients has a term to describe why we adopt belifs and take actions, the word was "faith". Not faith as is now understood, where it means to stretch credulity. Instead the meaning was when we tell someone to have faith in their project or themselves. We are fortunate that the ancient definition of faith has survived in the "Letters" of St. Paul.
   In Hebrews 11:1, St. Paul tells us:"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen."  The second part of the definition is close to the modern word: confidence. That if we have done an action many times and always had the same result: we regard that as the proof of things unseen. This would also include authority that we respect and do not doubt. This is of course why we have confidence in scientific knowledge.This should make it clear why we have confidence that a course of action shall be successful. The first part of the definition is what motivates an agent to undertake an action. Actions are undertaken to satisfy the will or the appitite to expand. It is best to begin weth a trivial example: a hunter sets a trap because she is hoping to get food. The hunter shall have greater confidence in a trap that has already worked many times in the past. As aganist a new trap, she has never used before. Unless the trap has been recommended by another hunter she knows has been successful with the trap.To break this example down the confidence or the reason for the confidence is ''the evidence of things unseen." The contentis the outcome that is wanted; " the substance of things hoped for."  We can divide what motivates people to take action in thought, but not in action. The trouble with forty virgins in paradise and socialist utopias is that the content has overpowered the clarity of the activity. Of course socialist utopias and heaven both run into problems when clarity intrudes upon the hope. Just ask someone who holds to heaven or utopia, why we should expect them to result. Both agents that hold to such belifs hold them because they fullfill the will of the agents. This shall become more clear when we try to bring this theory into everyday thinking. When agents achieve a higher level of abstraction they try to break activities down into compenet elements. Then they can evaluate how the elements fit together in the proposed activity or venture. This also leads to greater freedom because the agent may find the proposed activity may funcyion better without some of the elements or bringing in elements from a different activety may lead to a greater chance of success. When we say elements, what is meant is abstract ideas. This breaking down activities into elements leads to logic.
   The above discussion should help to make the foundations of logic clear. The syllogism is an attempt to classify how we use image-triggers. Let us examine the three types of syllogism that Kant listed: the catagorical, the disjunctive, and the hypothetical. In a catagorical syllogism the activity expressed by the abstract idea is shown to be a sub-form of a wider form of activity. An example: jackals are wild dogs. With thes information an agent that encountirs a jackal knows to treat the jackal as a wild dog. The disjunctive syllogism is that either there is an activity or there is not the activity. This provides an agent with the knowledge to prepare for the activity. An example: it is raining or it is not raining. If it is raining then the agent knows to take her raingear with her. The disjrnctive syllogism is a recognition that a state of affairs exists that is different from the state of affairs not existing. The hypothetical syllogism is of course Collingwood's second sense of meaning of causation. It is of course an expression of what lever to pull to change the state of affairs to bring about another state of affairs. Logic is an attempt to sublate the trigger part of inages and abstract ideas; to pull the trigger out of the content of thought.
   If we are to evaluate the validity of the above theory; it must be shown how it works in the everyday thought of people. Thinking is the feeling of an activity, that is cut off from the performance of the activity. In other words when we think,we feel the activity in an attenuated form; instead of doing the activity that the trigger is associated with, we imangine the activity. The imagination is not something that can be turned on and off; so this attenuated feeling of activity seems to be always going on in our heads. To simplfy we think in scenarios. The reason why most adults in literate cultures seem to have a constant dialogue going on in their heads is because most people in literate cultures primary activity is communication. The imagination is constantly trying out scenarios, on what they are going to say on what they are going to say or what their response is to what other people say. Most modern people can only escape this feeling of constant dialogue through atheletics or dance. Lets us now observe how abstraction works in everyday thinking. An ordinary example shall serve us best; such as giving directions. We have all watched documentaries, where a group of explorers from a technologically advanced country go to a region where there are only tribal societies. At some point in the documentary, one of the explorers asks directions from a local tribesman. The tribesman then gives a long animated explanation; which the explorer's translator-interpeter puts into a very few words. Here we observe thinking in scenarios. The tribesman is giving an account of how he makes the journey. Then the translator abstracts out only the parts the explorers need to reach the destination. This is not only true of non-literate tribesman; many people in modern day America give directions in the same way. They tell yoy how they make the journey, instead of street names they give landmarks and many times theyalso express their opinons about the landmarks, they use to navigate. This is far different from a map that is downloaded from the internet. In an internet map the distances are broken down into tenths of a mile and instead of right and left, the map uses compass points. The former way of giving directions is frll of content; it is an account of how the person makes the journey. The latter use of a map is highly abstract; full of clarity. It tells a person how to get somewhere, but not why they should go, or any opinons about the journey. The map's way of communicating directions is objective because the ratios are the same for everyone. The direction to turn east after two miles is far different than turn at the pretty tree.
   There are people that claim to be great visualizers; this probably means that can take new information and put it into a scenario to imagine how new information fits into what they already know. It is hard to imagine anyone being able to hold a static image intheir conciousness.
    In an earlier meditation, it was that the "I" was an abstraction from the continuous feeling of being alive. When we strip off all the minds, what else can the continuous feeling of being alive be but the will; the appetite for expansion. An agent that has reached a high level of abstraction has greater choices how she briaks down scenarios and how she builds them up again. Is not having more choices, greater freedom? Another advantage to a level of abstraction is that it provides for effective communication. Greater communication leads to greater freedom causation is not the enemy of freedom, but the mechanism of freedom.
      To close out this meditation of the essay, wh shall observe these ideas in still another way. We have observed the ideas that make up mthis theory in abstract analysis; in examples drawn from everyday experience; so now we shall have recourse to myth.
     The myth o fthe alchemist. We all know the figure of the Alchemist from history: a figure surrounded by alembics and furnaces. The historical alchemist seems one part proto-chemist and one part long shot gambler. It is not the historical Alchemist that concerns us, but the myth. In the myth the Alchemist is a seeker of divine wisdom, not an adventurer seeking to turn lead into gold. He is an individual that wishes to transmute the impure and dross of his soul into divine wisdom. Is this not everyone who seeks to understand their feelings and emotions, and turn them into clarity. This is the search for wisdom. The neo-Platonic, Iamblichus tells us that wisdom is productive principles. In other words the search for levers to manipulate nature and the destructive urges we all feel. The ancient gnostics along with many early Christian seats regarded wisdom as feminine; they called it the Sophia.
        They regarded the sophia as divine because the Sophia speaks to all humankind. The reason the Sophia is regarded as being feminine is that alone it is empty and sterile. The alchemist that seeks wisdom must master it before it can be used. Is this not a search for a supermind, where all the causal levers of nature were known. The quest of the Alchemist is to become a god, by having the mind of god.