At a study-group led by one of the contributors to TFD we were discussing Aquinas’ insights on man’s free will. Under Question 83, Article 1. it is asked, “Whether man has free-will?” As usual, Aquinas first lists objections to the proposal that man has a free will. The fifth objection reads as follows:
“Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. Iii, 5): ‘According as each one is, such does the end seem to him.” But it is not in our power to be of one quality or another; for this comes to us from nature. Therefore it is natural to us to follow some particular end, and therefore we are not free in so doing.”
This objection, in my view, while written 800 years ago, is quite contemporary. Basically, it is the materialist’s argument against human free will. Essentially it says that humans are what they are and do what they do by nature. Therefore each person does what they do as ordered by that nature.
When Aquinas begins his counter-arguments he makes the following point:
“I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”
He goes on to make a number of reasoned arguments and replies to objections.
At the study-group some people found Aquinas’ point about “counsels, exhortations, etc.” to be a weak argument. One person noted that the determinist view of the Behaviorists is that man is conditioned by rewards and punishments, and since this is part of his nature, therefore, the fact that rewards and punishments exist actually reinforces their determinist view of man. However, I think this is a misapprehension of Aquinas’ point.
Aquinas noted in his “Objection 5”; if what we do arises in a determined way from our nature, then we would uniformly follow that nature to some “particular end.” The terminology, particular end is very important here. In other words, under normal circumstances humans would always do specific things. Consequently, as Aquinas noted, “exhortations” and “counsels” would be completely worthless and unnecessary. Why counsel anyone when they are going to do what they do as ordered by their nature. The fact is; if our nature was determined to particular ends, then “rewards, and punishments” would never arise. Rewards and punishments assume that human behavior must be molded in a certain way; otherwise, that behavior might be very different. In short, rewards and punishment assume non-particular ends.
What I am saying is that Aquinas’ argument about the vanity of counsels and exhortations if we do not have free-will is much stronger than I think people realize.
|
How would know whether responses to exhortations and counsels aren't just the final fixed determination based on prior conditioning to our ability to judge? I'm thinking of HAL from movie "2001." Imagine a computer that constantly takes in information including counsels and exhortations from a multitude of sources and constantly puts out responses based on specific algorithms. Suppose the algorithms themselves have a feedback learning function. If the algorithms remain intact, would not the output always be determined, i.e. able to be duplicated, just as HAL was checked against a duplicate computer on Earth? Yet if the algorithms were sophisticated enough how would you distinguish its responses from free will choices? You can't tell with humans since we can't be duplicated, nor can the environmental conditions in which we exist. Since we are all one shot deals, it almost makes the question meaningless. Ultimately, I think free will is such a cutting edge technology for God, that none of us could ever prove or disprove it...might as well either just take it on faith and move on or assume you are just an eternal victim.
●Interesting question, John. Your question must first presuppose the existence of exhortations and counsels. I don’t believe Aquinas would assume this. In trying to think for Aquinas, I believe he might say that there would be no necessity for exhortations and counsels to arise in nature if man was determined to particular ends. Even for nature, they would be in vain. As Aristotle noted, “Nature does nothing uselessly.”
I think you miss my point. Counsels and exhortations are just another type of stimulus. When my dog or cats wants in the house, they bump and scratch at the door knowing they will eventually get a response from me. The real test of determinism over free will would be getting the same response in the same set of circumstances every time. You can never run this experiment because you can never duplicate the circumstances, there's always something different. That difference may be nothing more than knowing what your response was the last time.
One could also look at free will at the extreme by examining the finality of one's choice of heaven or hell. In this case, the finality of the choice is precisely because one knows the circumstances, makes the choice and nothing later impinges to alter the circumstances so as to change the choice. It would seem that free will, if it ever existed, no longer operates. Does this imply that free will is tied to change, which implies the imperfection of created things? On the one hand, it is said the God is sovereignly free, yet He is also immutable. Isn't this immutability akin to the fixedness of our final choice? If you are immutable, what is free to change and isn't free will meaningless in this context?
Don't take it that I don't believe in free will. Just playing a little of the devil's advocate for discussion purposes. My sense of myself is that I have free will, but I also know that my inner machine does seem to generally respond in somewhat predictable and conditioned ways.
Free will allows us to veer from the natural path (which is God's path). Its being able to act stupidly even though we know better. And you would not believe how hard it is some times to convince people to act in their own best interest. I see it every weekday.
By the way, this gift of freedom is, for me, the greatest proof of God's love.
●I guess I am not following your thinking. For one thing, as you have described it, I don’t quite see the connection between a dog or cat bumping a door (a strategy based on associative thinking) and counsels and exhortations. For instance, counsels and exhortations are given by a second party to an individual in the hope of helping them make good judgments. In my view, the whole scenario between you and your dog would never arise because nature does nothing uselessly. In other words, the human (you) in the house hears the dog bumping against the door (a form of exhortation to you) and then you use your free judgment as to what to do. Usually, because you care for your animal, you respond; however, at other times you ignore the animal because you judge it unnecessary or unwarranted. This scenario would never arise in nature if you did not have free judgment. Aquinas’ term for free-will is liberum arbitrium, perhaps better translated as free judgment.
●Timbo, I believe, noted something important, he wrote:
For me, a proof of free will lies in the fact that we can and often do ignore counsels and exhortations and act in self-destructive ways. Nature has few other examples where creatures are affirmatively self destructive (lemmings come to mind) but only humans have the ability to weigh and understand options and still choose the self destructive path.
●Aquinas (working from Aristotle) places the locus of what we call free-will in what has been termed “self-reflexive thinking” or metacognition. This form of thinking has been termed “thinking about thinking.” A being that can think about its thinking can do this ad infinitum. This is what frees man’s judgment from strategies based on associative learning. Or as Aquinas says, “For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct.”
From your first comment, computers do not literally “learn.” Computers are programmed by intentional persons and only appear to be intentional yet having only derived (not original) intentionality. In other words, there is nothing of or about the mechanistic ongoings that obtain in a computer. Computers cash out only the information they were programmed to cash out. On the other hand, persons go beyond the simple cashing out of information. For instance, while the computer and human both know (“know” being figurative) 1+1 is 2, the difference between the human and computer knowing is that the human can tell us what it’s like to be in the state of knowing 1+1=2 (Google “qualia”). If there was a litmus test to determine free creatures from ones that are not, perhaps the test hinges upon a subjects ability to create concepts completely unique from other individuals. Hence, the subject must have an apparent ability to create something from nothing. According to Christian theism and the Imago Dei where we share in the divine attributes of God--as God freely creates, we do also, though we do it in a limited and finite way.
This, of course, is why I backup early and often to multiple physical locations.
You keyed in on Aquinas's distinction of self-reflexive thinking. In my comments I talked about circumstances being altered by knowing your previous decisions. Isn't that self-reflexive? How do you define self-reflexive thinking? Can't a computer program be written with steps that alter its own programming? That just becomes a more subtle part of the algorithm, but is the overall algorithm any less deterministic?
Personally, I don't find much interest in the general topic of free will so I will sit this one out... each to his own - I guess that is a statement about free will, isn't it
I'm using computers as an analogy. My point isn't as much about what I think as why I think it. You have stated that it's a fact that no computer given, no matter how sophisticated, could have a first person perspective. Now that you've stated that as a fact, show me your proof. If it looked and acted exactly as a human, how would you know? More directly, we are discussing free will. What does it mean to have free will and how can you distinguish it from a highly sophisticated deterministic routine set in motion by God? I believe in free will, but I do so on faith because I think it's one of the unprovable Truths... annoyingly unprovable because it's about us at our core.
I'm using computers as an analogy. My point isn't as much about what I think as why I think it. You have stated that it's a fact that no computer given, no matter how sophisticated, could have a first person perspective. Now that you've stated that as a fact, show me your proof. If it looked and acted exactly as a human, how would you know? More directly, we are discussing free will. What does it mean to have free will and how can you distinguish it from a highly sophisticated deterministic routine set in motion by God?
●First of all, I’m back! I had a very busy weekend and Monday. Okay, so here we go.
●I too am not a computer geek and not an expert on AI; however, I would recommend Ric Machuga’s book In Defense of the Soul: What It Means to Be Human Brazo Press, 2002. Ric is a professor of philosophy at Butte College and somewhat of a champion of Aristotelian/Thomist thinking in regard to animal thought and AI.
●John asked about self-reflexive thinking which Aquinas (and Aristotle) identify as the center of man’s free-judgment. Here are some of Aquinas’ proofs for man’s free judgment as over against animals (Summa Contra Gentiles II, Ch. 66):
1. “Animals carry out certain determinate operations of uniform character within the same species; every swallow builds its nest in the same way.”
2. “Moreover, sense is cognizant only of singulars; for every sense power knows through individual species, since it receives the species of things in bodily organs. But the intellect (the word “intellect” means “rational intellect” here) is cognizant of universals, as experience proves.”
3. “Then, too, sense-cognition is limited to corporeal things. This is clear from the fact that sensible qualities, which are proper objects of the senses, exist only in such things; and without them the senses know nothing. On the other hand, the intellect knows incorporeal things, such as wisdom, truth, and the relations of things.”
4. “Likewise, a sense knows neither itself not its operation; for instance, sight neither sees itself nor sees that it sees. This self-reflexive power belongs to a higher faculty, as is proved in the De anima. But the intellect knows itself, and knows that it knows. Therefore, intellect and sense are not the same.”
5. “Sense, furthermore, is corrupted by excess in the sensible object. (For example, the eye is burned by too much sunlight) But the intellect is not corrupted by the exceedingly high rank of an intelligible object; (for instance: understanding First Principles like the Law of Non-Contradiction) for, indeed, he who understands greater things is more able afterwards to understand lesser things.”
●Later Aquinas makes this point in defense of the incorruptibility of the human soul:
“…for the proper operation of man, as man, is understanding, since it is in this that he differs from brutes, plants, and inanimate things. Now, it properly pertains to this act to apprehend objects universal and incorruptible as such.” (SCG II, C. 79, A. 5)
●Notice here how he carefully defines the “proper operation of man” as the ability to “apprehend objects universal and incorruptible.” He is not speaking of understanding particulars (like a cat knowing his master will come to the door if he bumps against it long enough); rather, he is speaking of understanding universal abstract concepts such as “humanness” (again, not just “John” the human master) and incorruptible concepts such as “wisdom”, “truth” and “beauty.” Notice as well Aquinas’ statement: “But the intellect knows itself, and knows that it knows.” The rational intellect not only knows itself, but in doing so it knows that it knows itself. The “I” knows that the “I” knows itself and ad infinitum. This is called “free-judgment.”
Exiting the dark ages, we now describe the phenomena of the rational intellect knowing itself and know that it knows, as metacognition. Specific to education it is the process of the learner in being aware as to how he is processing information to as to effectively learn it. Needless to say, it is difficult to determine what any animal is thinking about his thinking. Nevertheless, we have made headway (next paragraph).
Sapience, or wisdom is the ability of an organism or "entity" (found in wiki) to act with judgment. Judgment is a particular form of intelligence or may be considered an additional capacity, above intelligence, perhaps with its own properties. Good judgment in making decisions about complex life or social decisions is a hallmark of being wise whether the sapient one is homo sapien, some other organism or some other "entity".
The word sapience is wisdom, with its latin verb meaning "to taste, to be wise, to know" whose present participle forms part of Homo sapiens, thinking the dominating feature of humans was wisdom and man's uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Metacognologists believe that the ability to consciously think about thinking is definition of sapience. There is evidence that monkeys and apes can make accurate judgments about the strengths of their memories of fact. A 2007 study has provided some evidence for metacognition in rats.
To a lesser degree, Recently it was posted that there are four species of animals that can recognize themselves in a mirror....that is, make judgements about how they look. OF the human species, woman seems more adept than men. The other three are elephants, dolphins, and monkeys. Self-awareness.
Exiting the dark ages, we now describe the phenomena of the rational intellect knowing itself and know that it knows, as metacognition. Specific to education it is the process of the learner in being aware as to how he is processing information to as to effectively learn it. Needless to say, it is difficult to determine what any animal is thinking about his thinking. Nevertheless, we have made headway (next paragraph).
Sapience, or wisdom is the ability of an organism or "entity" (found in wiki) to act with judgment. Judgment is a particular form of intelligence or may be considered an additional capacity, above intelligence, perhaps with its own properties. Good judgment in making decisions about complex life or social decisions is a hallmark of being wise whether the sapient one is homo sapien, some other organism or some other "entity".
The word sapience is wisdom, with its latin verb meaning "to taste, to be wise, to know" whose present participle forms part of Homo sapiens, thinking the dominating feature of humans was wisdom and man's uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Metacognologists believe that the ability to consciously think about thinking is definition of sapience. There is evidence that monkeys and apes can make accurate judgments about the strengths of their memories of fact. A 2007 study has provided some evidence for metacognition in rats.
To a lesser degree, Recently it was posted that there are four species of animals that can recognize themselves in a mirror....that is, make judgements about how they look. OF the human species, woman seems more adept than men. The other three are elephants, dolphins, and monkeys. Self-awareness.
●First, see above for the use of “metacongition.” Second, the term self-reflexive thinking was identified by Aristotle in De anima (On the Soul) long before the medieval period and it is still a term used by modern researchers. The important thing is that the meaning of the term has not changed. In other words, Aristotle—who had his own zoo—was correct that self-reflexive thinking is what defines “rational” (L. ratio, from rat-, pp. stem of reri "to reckon, calculate," also "think). The medieval philosophers and theologians like Aquinas were wise enough and well-informed enough to recognize the correctness of his ideas as opposed to so many misinformed and ill-educated moderns.
Gecko wrote: Metacognologists believe that the ability to consciously think about thinking is definition of sapience. There is evidence that monkeys and apes can make accurate judgments about the strengths of their memories of fact. A 2007 study has provided some evidence for metacognition in rats.
●Your definition of metacognition is a “dumbing down” of terms and does not fit either Aristotle’s or Aquinas’ definition. To me, this smacks of “researchers” attempting to get an outcome from the evidence. Please defeat any of Aquinas’ arguments and please prove that a rat can conceive of a universal or an incorruptible. I can easily prove that the average kindergartener is able to conceive of either.
John the Squabbler wrote: there's a reason why Aquinas isn't taught, and it's a deliberate and rather sinister omission.
●John, allow me to give you an example of the deficient education that is passing as “state of the art” in our oh-so-sophisticated era. Peter, one of our contributors here, told of a recent PBS program that recorded a dialogue between the world’s most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins of Oxford, and Alistair McGrath the brilliant Christian apologist also from Oxford. Dawkins is recorded as waxing eloquently about how science had to be liberated from the dark and sinister clutches of religion so that it could flower in the modern era (a typical stereotype propagated by secularists). McGrath retorted by providing the actual history of the development of Western science (led by theists) and its philosophical underpinnings which are Judeo-Christian. Dawkins, apparently stunned by information he had never encountered, responded by noting that he had never thought of science in this way.
Without taking too much time to defeat all that you request, I have mostly little interest...but will perform the task in one comment.
Aquinas simply did not have the tools nor the disciplined interest. At the core of the imagined research Aquinas was performing lay the church not mathematics. Essential in performing research, the man would need an understanding of statistics as applied to research. He would need to understand the import of the measures of central tendency (functions of ANOVA), descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation), and inferential statistics (estimation, correlation, regression). Together, I describe a whole branch of mathematics that would not begin to be established until 400 years after his death. Several centuries later, statistics became useful to perform disciplined research.
According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that mice were spontaneously generated from dirty hay, and crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water. Thom, your revered world of darkness knew nothing of the microscopic world to come to report anything other than the readily observable larger organisms (crocodiles). Microorganisms and the "spores" that cause disease would not be known until the world of statistics became useful, 400 years after the death of Aquinas.
Gentlemen, there is no sinister plot in not recreating Aquinas to your complete liking. It is a statistically verified fact. Possibly the major shift in thinking was the gradual rejection, especially during the Black Death in the 14th and 15th centuries, of what may be called the 'traditional authority' approach to math, science and medicine.
So, You entertain a long, long, rejected persuasion. This is the notion that because some prominent person (Aquinas) in the past said something must be so, then that was the way it was, and anything one observed to the contrary was an anomaly (which was paralleled by a similar shift in European society - see Copernicus's rejection of Ptolemy's theories on astronomy). Many of these catholic born theories were in time discredited. Such new attitudes were made possible in Europe by the weakening of the Roman Catholic church's power in society.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now I realize you will want to continue to believe statements made by Aquinas to have special power in spite of History. Even the nominally sapien among us know better.
●I’m not sure what you mean by animals having the ability to abstract concepts at a rudimentary form. Aristotle and Aquinas are precise as to what they mean. For one thing, they recognize that some animals can make judgments by their “natural estimative faculty.” They also recognize that animals “move themselves.” They do this from the “reception of forms through their senses and from the judgment of their natural estimative power.” However, the “proper operation of man” (that which makes a man a “man”) is the ability to “apprehend objects universal and incorruptible.” These are precisely defined abstract concepts such as “rational”, “truth”, and “beauty.” If animals are able to do this, we could say with confidence that if we could move an animal soul into a human body that they would act like humans and do higher mathematics (like calculus); philosophy; and build cities. To postulate this kind of simple interchangeability is to say that a rat has a human in a rat body.
●When computers someday have the same ability to be rational as do humans then expect them to refuse to operate by their own programming and to destroy themselves.
●Right now there are probably people all over the world working on their computers pounding out words that have sophisticated etymologies and arcane meanings doing so over the worldwide web in their air-conditioned workspaces with artificial lighting and power supplied by a hydro-electric system hundreds of miles from them and snacking on foods from all over the world made readily available by a worldwide food distribution system. Occasionally they glance at their plasma TVs to view one of the hundreds of channels available on their satellite dish system. They are writing articles explaining how animals are virtually the same as humans and we cannot tell if humans have free will. I call this reductionism.
●It is very obvious that you cannot deal with even one of his arguments. Not one of your statements has any bearing on any point that Aquinas made. Additionally, John rightly points out your continued misapprehension and self-defeating use of historical events.
●Are you aware that your metacognitions are in agreement with Aristotle regarding his definition of rational or self-reflexive thinking?
My point is that Aristotle and Aquinas talk about self-reflexive thinking in humans from their experience as a human insider, whereas their comments about other creatures is based on what they observe from the outside. They don't have the insider experience of being one of the creatures they observe, and those creatures might have an entirely different experience of self-reflexive thinking in themselves that we just don't recognize.
You said, "If animals are able to do this, we could say with confidence that if we could move an animal soul into a human body that they would act like humans and do higher mathematics (like calculus); philosophy; and build cities."
Hum-m-m-m-m, human babies can't do higher mathematics, philosophy or build cities. Does that make them less human? What about the severely retarded and mentally impaired? If you can't tell whether they exhibit these capabilities, are they less human?
I'm not sure what your point was with the long paragraph ending in, "They are writing articles explaining how animals are virtually the same as humans and we cannot tell if humans have free will. I call this reductionism." If it was a dig at me, it sounded more like a bunch of arm waiving. I'm not denying that man has free will. Rather I'm challenging the basis upon which that assertion is made, because I think it's really very subjective. Furthermore, you seem to be taking a position that makes the "free will" club very exclusive. Here again, I might agree with you; but I'm challenging the basis for this belief as also being subjective and faith based. With little solid scientific or scriptural rationale for being exclusive, then it seems to me that adopting a more open attitude is the safer course. Isn't that what the Church did with Copernicus? Had the Church said that the sun was absolutely the center of the universe, what do you think would have happened when Einstein came along and showed that it's all relative?
●Actually, no one can know anything about any other creature’s internal experience of itself. This is true as much today as it was in Aristotle’s day. While modern researchers can use certain instruments to measure internal biological processes, this does not equate to knowing a state of mind or a thought. The only way that we can know what another creature’s sense of its self-experience is, is through language and detailed communication. Terrance Deacon makes the case that human abstract terms in the form of language is a defining difference between us and higher primates. Aquinas and Aristotle, of course, also identified symbolic language (which includes universals and incorruptibles) as an indicator of rational thought. Therefore, to pretend like conceptual language is not a clear indicator of a significant difference between species is to pretend like there isn’t an elephant in the living room. I maintain there is a lot of elephant-avoiding going on.
●Aristotle and Aquinas were working from a commonsense and logical paradigm. They noted that humans build incredibly sophisticated systems of communication, thought, habitats, social organizations, civilizations, empires, shipping, food distribution, political structures, etc. They also noted that humans were self-aware of these things and were forever refining them. They also noted that animals live in nests, caves and trees. For whatever reason, moderns don’t seem to be able to wrap their minds around the idea that these things may be indicators of a significant difference between what happens intellectually within a human as opposed to a rat. Instead, moderns tend to use amazingly sophisticated instruments that are tapped into a world-wide power and communications grid, which they have created, to self-consciously attempt to prove that animals that they have captured from their wild environment are virtually the same as humans. This seems comical to me.
You wrote: You said, "If animals are able to do this, we could say with confidence that if we could move an animal soul into a human body that they would act like humans and do higher mathematics (like calculus); philosophy; and build cities."
Hum-m-m-m-m, human babies can't do higher mathematics, philosophy or build cities. Does that make them less human? What about the severely retarded and mentally impaired? If you can't tell whether they exhibit these capabilities, are they less human?
●I’m sure you may have a pretty good guess what my answer is going to be on this one. Aristotle and Aquinas, of course, when writing about the differences between animals and humans, were referring to the normal potential of each. When elucidating a principle they were not addressing possible defects in animals or humans. Therefore, my thought question regarding the rat refers to the potential of a rat’s soul to be able to function like a normal human that has reached its mature phase. My point is that a rat does not have the same potential for rational thought as does a human—including a human baby. Furthermore, using the Aristotelian categories of potential to actual and Augustine’s definition of evil as privation made it possible for Aquinas to explain how human babies and the retarded, indeed, have rational souls. The baby’s has not become actualized and the mentally deficient person has a rational soul suffering a privation. When actualized through maturity, the baby’s soul is fully functioning (normally) and if the privation could be removed, the deficient person could be fully actualized. Neither case can be applied to the normal soul of a rat.
●I believe the rat thought-question, when viewed from a commonsensical perspective, elucidates that rat’s do not have rational souls.
Back to Aquinas’ argument in my post:
●Of course, in my view Aquinas is quite correct that if man does not have free will then exhortations, rewards and punishments are in vain. He, of course, was speaking of “rewards and punishments” as consequences for moral merit or culpability. If man’s actions are simply a product of his nature as determined by that nature, then moral culpability or merit are absurdities. Scientific determinist William Provine from Cornell put it succinctly when he said:
“Finally, free will is nonexistent. Free will is the worst of all cultural inventions. Belief in free will fuels our revenge-minded culture.”
●Or as Ravi Zacharias put it:
“Thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.”
●I think the direction that determinists are headed is pretty clear. In fact they have made it abundantly clear. Therefore, I think it behooves Christians to have a more robust view of free will than simply falling back on “faith.”
●A little personal side-note: as a Baptist, I became interested in Thomism precisely because I wanted to develop a more muscular view of these important cultural issues.
Using a rat as a particular example doesn't establish a universal. Just because we're both pretty sure a rat doesn't possess and never will possess the capabilities you describe as defining a rational soul does not mean that none of God's other creatures have or may someday possess them.
I think you mean that you are looking for a robust rationale behind your faith instead of just a blind faith. It's my contention that the existence of "free will" is an unprovable truth. My faith that what I experience as free will is real has to be robust all on its own.
"....There exists a lot of truth that just is and cannot be proven by logic and reason."
Remarkable that you would get doubters whom also are self-identified Christians. Whatever became of faith?
I didn't say truth was unknowable, I said that there is some truth that is untestable / unprovable and that I suspect that the reality of free will is one of those. As Timbo noted, where reason and logic can be applied they do not contradict truth, but reason and logic can't get you to all truth. That's where faith comes in. Blind faith is setting aside the tools of reason and logic when they can illuminate the truth. That's just folly. Faith becomes pure when it takes you beyond the limits of reason and logic.
●Yes, this is what they may say, but, this is not what Aristotle or Aquinas said and they were the ones that developed and refined the categories. Here is Aquinas:
Furthermore, if man derives his species in virtue of his being rational and having an intellect, then whoever belongs to the human species is rational and endowed with intellect. But a child, even before leaving the womb, is specifically human, although there are as yet no actually intelligible phantasms in it. Therefore, a man has not an intellect as the result of its being united to him by means of an intelligible species whose subject is a phantasm. (SGC II, Ch. 59, A. 17)
●Essentially what Aquinas is saying is a human (because he is human) even if he doesn’t have any “intelligibles” in his mind is still rational and endowed with intellect. In the case of the unborn baby, it has not been able to develop those intelligibles and the retarded individual is blocked by a privation from gaining them. Abortionists focus on what is missing for their definition of “human” while Aquinas focused on the ontology. From his perspective (and the Christian perspective) a human is a human because he is part of the human species. The defining element of the human species is the rational intellect. Therefore, all things being equal, humans are able to make sense data into universal concepts (i.e. “humanness”, or “whiteness”). Because a particular human is unable to fulfill its intellectual potential does not make him less human.
You wrote: Using a rat as a particular example doesn't establish a universal. Just because we're both pretty sure a rat doesn't possess and never will possess the capabilities you describe as defining a rational soul does not mean that none of God's other creatures have or may someday possess them.
●Okay, John, this is where I am going to challenge you to embrace Catholic theology. I’m sure you know that Catholic theology holds to the belief that the human soul with its rational abilities are a creative work of God Himself and do not arise strictly out of nature. Therefore, if other animals were to possess human rational capabilities (the factor which defines “humanness”) they would be in a real sense “human” and their souls would: A) be immortal and B) created individually by God. We could say they are humans in the bodies of deer or whatever. Of course, Aquinas and Aristotle would challenge such a notion because they would argue that man’s soul gives form to his body.
●Instead of using a rat I could just as easily argue that a chimp soul would not be sufficient to animate a rational being. I think we all really know this with great certainty. We used to call it commonsense.
●By the way, here is an interesting thought question for those who think that a rational soul simply arises from nature. Okay, if that is so, please explain why a crocodile’s mind is not equivalent to or superior to a human’s in its rationality. Or, even less challenging. Why is the crocodile’s intelligence seemingly unchanged for millions upon millions of years? (Unchanged since before the time of the dinosaurs and believed to be 200 million years old while dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago). Also, why have chimps and other higher primates remained in their “natural” habitat for millions of years (other than being transported to zoos by humans)? It is reported that chimp remains have been found in the East African Rift Valley dating from the Middle Pleistocene period (beginning 3.6 million years ago). To put a point on the pencil, normally—given all of the huge worldwide environmental changes during this span of time—one would expect a continued and gradual development of the croc or chimp intellect.
You wrote: I think you mean that you are looking for a robust rationale behind your faith instead of just a blind faith. It's my contention that the existence of "free will" is an unprovable truth. My faith that what I experience as free will is real has to be robust all on its own.
●Yes, I agree that I want more than a blind faith. Christianity does not call for “blind faith.” It is my contention that free will is as obvious as the nose on one’s face. For instance, William Provine of Cornell who I quoted above, unjustifiably simply declares that “freewill is nonexistent.” This, of course is a completely self-defeating statement. Here is what Karl Popper notes about such reasoning:
According to determinism, any such theories—such as, say, determinism—are held because of a certain physical structure of the holder (perhaps of his brain). Accordingly, we are deceiving ourselves (and are physically so determined as to deceive ourselves) whenever we believe that there are such things as arguments or reasons which make us accept determinism. Or in other words, physical determinism is a theory which, if it is true, is not arguable, since it must explain all our reactions, including what appear to us as beliefs based on arguments, as due to purely physical conditions. Purely physical conditions, including our physical environment, make us say or accept whatever we say or accept.
●First, I must believe that I have “evolved” to deterministically be a self-deceiving but highly successful creature. Interesting.
●In other words, Provine is expecting to convince millions of people to change their minds about free will and abandon its culturally developed (something which is impossible in a deterministic world) “revenge-minded” mentality (another absurd term in a deterministic world). According to Provine’s own beliefs all of his thoughts are simply the result of physical conditions (determined) and, likewise, all of the millions of people he intends to convince are determined to believe what they “believe” (a term which implies voluntary choice). He doesn’t seem to realize that these people cannot change their minds—nor can he. Provine needs to read the following from my post:
“Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. Iii, 5): ‘According as each one is, such does the end seem to him.” But it is not in our power to be of one quality or another; for this comes to us from nature. Therefore it is natural to us to follow some particular end, and therefore we are not free in so doing.”
●I’m sure he would agree because that is what he claims. What he doesn’t seem to understand is what follows is this simple conclusion:
“I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”
●For what possible reason (an absurd term in a deterministic world) is Provine giving hortatory speeches? The truth is that people act on what they truly believe. Provine acts like a free creature.
●I agree with this and from a Christian perspective, I would argue that the whole Bible is a testament to man’s free-will. Otherwise, God is the author of moral evil. This leads to my sociological thoughts on the free-will debate.
●It is my conviction that what is at stake in this argument is the usurping of classical Christian morality. In other words, I do not believe that, generally, determinists really “believe” there is no free will intrinsic to man. What they object to are the “counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments” inherent in Christian teaching. Furthermore, I believe that, given the opportunity, so-called determinists would implement their own set of “counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments” with a vengeance. In my view, this can be readily seen in William Provine’s statement: “Finally, free will is nonexistent. Free will is the worst of all cultural inventions. Belief in free will fuels our revenge-minded culture.” Provine’s statement is laced with a large dose of bitterness, judgmentalism, and a clear cultural agenda.
●In this debate, Christians don't need to persuade hardened secular-determinists, we just need cogent arguments that persuade “normal” people. This is why claiming that free-will is un-provable or a matter of “faith” will only serve to disarm us in the public arena.
If you recall, I stated up front that I was playing the devil's advocate.
- You put a marker on the table for the criteria for possessing a rationale soul by stating that one should be able to build great cities and do higher math etc. I never agreed to that and attempted to show the implications of such a criteria.
- You called into question my Catholocism and stated, "Therefore, if other animals were to possess human rational capabilities (the factor which defines “humanness”) they would be in a real sense “human” and their souls would." Here you've arguing based on a HUMAN rational capabilities and launched into a human being in a deer's body. I never added the word "human" to my comments on rational. Angels are certainly rational and they have no bodies. Why can't God make creatures other than man that are also rational? I stand by my faith and entirely agree that a rational soul is created directly by God and not a product of evolution, whether that be in man or any other rational creature God has or will create.
- Lastly, if the reality of free will were as plain as the nose on your face, then why has there and continues to be such a debate? I submit that its truth IS self-evident. It's the proof that is not self-evident when you begin to look close, and I think that's because its an unprovable fact by its very nature. I think its converse, determinism, is equally unprovable.
ST Ia q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 1: As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation.
●Actually my marker on the table for the rational soul is this:
“…for the proper operation of man, as man, is understanding, since it is in this that he differs from brutes, plants, and inanimate things. Now, it properly pertains to this act to apprehend objects universal and incorruptible as such.” (SCG II, C. 79, A. 5)
●It is the apprehension of “objects universal and incorruptible as such” which defines “understanding” which is the “proper operation of man, as man.” The terms “as such” are very important. By this Aquinas means that man understands universals and understands them as universals. It is not that he just understands a universal but that he understands it as a universal. Therefore, my point is that cities and higher math are evidences of this ability. Without this ability the cities could not be built and higher math could not be done by man. This operation is also the exact same thing that is the source of what we call free-will.
You wrote: Here you've arguing based on a HUMAN rational capabilities and launched into a human being in a deer's body. I never added the word "human" to my comments on rational. Angels are certainly rational and they have no bodies. Why can't God make creatures other than man that are also rational? I stand by my faith and entirely agree that a rational soul is created directly by God and not a product of evolution, whether that be in man or any other rational creature God has or will create.
●First, I was not intending to call into question your Catholicism. I have a deep respect for your commitment to your faith. By way of argument I was challenging your assertion, from a Catholic position, that other animals may eventually develop cognitive abilities that make them rational. The Catholic position, as you know, is that the rational soul of man is a special creation of God or supernatural.
●Angels do not have “rational” intelligences. Rational implies deliberation. The angels do not deliberate because they have or are spiritual intelligences (it is more proper to say they are spiritual intelligences). Rational deliberation must take place in temporal time due to its material aspects; therefore, it has some chronology to it. Angels have no material nature.
You wrote: Lastly, if the reality of free will were as plain as the nose on your face, then why has there and continues to be such a debate?
●I addressed some of the issues above that I think “drive” the debate. Secondly, as I noted people act on their true beliefs. Not one determinist in the world is presently sitting around wondering what he will do next. All of them are stripping sense data of its material nature, creating universals and incorruptibles in their minds, evaluating the potential goods that arise from these universals as they compare and contrast those goods, and then choosing the greatest good to act upon. In short, they are “choosing” what to do and not wondering what they will do. If they were waiting to see what they do they wouldn’t do anything.
I don't care how you play with the word "rational", but angels are possessed of free will, which is the topic of discussion. Angels represent creatures other than man that possess free will, albiet in a way proper to their own nature (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ANGEL2.HTM). Why could not computers undergo a kind of evolution at the hand of man as God's agent and infused by God with a soul and free will proper to its own nature at some point? Could that same evolution progress to the point of not being able to tell the difference between that and decisions made as weighted calculations of sophisticated algorithms based on collected data with even some quasi-randomness factors thrown in? How can you tell that you're not a deterministic 'machine' just like that other than assuming the truth of your self-awareness experience. This is what I mean by taking it on pure faith. It's really not much of a leap in my mind; but apparently it is for some, especially those who have habituated themselves so strongly to certain things that they have lost faith in their freedom.
Saying that free will is "as obvious as the nose on your face" is saying that it's axiomatic and stands assumed without proof. If a soul and free will where so obvious, then it would be extremely easy to pick out the time when God infuses that in human beings and the abortion debate would be a non-starter. In my mind, the existence of truth that cannot be proven is a pretty strong indicator that there is a God. I've attempted to lay out some thought "tests" to illustrate what I'm talking about, but you and Thom really haven't engaged them. I think existence of free will is far more subtle than you and Thom put forth. I have high respect for Aquinas, but he might have had a better appreciation of the subtlety if he lived in the age of computers and emerging robotics.
I have respected your views in the past about fishing, having fished with you for years. Netting success in Galilee has always required experience, taking into account time, the moon, water temperature, and water depth.
At your request, I have talked personally with this Jesus, as you requested and he has No Experience fishing in Galilee, nor fishing at all. The fellow is a carpenter. Given practical fishing experience only counts for success in these waters, "your experiments are irrelevant" where they "flos from a verification principle that assumes certainty" in this man (given your absolute confidence in this carpenter) "Your epistemology is more limited in scope then I expected". Respectfully, Your Fishing buddy Tom
John, your thought experiments are irrelevant until we determine what counts as proof or evidence. Will certainty be a requirement? You have failed to answer this question. If evidence for you flows from a verification principle that assumes certainty then perhaps your epistemology is more limited in scope then I expected.
You ask me what counts as proof or evidence. My thought experiments are designed precisely to explore how one would test for free will choices as opposed to deterministic choices, instead of just assuming their experience of free will is real. My conclusion is that a test could not be devised such that an observer could distinguish a free will choice from a choice mimicked via some as yet undevised sophisticated deterministic means (the computer analogy). Furthermore, if you have some way to prove or test when God infuses a free will soul into a human being, please tell me what it is. As far as I know there's no test that could distinguish the immediate before and after difference. If you can't distinguish it, how do you know it's there? The fact that you can't make the distinction opens door to unethical assumption that if you can't distinguish it, it isn't there. Isn't that the underlying assumption behind abortion "rights"? The morally safer course would be to assume in faith that it is there.
"Free Will" may be a "truth that cannot be proven", at least according to Colin McGinn, who holds to the so-called "new mysterian" position on the subject.
I've listened to a lecture series by McGinn where he explained that we can examine consciousness from the outside as an object, but that means we lose the subjectivity of the experience, or we can experience it as a subject, but then we lose the objectivity of the experience, but we can't do botht things at the same time, which is why there may be a limitation on human knowledge in this area.
Also, note that McGinn's position is said to be associated with religious agnosticism.
On the other hand, there are certainly truths that can't be explained. The trinity is the classic example of that.
I tend to side with John Searle's common sense point of view. Free will is as self-proving as existence or the air we breathe because we can't help but experience it.
No one, absolutely no one, really believes that they lack free will in a general sense. We might say that we experience akrasia - a weakness of the will in certain circumstances, but that only proves the case. When I decide to have an extra donut, I know that it is I myself who is willing myself to have the donut. No one else is stuffing it down my throat, and I certainly experience the feeling of desire followed by the self willing my body to do something that my intellect tells I shouldn't do.
So, I'm in the camp that asks why we can't accept free will as a first principle?
Thom,
Is your basic point that if there was no free will, then energy wasting, inefficient activities like exhortations and counselling wouldn't have developed?
And, therefore, the fact that these things exist in the world means that they must do something?
Or are you saying that because exhortations work, there must be free will?
There seems to be a subtle difference in these arguments.
Regarding the first one, it would seem weird from an evolutionary perspective to have a complex set of behaviors that don't really do anything. Is there any example in evolution where there is an apparently useless waste of energy that actually was useless? Peacock feathers, for example, are supposedly designed to signal for mates.
Regarding the second argument, I think that argument squares with my basic point. We all have direct experience of exhortations and counsel working, and we all act as if it did, which ought to be sufficient evidence for free will.
By the way, next Thursday, we will be finishing this Question.
If you viewed counsels and exhortations as input data and could duplicate the response by deterministic means, what kind of evidence is that?
You have not noted your appreciation for any previous "honest response". If I disagree with you, if you cannot go where I am, if you cannot acknowledge fact or current sentiment or simple different opinion, where perhaps you have an opportunity to learn but instead fail, these things do not make for dishonesty for my part.
As for dishonesty, what do you think the value is that I place on my own integrity....that I would misrepresent my understanding of gospel principles for the sake of the anonymous here? Of course you do. You think too much of yourself on this matter and you have thought so little of me.
Now, having done that let me once again "honestly" reveal something to you: You ask about knowledge without framework.
There are fundamentally different types of knowledge as might apply to an answer for you.
All types of knowledge however are not of equal worth, all do not reward the acquirer with spiritual growth. Knowledge of the arts and sciences — of mathematics, chemistry, history, medicine, and the like — have no direct and immediate bearing on the attainment of spiritual wholeness. Of themselves they do not prepare a man for God, but they may school and train him in such a way that he will be more susceptible to the reception of saving truth or more capable to understand it.
But it is the knowledge of God and his laws that leads to spiritual wholeness. (2 Ne. 9:28-29, 42.)
It is the knowledge of God that brings salvation. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3; D. & C. 93:6-28; 132:24.) When the Prophet said, "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge," he had reference not to the worldly knowledge flowing from research, but to the eternal knowledge coming by revelation, "for it needs revelation to assist us" he continued, "and give us knowledge of the things of God." (Teachings, p. 217.) Similarly, when he said, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (D. & C. 131:6), he meant there could be no salvation in ignorance of Jesus Christ and the saving principles of the gospel. "The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation," he said on another occasion. "This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge sufficient to be saved will be condemned. The principle of salvation is given us through the knowledge of Jesus Christ." (Teachings, p. 297.)
One of the signs of the times is that at "the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased" (Dan. 12:4); that men shall be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7.) But the saints are expected to specialize in the knowledge of the truth, the knowledge that makes known the mysteries of the kingdom and the wonders of eternity (D. & C. 76:1-10), the knowledge that will rise with them in the resurrection and be of such a nature as to give them advantage in the world to come. (D. & C. 130:18-19.)
This kind of knowledge is a result of righteousness and comes by revelation. (John 7:17.)
Counsels and exhortations, rewards and punishments obviously all have an effect on conduct. We know they do; the reason we resort to these kinds of things is because they work. If they didn't work, we wouldn't do these things.
But we also know from our experience that there is nothing deterministic about them. If counsels, exhortations, rewards, punishments were deterministic, then child-rearing and criminal justice would be far more predictable than we know they are.
We also have our own experience. We know that these data inputs - for that is what they are - are not deterministic. We know that we have to assess and judge the weight we give these things and then choose to act on them or not.
I guess my basic question is why is it rational, logical or sensible to ignore our experience of free will?
If this were not so, I would be unemployed.
Counsels and exhortations, rewards and punishments obviously all have an effect on conduct. We know they do; the reason we resort to these kinds of things is because they work. If they didn't work, we wouldn't do these things…But we also know