Something to think about
Some strange ideas about human nature have emerged in recent years. One such idea appears to be that humans have no control over their actions.
The world is made of particles
The argument for the idea runs like this. The entire universe is composed of particles which are perfectly invisible to us ; but these particles assemble themselves in systematic ways to produce larger particles, such as molecules ; and the larger particles arrange themselves in ever larger groups, until the largest of them are actually able to influence our sensory organs. In other words, they become visible, audible, tangible and so on.
The world is determined by natural laws
This is not a particularly surprising model of what the world might be like. We can imagine such things as rocks, puddles, mountains, rivers and so on being made of trillions of invisible particles, all arranging themselves according to what appear to be natural laws which decide on the shapes and sizes and masses of natural things. In accordance with the natural laws, objects, such as the stones, puddles, mountains and oceans, etc., may only take on certain physical arrangements. And the things themselves have no power to alter their physical arrangements. A mountain cannot choose to grow either bigger or smaller, heavier or lighter, etc. ; nor can it decide where to place itself on the Earth’s surface. This model of the physical world is easily imagined, so no surprises there.
Humans are no different to non-living things
When we come to living creatures such as people, we can certainly imagine the shape and size of a person being decided by the same natural laws that decide the shape and size of a pebble or a mountain. We can just about imagine those same natural physical laws arranging the matter of our bodies so that we move about on the Earth’s surface. We are able to imagine this because, if circumstances are right, even pebbles move about on the Earth’s surface – in high winds, for example. The difference between a moving person and a moving pebble is that the person moves more elegantly and in a much more complex way.
All human behaviour is determined by impersonal natural forces
But now we begin to approach a puzzle. The puzzle is this : a person will often move about without there being any external natural forces being applied to his body. But pebbles, etc. do not. Thus, the model seems to say, people move in that way in response to internal forces acting on the body. But those forces are of exactly the same kind as the external forces that move pebbles ; indeed, those internal forces are dependent on external forces, in the form of the food we eat (so it is doubtful if they can really be called internal).
Humans have no personal control over their behaviour
And the puzzle deepens. For this model of the world does not give the person any control over his movements ; all movement is governed by the natural laws which decide the way in which the particles of the body shall act. So a person has no more control over his movements than does a cloud of dust being driven by the wind. It’s just that his movements are more complex because his particles are more complex.
Humans are completely material and mechanical
In the new model of the world, there is no ‘essence’ to a human being ; no mind, no soul. There are just material particles doing what particles do in accordance with the usual natural laws. Thus there is no ‘person’ in control of the human’s body ; there is no transcendent ’soul’ which is in control of the body. The model is completely material, mechanical and impersonal.
Humans are machines that have gone crazy
There are many surprises to be investigated in this model of the human being, if only because it is utterly unlike the models we have been used to. One puzzle is that a completely material, mechanical and impersonal biological machine could ever have come up with the ideas of personality and free-will. Surely, aren’t such ideas aberrations in the proper functioning of the machine?
JM
I see some mischief in the last part of your elegant resume.
I do agree with you on mountains and pebbles etc. and I see no reason for not accepting them as being there. A small waterfall way up on the tall mountain with a tiny stream coming all the way down to the valley is simply beautiful and requires no discussion of science to give us the joy in seeing it.
However, humans, though their minds, upbringing, environment and many other factors may differ, and though they all have the need for food, water and shelter but may go about getting it in different ways, these things are mostly available and the human has to take action to get them. How he moves or goes about it is in his control. That may be mechanical if you compare your elbow and wrists with man-made machines. But man is responsible for how he goes about his life.
It is nonsense to say that man is not responsible; and that is why the World is in a mess. Human kind created the mess; it was not molecules or grains of sand or pebbles; people did it and we will only solve the mess once we accept that we are the guilty ones.
Do go well, oh wise one.
Mischief, Ike? Now why would I make mischief? But, when I wote that sentence, it occurred to me that there must be something wrong with Nature if we can have ideas which do not accord with Nature. So, if Nature has equipped us to understand her, how can we ever misunderstand her? For example, if Nature never gave us free will, how can we ever have the idea of free will?
But our belief in free will is very old. How come it has endured so long if it is utterly unnatural? Why wasn’t it bred out of us long ago?
Jamie
Please, I did mean that the entire Post is just mischief though I still think you had a lot of fun penning it.
You are [no flattering] one of only a very few people in Blogging capable of this sort of discussion [none of the big clever guys in Academia outside Blogging are] in a language that makes sense to the ordinary person; you don’t insult other opinions; indeed you have a way teaching people that “it is OK to differ but let us respect each other and the Faith of one another of those who differ from us.”
I am currently in correspondence with two American Bloggers [one you know and the other one you probably haven’t met; he is a man with an incisive mind and the most remarkable ability to draw a picture in a few words] on a recent Post on Mankind and Neanderthals, the main point being when and where the two groups met and what they did after getting to know each other. Both teams believe that these okes were entirely separate species but that they did meet at some stage; they also differ on detail and the meeting place.
I happen to live near a cave where a group of mainly French, Belgium and South African Archeologists have been digging for years and they venture fourth with “proof” that they have that Anatomically Modern Man first lived in this cave just round the corner from me anywhere between 70 000 and 200 000 years ago. They contradict everything that the other bunch from Canada has discovered and are broadcasting as “the first new evidence, and proving without doubt” about Mankind and Neanderthals.
I shall put the stuff together and send it on to you sometime. You will enjoy the remarks of the one friend name of John from Upper State New York.
Gooyie me, Jamie! I don’t believe either of them. But I do love looking at rivers, waterfalls and mountain scenery. It’s there right in front of my eyes. Why would I want to prove anything about it?
Sorry Jamie
The first line should read “I did not mean…”. You notice the difference one little word can make?
[...] http://jamiemacnab.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/i-dont-mean-this-to-be-personal/ [...]