|
|
Re: Symbolic vs Situated Action (Re: "Consciousness")mike shupp (ms44278@HUEY.CSUN.EDU)Mon, 1 Jul 1996 19:14:00 -0700
answering my comment: > > I can understand from this that, suitably analyzed, "free will" is > > a relic of "folk psychology," but not "consciousness." Is there > > some real reason for linking them? > > > > (Cogent points, BTW) > > Can you make the 'suitable analysis' explicit? > > I sometimes tell my classes that, > "People don't think- they just think they think." > A decade ago, this was good for smiles all around. > Now, to my dismay, it's taken seriously. > Progris! Ain't it grand? Suitable analysis: Doing much handwaving here, I could argue that most of the actions I take, from scratching at my nose to falling in love to selecting cheeseburger over filet mignon at lunchtime, are done without great intellectual involvement. I am more machine-like than I care to admit to myself. This puts constraints on the circumstances in which I am apt to find myself-- I won't be in Chicago at midnight, for example, hunting pixies with bow and arrow--, which makes my life even more stable, serene, and machinelike. (In some paradoxical way, it seems the more I use my intellect to dominate the world about me, the less need I have for an intellect. But this is just a throwaway remark.) Anyhow, any analysis of my behavior which ignored intentionality and consciousness would probably be 90% right-- and more accurate than analysis which assumed I actually planned every action and remark and nervous tic that I produced. Thus my belief that I control my actions is mistaken-- it's "folk psychology." This contains some incredibly sloppy reasoning, but you didn't ask for rigor as I read your request, just the outlines of some kind of plausibility argument, which I was free to believe or disbelieve in. (I've made it, I don't believe it.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ms44278@huey.csun.edu Mike Shupp California State University, Northridge
|