Dear larc:
:Duns,
Whether schizophrenia, autism, and sociapathy are primarily genetic or enviornmental is beside the point. Both genetics and environment or their combination cause conditions that greatly reduce the free will of those affilicted with these disturbances. Thus, free will can not be complete. It is limited, if it exists at all.:
I think we have to delineate what we mean by free will before we determine whether we have it or not. If we are going to define free will in terms of no or practically no limitations, then we are not free. But most thinkers that I have read do not define free will in this highly restrictive sense. I sure do not mean that we are volitionally unlimited when I employ the term "free will."
:When I discussed language formation, I was not discussing the prewired state of the brain that allows humans to learn language easily (John Locke was wrong, re: tabla rosa). I was referring to the ease of learning a specific language in a specific culture. This ease of learning in the child applies not only to language formation but also to a myriad of specific cultural traits as well, and places many limits on the adult in terms of free will.:
How does the ability to learn a specific language in a specific culture put free will in jeopardy? Is not the acquisition of a specific language the result of an interaction between innate factors and environmental ones? Are you utilizing Skinner's explanation of language acquisition to argue against free will? Furthermore, what do you do with those individuals who possess particular differentiae that could not be a direct result of the culture they live in? How do you explain the so-called "invulnerables"?
:Regarding the concept of self-transendence as seen by therapists, you would have to define self-transendence. You also have to remember that therapists who resort to such terms are not scientists. They are practicioners. Because they use such a word, does not mean that is valid or has meaning as a construct. (Did Keohler's experiments with chimps and insight learning indicate that they had self-transendence?):
To avoid confusion, let us use the term self-awareness or self-consciousness. Theologians and some therapists use the terminology, self-transcendence. But that way of wording matters may result in unnecessary confusion. So let us just talk about self-awareness. This is what Richard Restak (M.D.) calls it. But when I speak of self-awareness, I am talking about the ability to have a sense of self or the ability to reflect on one's thoughts (the capacity of thought to think itself). As Covey writes:
"Now think for a minute about how your mind is working? Is it quick or alert? Do you sense that you are torn between doing this mental exercise and evaluating the point to be made out of it? Your ability to do what you just did is uniquely human. Animals do not possess this ability. We call it 'self-awareness' or the ability to think about your thought process" (Covey, 66).
He also gives the example of Victor Frankl, who at one time was a strict determinist, but then eventually realized "Between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose" (70).
:You mentioned that all the variables are not known in order to make precise predictions. That is axiomatic. It does not mean that the theory of determinism is incorrect. Operating from this theorectical perspective has advanced an understanding of human behavior far more than the theory of free will.:
The theory of determinism has been called into question by more than one scientist. It has its advantages, no doubt about it. But it also has deficiencies. You must also remember that determinists start with certain assumptions and are not impartial observers. Determinism cannot account for the whole of our experience adequately. A few years ago, I read a book by a therapist who said he used to be a determinist until he noticed he was having difficulty helping some of his patients with the deterministic model. He then began to take human self-awareness into account and thought this approach netted greater therapeutic gains.
By the way, when you wrote meta science, I think you meant meta psychology.:
No, I meant metascience. See the works by Gerard Radnitzsky.
