Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Considering Will

I began taking consideration seriously a few years ago while reading an article in the NYT Magazine a few years back which informed me of the fact, that out of the twelve billion or so cells that are in me, only about five billion of those actually are me; the rest comprise other organisms coming along for the ride. That sparked my imagination.

I diverted my eyes from the magazine and gazed upon the nth myriad of critters who outnumbered me and I noticed something: every one of them were doing what they wanted. Hmm- even bacterias are wanting what they want... and what is want? isn't wanting the same as willing? So if even bacteria have will, and then lions have will, the fact that humans have will, isn't a distinction in and of itself. In fact, while we measure will in terms of its power, is ours any more powerful than a lion's chasing down its meal?... I kept watching in my imagination the alpha lion eating his fill, while the other lions, who's standing reached further down the alphabet, were held at bay-regardless of their need. And that's when it hit me: while lions may have wills even more powerful than the human will, what they don't have, is the power to consider. What distinguishes human will from the will that even bacteria posses, is that ours is connected to our innate ability to consider.

By conceiving will in terms of power, we put it on a continuum that bacteria exist on. And after human being in all its will power, annihilates itself, who will still be around? Bacteria. And they don't have the benefit of a frontal cortex.

By measuring human will in its ability to operate through consideration, we posit our measurement on a different continuum, one that doesn't entail from power and freedom, but one that entails from something uniquely human: the ability to look beyond. Human will, shouldn't be measured in terms of power, but in terms of consideration because consideration, is uniquely human. To continue measuring it- thus conceiving it- in terms of power, belies the level of order, Life itself has evolved toward. Human being is the one where Life evolves an ability for a species to experience the power to consider.

Will exercised through power is common to any living organism. Will exercised through consideration however, is uniquely human: we didn't make this reality- but we are required to live within it; whether we real-ize this power to consider, or not. We are free in our ability to consider.

8 comments:

  1. Mike, first of all your blog is excellent. Thank you.

    One may argue that living organisms seem to exhibit consideration in a variety of ways through communication, playing, and mating (dances at the very least). I think our humanness exhibits itself in the complexity and variability within our specie of considering the same "thing" in different ways.

    Consideration itself seems to be related to communication. While I can consider as an island, the complexity ripples really get going when two minds consider together and culture and language explode when the communication density and time increases. Seeing two shadows of the same object will give you more information about it and that requires two stars sharing a common language of shadow.

    Language, abstractions, and memes may not be alive in a biological sense. Each of our Will Consideration Powers IS specific to the individual in a variety of ways - language type (including the language of technology), vocabulary depth, eloquence, emotional and intellectual baggage and brilliance.

    Ultimately what i think is the most human part of consideration is the willingness and desire to let our deepest understandings/ideas die. Like you said - a sentence can scare people more than a gun. But we don't disappear into nothingness, we merely transcend to the next question. It's living in questions instead of answers that begs consideration? you know what i mean?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alex, welcome to the blog and thanks for your comment! I marvel at how everybody's comments get me thinking in new directions. I especially like your paragraph:

    Consideration itself seems to be related to communication. While I can consider as an island, the complexity ripples really get going when two minds consider together and culture and language explode when the communication density and time increases. Seeing two shadows of the same object will give you more information about it and that requires two stars sharing a common language of shadow.

    Would you mind saying more about communication density?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are defining Will in a manner I accept, but it may be going a bit too far to say consideration is uniquely human. I probably need not to remind you that most other primates can consider various scenarios and and engage in future planning.

    Perhaps a better way to phrase/understand a choosing will is to say that for now, it appears the ability to consider has progressed the most in humans and as such we could be said to possess a larger will to consider and choose than the rest of the animal kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matt,

    First of all, I'm glad your commenting here as I've appreciated your Skeptics voice over at 13.7.

    I agree with your over all point, and I will make it part of my next post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike, I mean that communication isn't just message "delivery". Time is required to accumulate a common vocabulary and understanding. Communication density i guess is the ability to speak frequently through voice, print, video, etc.. with declining importance of your location or the location of the listeners. But that's if everyone is being honest and willing to be wrong - an internal constraint. The external constraints come from authority, seniority, financial situation, political and legal environment, which are only sometimes lined up to allow for learning. So all we can know is that we have some brilliance and some imperfections - all due to the imperfect system that raised us. The only way to filter for brilliance is to communicate, while allowing for the fact that we are completely wrong.

    (I discovered McLuhan this weekend and I think his ideas will shed a lot of light on our humanity)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alex, in regard to Communication Density, I've been thinking of late, the nature of Propaganda. At its essence, it seems that communication is propaganda when it lacks an intent to connect to reality that is ontological; instead its underlying reality is merely ideological.

    Propaganda lacks the density but has heat. But now I might be regarding density in a different context. You could say for instance, that the Tea Party movement itself has the density you mention above. However, its vocabulary is "thin" and requires big symbols to give it weight.

    Hmmm our interaction here just engendered a new thought: The use of a weighty symbol to give weight to an idea that other wise lacks weight.

    your, "The only way to filter for brilliance is to communicate, while allowing for the fact that we are completely wrong." along with your note of an 'inner environment" at ease with being wrong, are very important features for which I'm trying to build a movement around.

    Your sentence which I quote in whole is one I would like to keep intact and use in my communication toward these ends. I'll cite you as best I can; It's a powerful thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My introduction to the Bayesian Truth Serum:
    http://emergentfool.com/2009/11/18/truthocracy-part-ii-discovering-truth-and-experts/

    Ultimately I think we could potentially have a forum where ideas can be flushed of personal motive, but I may be dreaming:
    http://www.princeton.edu/~decconf/FinalPapers/WeissPaper.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alex,

    Thanks for the links. The way you're thinking about economics in your own writing will fit perfectly here. I would like to link to your blog if you're o.k. with that.

    ReplyDelete