Interesting post, and thanks for sharing. When I read analyses like these, I am always taken by the leaps in the middle. I think we can all generally agree that among lower order animals and insects, etc (and I use those adjectives simply for convenience, because “higher order” and “lower order” really have no place when describing nature; if making honey is asserted as the most important deliverable on planet earth, then bees are most certainly higher order; anyhow...), lower order behavior can be understood and described as the result of hard-wired complex systems and processes, as the author notes. But then he makes this leap, as many do, that when it comes to humans especially but even to higher order animals in general, etc, there is something different and more advanced, called “agency.” I don’t think one can just assert or assume that distinction. From my perspective, there is no reason not to think that what we call “agency” also just the manifestation of hard-wired complex systems and processes - just SUPER complex systems and processes. Bee behavior is like the Tokyo subway system (complicated, but discernible); our behavior is like the weather (it can’t be confidently predicted or even understood completely, not because there is “agency,” but simply because it’s so complex with so many inputs and variables). I would love to be convinced of agency - and free will and all the rest. I’m not a monster :) But simply because we want something or feel something, doesn’t mean it is, or that we can just assume it into existence. In other words, I don’t think one can describe agency, or analyze agency, or reach conclusions about agency, before one shows at least the likelihood or probability of the EXISTENCE of agency. And I haven’t found the text yet that does that.
Thanks, Brittany. Of course when I read about modern theorists setting out these things, I tend to think they're reinventing - clunkily - the wheel which Cicero (following Panaetius) set out in On Duties, Book I.11ff, just of course in a lot more English words than the beautifully concise Latin! So I will look forward with interest to Part II.
Interesting post, and thanks for sharing. When I read analyses like these, I am always taken by the leaps in the middle. I think we can all generally agree that among lower order animals and insects, etc (and I use those adjectives simply for convenience, because “higher order” and “lower order” really have no place when describing nature; if making honey is asserted as the most important deliverable on planet earth, then bees are most certainly higher order; anyhow...), lower order behavior can be understood and described as the result of hard-wired complex systems and processes, as the author notes. But then he makes this leap, as many do, that when it comes to humans especially but even to higher order animals in general, etc, there is something different and more advanced, called “agency.” I don’t think one can just assert or assume that distinction. From my perspective, there is no reason not to think that what we call “agency” also just the manifestation of hard-wired complex systems and processes - just SUPER complex systems and processes. Bee behavior is like the Tokyo subway system (complicated, but discernible); our behavior is like the weather (it can’t be confidently predicted or even understood completely, not because there is “agency,” but simply because it’s so complex with so many inputs and variables). I would love to be convinced of agency - and free will and all the rest. I’m not a monster :) But simply because we want something or feel something, doesn’t mean it is, or that we can just assume it into existence. In other words, I don’t think one can describe agency, or analyze agency, or reach conclusions about agency, before one shows at least the likelihood or probability of the EXISTENCE of agency. And I haven’t found the text yet that does that.
Thanks, Brittany. Of course when I read about modern theorists setting out these things, I tend to think they're reinventing - clunkily - the wheel which Cicero (following Panaetius) set out in On Duties, Book I.11ff, just of course in a lot more English words than the beautifully concise Latin! So I will look forward with interest to Part II.
Yes, I'm hoping we can look at an old problem in a new way. Part II will be more practical, so please let me know what you think!