From the Archives: Parable of the Chessman

This article appeared in February of this year, and originally appeared the year previous. An inattentive reader made the unlikely claim that I was reluctant or unable to answer the question addressed here. I reprint the article as a reminder that I suffer from the opposite problem; namely, a chivalrous (or, perhaps, a neurotic) inability to stop discussing the issue even after it is clear that discussion is futile.
Parable of the Chessmen

I have been asked whether the electrons in a brain move “according to” the laws of physics as opposed to moving “according to” the willpower of the thinker.

The question is ambiguous because there are two meanings of “according to.” The dichotomy proposed by the question is a false one — the choice is not between a brain-electron moving “according to” (meaning 2) someone’s will OR moving “according to” (meaning 1) the laws of Newton.

Note the differences here between a proscriptive and a descriptive use of the phrase “according to”. If I shake my head to signify a negative, that is according to my will and according to the convention that a head-shake means ‘no’. That is proscriptive, in accord with a final cause. If Jack Ketch chops my head with an ax, the fall of my head into the basket is “according to” Newton’s laws of gravity. That is descriptive, in accord with a mechanical cause.

The head might indeed make the same motion, but asking for an account of the mechanics is not the same as asking for an justification for my refusal.

It is not an ‘either-or’ question.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.