Thank you very much for your thought-provoking comment.

We can measure behavior by focusing on selecting. However, as you point out, we can focus on consciousness by focusing on awareness. However, “Will” is subsumed neither by selecting or awareness. Recent research on the “automated” or subconscious will [1] bring questions of consciousness, subconsciousness, and will out from the metaphysical wilderness, and safely into the realm of scientific inquiry.

I apologize for the 2+ year delay between your comment and mine. I guess that’s what you get for being too thought provoking!

[1] Bargh J.A., Gollwitzer P.M., Lee-Chai A., Barndollar K., Trotschel R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1014-27

Over at CA, you were skeptical of bringing the “metaphysics of identity” in the discussion [1]. I agree with the sentiment. Obscurantism should be avoided.

So why then this discussion of consciousness, this undefinable and unobservable state of being? Attempts to operationalize consciousness tend to focus on its effects (linguistic capacity, electroencephalographic recordings, etc.) and thus obscure the issue. And if, in your definition, choice requires consciousness — then isn't the concept of “choice” itself occulted?

As you say “it is usually considered a metaphysical issue whether or not certain things are thinking (conscious) types of things, or not. What is consciousness? What is a person?” So if you insist on a conscious-based definition of “choice,” then you your bring up the metaphysics of identity.

A better, more scientific, approach would be to throw out the “consciousness” requirement of choosing. Call it “selecting,” if that would make it easier on you. After all, choosing /is/ selecting[2], and Darwin was hardly being metaphysical when he referred to natural selection.

So, swapping the metaphysically-laden term “choose” for the scientific term “select,” let's go back to our original comments [3]

Elizabeth: “But groups don’t make selections, which means that the fate of a group is often beyond the control of the individuals in that group, and the group as a whole.”

tdaxp: “Of course societies make selections.”

[1] http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/04/23/case-study-in-domestic-pnm-theory-ii/#comment-83226
[2] http://www.answers.com/choice&r=67
[3] http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2006/04/23/case-study-in-domestic-pnm-theory-ii/#comment-83224

Very Buddhist. Looks like a winner for my next run to
Border's.

Throw another book on the pile !

Well, I'm all for serious evaluation of group-selection … but does he recognise the difference between selfish *gene* theory and the idea of a selfish individual animal? The bit you quote doesn't make that clear.

I've forgotten much of what I studied in schoool, so forgive me if I leave out a few references here and there. In short, choice- the act of making a decision- is one that is normally considered to require consciousness. Some “body” or thing- some thinking thing- has to exist in order to make a choice. Choice implies volition, and volition is (df) will. Will is something that we normally attribute to consciousness.

You might hold an unorthodox theory of choice, but because much of our notions about morality center around our ideas about choice (fault has a lot to do with choice), this could get you in some tangles.

Regarding metaphysics, it is usually considered a metaphysical issue whether or not certain things are thinking (conscious) types of things, or not. What is consciousness? What is a person? Is personhood or consciousness required for choice to exist? These are metaphysical questions.

So while your comment on The Coming Anarchy did bring something new and interesting to the table, I think that accepting your proposition would bring most people way beyond where they thought they were in terms of metaphysical and moral philosophical assumptions.

Going offline now, but look forward to hearing more on this tomorrow.

He describes Richard Dawkin's selfish gene theory and uses it as a theme. He believes it to be the natural successor to individual selection. For instance, he mentions studies of bees, and that it makes sense for some individuals to remain celibate (contra old individual selectionism) if they were closely related to the queen (selfish gene selectionism). But then he mentions (but doesn't go into detail) that in real bee hives the relationship isn't close enough to fit with selfish gene selectionism.

The article calls this process “a simple democracy,” which would make Bloom scream.

[1] http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/04/04/1532235.shtml
[2] http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060327/cockroach_ani.html