A Conversation About Clockwork Orange
When I went to see "A Clockwork Orange" the other night, I went with my friends Justin and Henry. The day after, Henry had sent me an e-mail, and so I wrote him back. It covers a few of the issues I referred to thinking about the other day (like free will). Allow me to present that e-conversation...
****************************************
Quoting Henry.Huang@colorado.edu:
> Hey Sonja,
>
> I just wanted to share some ideas. During the discussion, some people say
> Alex (the main character) is a free agent, and some say he's a 'machine' the
> entire time and just got reprogrammed a few times into a different machine.
> Whenever someone went along with one side, the prof or someone else seemed to
> have a point that contradicts the viewpoint. Everyone seemed to accept that
> we
> are only dealing with two agents: the free agent with no morals and the
> machine with morals.
> I actually believe in the possibility of two more 'semi-agents.' I think
> there can exist a free agent that acts LIKE a machine, and there can also
> exist a machine that acts LIKE a free agent.
> Before I explain this more, I first must admit that I'm a little confused
> about your prof's definition of 'machine.' Does the machine by definition
> lack
> consciousness? I know there's a lot of debate about whether robots can have
> consciousness, but right now I have a feeling that this is impossible. I
> think
> robots can be highly sophisticated, but never reach true intelligence like
> humans. This might be an example of a machine that acts LIKE a free agent.
> Notice that I'm kind of assuming that humans are free agents (which I sort of
> justify with quantum physics).
> ANYWAYS, going back to my idea of these semi-agents. I think it could be
> argued that Alex is initially a free agent who later becomes a semi-agent
> (namely, the semi-free-agent who acts like a machine). He appears to be a
> machine because he SEEMS to have no choice. It could be argued that he does
> indeed have choice, only he's prevented from acting on the 'bad ones' because
> he's been conditioned to feel sick during those times. The scene that stands
> out is when Alex is confronted with the naked lady. Clearly he desired to
> touch her, but that sick feeling stopped him from going further.
> The idea that we're all just machines is certainly very convincing. The
> words 'conditioned' and 'reprogrammed' are often used interchangibly and are
> associated with machines. The argument against mine is that Alex has been
> conditioned since he was born to act the way he does; therefore he's a
> machine. My counter-argument is that perhaps he is born a free agent who is
> constantly being conditioned by his environment; the conditioning Alex gets
> can place him a step closer to being LIKE a machine. However, he'll always
> remain a free agent.
> Sorry this is a bit longer than I expected. Does this make sense? It's the
> best answer I could come up with so far that satisfies the contradictory
> points. Keep in mind I'm no philosopher, and there could be something
> fundamentally flawed in my argument. I'm also no scientist either! If you'd
> like you can tell this to your prof. I'd be curious how he'd tear apart my
> ideas!
>
> Henry
********************************
Hey Henry,
Interesting ideas.
The idea of a 'semi-agent' seems a little ambiguous to me. Could you explain
that a little more?
Also the definition of "machine" seems ambiguous. What exactly *is* a machine?
Just something that's been programmed in some manner? With that definition, I
would argue that anything can be a machine...even a flower! Because a flower is
biologically "programmed" (so to speak) to need certain things: CO2, water, sun
and the chemicals from it (and there's no changing that programming, unless we
were in some sort of futuristic, technologically-advanced society in which we
could change the basic needs of things)... And it's also programmed to be a
certain way: rooted in the ground, petals opening at a certain time of year,
and so on. In a similar way, I would argue that each human has certain
biological programming from the very beginnings of their lives. Instincts and
drives, and personality traits (arguably) like compassion. Then, as humans go
on throughout our lives, the society we live in influences us, as do the people
directly around us, most notably our parents and friends (this is called the
social constructionist perspective).
I too think that Alex has ability to choose, he just cannot act on some of the
choices he decides. Does 'choice' imply action? I don't think it does. Desires
(like wanting to touch the naked woman, and wanting to hit the man who was
renting his room, and probably wanting to defend himself against his attackers,
although that point wasn't as obvious in the movie) and thoughts are choices as
well, and of this Alex was perfectly capable.
I think Alex was born a free agent in the sense that anyone is born a free
agent (again I'm referring to biological influences), and remained one to some
extent (though to different extents throughout the movie, i.e. everyone is
socially conditioned throughout their lives, and he is too, and later, after
the first treatment he had choice without ability to act on that choice)
throughout the movie. Whether you call the victim of this limited freedom 'free
agent' or 'machine' is a matter of diction/semantics. I might agree with you and
call it 'free agent,' at least until he undergoes the treatment...then it's
arguable how much free will one needs to have to be 'free.' While I previously
said I think Alex has the ability to choose (and I continue to think that), I
personally wouldn't say that Alex is a free agent after either procedure that
is done to him. Why? Because historically, and typically, when free will is
thought of, action is involved AS WELL AS desire and thought (and other
emotional processes).
Some other things to consider in terms of the restriction of free will are
laws, inabilities to do things (Like flying), and again, biology and
socialization (You may disagree with me in my stance that we are free (or, to
borrow your term, semi-free)agents despite those limitations).
WOULD total and complete free will look like anarchy? How would choice even be
able to be made without biology and socialization?! Suppose we really are
'blank slates.' What would that look like???
Sonja
**************************************************************
Thanks for your comments. You brought up some good points. Okay, I'll try to
explain the semi-agents thing better. I imagine a spectrum. Say the extreme
left is free, and the extreme right is machine. Let's say you start at the
left. Social influences (and other forms of conditioning) will move you
towards the right and thus become more machine-like.
Now that I think about it, I never took into consideration morality. Perhaps
the major flaw in my argument is that I assume the free agent is amoral, and
machine is moral. My assumptions came directly from what we see in the movie.
However, this isn't true because I suppose there can exist a moral free agent
and an amoral machine, right? An amoral machine would simply be a machine
who's been conditioned to act "badly."
AHAA! So now we're back to your prof's original question: did Alex just simply
begin as an amoral machine who became a moral machine?
Definitely, machine must be clearly defined. In MY mind, I kind of think of a
machine as having no consciousness, and free agents having conscious. I have a
feeling there's some flaw in THAT thinking...
For now, let's ignore the idea of consciousness. I agree that everything in
nature is biologically programmed. So let's talk about some basic desires that
are programmed in humans. We desire food, and we desire to procreate. So we
are programmed to want to eat, and the society/culture we live in can
influence what we eat to an extent. However, we can still choose what we eat,
when to eat it, and how we eat. In this context a case can be made for
freewill. I'll argue that we lose our freewill when we are forced what, when,
and how to eat.
So with that argument, I have to agree with you that after the procedure Alex
lost his freewill because he could not ACT on his desires.
I honestly don't know what a world would be like if it's totally free. When
people talk about freewill, they tend to associate it with randomness. And
that's why I think a society of free agents seems to be associated with
anarchy. But is this really true? I think within the fabric of order there can
exist a bit of chaos, and even vice versa.
Henry
****************************************
Quoting Henry.Huang@colorado.edu:
> Hey Sonja,
>
> I just wanted to share some ideas. During the discussion, some people say
> Alex (the main character) is a free agent, and some say he's a 'machine' the
> entire time and just got reprogrammed a few times into a different machine.
> Whenever someone went along with one side, the prof or someone else seemed to
> have a point that contradicts the viewpoint. Everyone seemed to accept that
> we
> are only dealing with two agents: the free agent with no morals and the
> machine with morals.
> I actually believe in the possibility of two more 'semi-agents.' I think
> there can exist a free agent that acts LIKE a machine, and there can also
> exist a machine that acts LIKE a free agent.
> Before I explain this more, I first must admit that I'm a little confused
> about your prof's definition of 'machine.' Does the machine by definition
> lack
> consciousness? I know there's a lot of debate about whether robots can have
> consciousness, but right now I have a feeling that this is impossible. I
> think
> robots can be highly sophisticated, but never reach true intelligence like
> humans. This might be an example of a machine that acts LIKE a free agent.
> Notice that I'm kind of assuming that humans are free agents (which I sort of
> justify with quantum physics).
> ANYWAYS, going back to my idea of these semi-agents. I think it could be
> argued that Alex is initially a free agent who later becomes a semi-agent
> (namely, the semi-free-agent who acts like a machine). He appears to be a
> machine because he SEEMS to have no choice. It could be argued that he does
> indeed have choice, only he's prevented from acting on the 'bad ones' because
> he's been conditioned to feel sick during those times. The scene that stands
> out is when Alex is confronted with the naked lady. Clearly he desired to
> touch her, but that sick feeling stopped him from going further.
> The idea that we're all just machines is certainly very convincing. The
> words 'conditioned' and 'reprogrammed' are often used interchangibly and are
> associated with machines. The argument against mine is that Alex has been
> conditioned since he was born to act the way he does; therefore he's a
> machine. My counter-argument is that perhaps he is born a free agent who is
> constantly being conditioned by his environment; the conditioning Alex gets
> can place him a step closer to being LIKE a machine. However, he'll always
> remain a free agent.
> Sorry this is a bit longer than I expected. Does this make sense? It's the
> best answer I could come up with so far that satisfies the contradictory
> points. Keep in mind I'm no philosopher, and there could be something
> fundamentally flawed in my argument. I'm also no scientist either! If you'd
> like you can tell this to your prof. I'd be curious how he'd tear apart my
> ideas!
>
> Henry
********************************
Hey Henry,
Interesting ideas.
The idea of a 'semi-agent' seems a little ambiguous to me. Could you explain
that a little more?
Also the definition of "machine" seems ambiguous. What exactly *is* a machine?
Just something that's been programmed in some manner? With that definition, I
would argue that anything can be a machine...even a flower! Because a flower is
biologically "programmed" (so to speak) to need certain things: CO2, water, sun
and the chemicals from it (and there's no changing that programming, unless we
were in some sort of futuristic, technologically-advanced society in which we
could change the basic needs of things)... And it's also programmed to be a
certain way: rooted in the ground, petals opening at a certain time of year,
and so on. In a similar way, I would argue that each human has certain
biological programming from the very beginnings of their lives. Instincts and
drives, and personality traits (arguably) like compassion. Then, as humans go
on throughout our lives, the society we live in influences us, as do the people
directly around us, most notably our parents and friends (this is called the
social constructionist perspective).
I too think that Alex has ability to choose, he just cannot act on some of the
choices he decides. Does 'choice' imply action? I don't think it does. Desires
(like wanting to touch the naked woman, and wanting to hit the man who was
renting his room, and probably wanting to defend himself against his attackers,
although that point wasn't as obvious in the movie) and thoughts are choices as
well, and of this Alex was perfectly capable.
I think Alex was born a free agent in the sense that anyone is born a free
agent (again I'm referring to biological influences), and remained one to some
extent (though to different extents throughout the movie, i.e. everyone is
socially conditioned throughout their lives, and he is too, and later, after
the first treatment he had choice without ability to act on that choice)
throughout the movie. Whether you call the victim of this limited freedom 'free
agent' or 'machine' is a matter of diction/semantics. I might agree with you and
call it 'free agent,' at least until he undergoes the treatment...then it's
arguable how much free will one needs to have to be 'free.' While I previously
said I think Alex has the ability to choose (and I continue to think that), I
personally wouldn't say that Alex is a free agent after either procedure that
is done to him. Why? Because historically, and typically, when free will is
thought of, action is involved AS WELL AS desire and thought (and other
emotional processes).
Some other things to consider in terms of the restriction of free will are
laws, inabilities to do things (Like flying), and again, biology and
socialization (You may disagree with me in my stance that we are free (or, to
borrow your term, semi-free)agents despite those limitations).
WOULD total and complete free will look like anarchy? How would choice even be
able to be made without biology and socialization?! Suppose we really are
'blank slates.' What would that look like???
Sonja
**************************************************************
Thanks for your comments. You brought up some good points. Okay, I'll try to
explain the semi-agents thing better. I imagine a spectrum. Say the extreme
left is free, and the extreme right is machine. Let's say you start at the
left. Social influences (and other forms of conditioning) will move you
towards the right and thus become more machine-like.
Now that I think about it, I never took into consideration morality. Perhaps
the major flaw in my argument is that I assume the free agent is amoral, and
machine is moral. My assumptions came directly from what we see in the movie.
However, this isn't true because I suppose there can exist a moral free agent
and an amoral machine, right? An amoral machine would simply be a machine
who's been conditioned to act "badly."
AHAA! So now we're back to your prof's original question: did Alex just simply
begin as an amoral machine who became a moral machine?
Definitely, machine must be clearly defined. In MY mind, I kind of think of a
machine as having no consciousness, and free agents having conscious. I have a
feeling there's some flaw in THAT thinking...
For now, let's ignore the idea of consciousness. I agree that everything in
nature is biologically programmed. So let's talk about some basic desires that
are programmed in humans. We desire food, and we desire to procreate. So we
are programmed to want to eat, and the society/culture we live in can
influence what we eat to an extent. However, we can still choose what we eat,
when to eat it, and how we eat. In this context a case can be made for
freewill. I'll argue that we lose our freewill when we are forced what, when,
and how to eat.
So with that argument, I have to agree with you that after the procedure Alex
lost his freewill because he could not ACT on his desires.
I honestly don't know what a world would be like if it's totally free. When
people talk about freewill, they tend to associate it with randomness. And
that's why I think a society of free agents seems to be associated with
anarchy. But is this really true? I think within the fabric of order there can
exist a bit of chaos, and even vice versa.
Henry