nucleation

CLAIM-487: Describing the relations that decide which regime becomes effective as one will-organization, across realizers, explains something that planning theory, control theory, executive-control research and institutional theory each describing their own realizer does not

1 min read

Properties10
StatusProposed
Rolethesis
Warrantinterpretive
Tagsagency, philosophy-of-science
Linewill-organization
Worksorganization-of-will
Bears onQUESTION-056 — When the mechanisms composing a will-organization are described by control theory and executive-control research, does that description implement the will-organization account or replace it, and what result would show the agent-level description had become idle?
Rests onCLAIM-027 — Which of an agent's available regimes becomes effective depends on maintained relations — accessibility, precedence, persistence, jurisdiction, suspension and transformation — that are not reducible to the contents of the competing regimes, whatever mechanisms realize them
ComplementsCLAIM-021 — The mechanisms composing a will-organization are not novel, CLAIM-159 — The record's rival accounts of will are claims about drive profiles in different cells: Ainslie's interests are aggregate or emergent, the expected value of control is top-down, and will-organization is the maintained organization that governs how the drive profile changes
Cited as “objects to” byCLAIM-024 — Nothing here is new but a question: planning theory, control theory, executive control and institutional theory already study every mechanism the account names, and where the account has been set beside the expected value of control and Ainslie's interests it differs only in asking what governs how the driver changes rather than who drives, a question those mechanisms may answer without it

Graph View

The claim

The paper concedes the mechanisms (CLAIM-021): “We do not claim that the individual mechanisms composing a will-organization are novel.” What it claims instead is a common explanatory role across realizers, and it sets its own standard: “If no such explanatory gain exists, the concept should not be retained merely as a new label.” This claim is that gain.

CLAIM-027 says which regime becomes effective depends on maintained relations not reducible to the regimes’ contents. That can be true whatever the description is worth. This claim says the description is worth something: one account of those relations, across a person, a team and an institution, explains what four fields each describing their own realizer do not.

Why it is Proposed

The comparison the paper owes is not made. CLAIM-159 places will-organization beside the expected value of control and Ainslie’s interests, as a claim about what governs how the drive profile changes. That covers executive control and one theory of resolve. The comparison with planning theory and with institutional theory is not made. CLAIM-024 objects to this claim, and QUESTION-056 asks what result would show the agent-level description idle.

Backlinks