Please rationally support this decision

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't say "instinct" for concept formation, I'd say physical brain structure. Concept formation is instinct is not the same as instinct is concept formation. The first supposes, the second deposes except the second is empty to begin with so it doesn't follow. "Instinct" only exists as a circularity in any statement that assumes it in any way--that is, that there is concept formation doesn't mean there is an instinct for it. Just the brain is enough.

--Brant

if it's a quest to find "Instinct" here's a coin and a loaf of bread and my good wishes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I'm talking about automatic survival behavior.

A bird flies. We call that instinct. It can fly into a window and die and we would still call flying an instinct, even though Rand called an instinct: "... an unerring and automatic form of knowledge." (Galt's speech.)

A human brain integrates concepts because it can't not do it. That action qua action has to be different and cannot be called instinct. Why? Because Rand said so?

That's not enough reason for my thinking.

Or how's this one? A baby learns to walk. According to Rand, this is because of the tabula rasa thing and learning is voluntary. Well, try to get a baby to not learn to walk. Just as a bird flies by instinct, a baby learns to walk by instinct. It takes longer, but learning to walk cannot be stopped by the baby. Is that automatic development "knowledge"? I say it is. It's just knowledge that takes time to unfold--to grow as it were.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This is war.

[anthony]

No, rather than being concrete-bound, my approach is to require that ideas be derived from actual data rather than exist, in Rand's words, as "floating abstractions" or in another writer's words "a theory in search of a reality."

----

I have never trivialized evil. Rather, my position is that opposition to evil does not follow logically from the basic premises of Rand's ethics.

----

I agree that a "principle is integrated from many observations," and accordingly it is not from a few but many observations that I've concluded that Rand is in error in saying that the predator's "price of destruction [is] the destruction of their victims and their own."

----

Of course, there is a connection between fact and value. However, the existence of that connection does not form a bridge from Rand's egoistic premises to her position on respecting rights.

----

There has been no misrepresentation of Ayn Rand. I never claimed that she endorses a prudent predator. All along my position has been that the rights-respecting conclusions she reaches (and that I concur with) do not follow seamlessly from her early premises.

Your puzzled misinterpretation will continue as long as you begin with 'ownership' (of self and property) as the justification for rights. As I said, that's the end of the process, not the start. The 'start' is that a man is fundamentally solitary, a single organism; with no instincts, he must select what is good for his existence; with a non-automated mind he must volitionally bring it to bear on reality to accomplsh it; with a consciousness which is not transferable or supernaturally advised, it is his entire efforts of mind and body that lead him to live and thrive and gain values and ownership. Property, iow.

The predator or tyrant comes along and interrupts that independent process (of "self-sustaining and self-generating action") taking for himself the individual's products or his freedom to act - metaphorically, the equivalent of pinning the wings of an eagle, or crippling a gazelle.

Being a "fundamentally solitary," "organism; with no instincts" with "a non-automated mind" and a "consciousness which is not transferable" does not provide a set a reasons why any man must regard another man's life and property as off limits. It doesn't move us from egoism to constrained egoism.

If a hungry man may roast the leg of a lamb, why may he not pin the wings of an eagle or cripple a gazelle?

As for your doubt of "...a bridge from Rand's egoistic premises to her position on respecting rights" - she explained:

"Rights are a moral concept--the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationships with others--the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of society, between ethics and politics.

In other words, Rand provided the logical transition by simply saying there is a logical transition rather than showing it.

Well...I suppose one could always say: all that stuff I base my rational and selfish morality on, everything about the metaphysical nature of man and man's life as the standard of value--you know what, it was all formulated for me, just me. "Man" equals myself. Rights ["individual morality in a social context"!] are for me alone.

Subjectivism and solipsism, anyone?

But it's not individual rights that bestows rational morality on a man, it is the rationality of men that demands such rights.

[moralist]

Michael writes:

Man does have instincts and a largely automated mind. He also has conceptual volition sitting on top of them. It's not either-or.

That's the defining characteristic of a man:

The ability to choose to act contrary to our thoughts and emotions.

Greg

[anthony]

Your puzzled misinterpretation will continue as long as you begin with 'ownership' (of self and property) as the justification for rights. As I said, that's the end of the process, not the start. The 'start' is that a man is fundamentally solitary, a single organism; with no instincts, he must select what is good for his existence; with a non-automated mind...

Tony,

If one wanted to question Rand's premises, here, in my view, is the place to start.

Man does have instincts and a largely automated mind. He also has conceptual volition sitting on top of them. It's not either-or.

I think the confusion in philosophy (Rand actually got her tabula rasa idea from Locke and maybe some others) comes from an evolutionary thing. A fully developed brain does not come out of the vagina at birth. If it were fully developed (as in other species), it would be too large to pass through.

This is the main reason a human infant has such a long dependency stage. Its brain is literally growing. The gradual growth of the cortex only stops in the early 20's.

This gives an impression that man has no instincts, but brain growth happens irrespective of experience. And with growth some instincts emerge along with modifications from experience and volition. You simply cannot stop growing to fit an assumption.

By analogy, one can look at a tree seed and say it has no branches or leaves. But plant the seed and let it grow and there is no way to stop branches and leaves from appearing. Or one can look at the sprout and say there is no fruit. But let it grow and there is no way to stop the fruit from appearing. It does not matter which direction the tree grows to get the most sunlight and rain, or how many or few leaves develop. They will appear.

As to the automated part of the brain, the prefrontal neocortex (which holds the volition part of the mind) can process about 40 sensory inputs per second. The rest of the brain does between 11 million and 19 million depending on who you read. That's a hell of a disparity for the non-automation argument.

I believe Rand overreached on the either-or front. It's not either-or. It's both volition and instincts.

But once again, I do not agree she developed her reasoning from the survival premise by "wish fulfillment." In fact, if you remove the either-or scope issue, her reasoning for a more restricted application is not only sound, it is insightful.

Michael

Michael,

I think it's critical to separate "instincts" from "emotions". Sometimes one seems like the other. For instance, I long made the mistake of perceiving the fight-or-flight 'instinct', as an instinct, when actually it is an emotion, fear, which prompts an automatic response--and self-protective action. But the capacity to fear - and WHAT to fear - had to come about somehow in reality, previously. Similarly, I thought of racism and bigotry as -partially- 'inherited instincts' from our ancestors' tribal fear, suspicion and hatred of anyone dissimilar.

This is just untrue to my thinking now.

"Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious".

In other words, an infant or man must have experienced - or been impressed upon - internalized and learned, that a specific existent or person IS a threat or to be despised. (Emotions).

So, an emotion cannot occur without preceding 'identification' (often by authority figures), of one kind or another. Emotion responds to cognition. All my understanding of children is that they have no fear until they are taught it. (Or literally, burned their fingers). There are too many examples of kids responding to dangerous animals and situations calmly or playfully. Or being completely unaware of other kids' ethnicities.

"An instinct of self-preservation is exactly what man does not possess. An instinct is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge."

I don't know enough about an animal-human's physical growth, learning to walk, etc., and like simple reflexes (suckling), I suppose that ambulatory skill is instinctual. As the infant's body (in utero too) grows and expands, it constantly tests its limits of movement, reach and strength, I suspect. If that's automatic, then one definitely could say it is instinctual. Apart from this, I'd be hard pressed to name any 'instinct' that man possesses.

And it has no contradiction whatever, only supports, Rand and 'Tabula rasa': "Man is born with an emotional mechanism just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism, but at birth both are tabula rasa".

The implication is enormous of course. Man's so-called 'worst instincts' are not built -in. They are emotional knee-jerk responses, 'learned' (copied) and further self-justified by later false, irrational and immoral identifications - value judgments.

[Brant Gaede]

What emotions are is one thing as experienced. What goes into them and why is up in the air regardless of Rand's explanation. "Fight or flight" is one thing, what other label to put on it is another and likely worthless. "Instinct"--what is it? How is it experienced? Is it something you feel? Most of this theorectical stuff is up in the air of no practical use except, maybe, for thinking. Hard to get practicality out of mere thinking. As for thinking, think about why one should take Rand as an authority on what an emotion or instinct is. Etc.

--Brant

[anthony]

Au contraire, realising instinct and emotion has nothing but practical and important use, Brant. And I don't any longer put myself, my thinking and observations through Rand's thinking, but increasingly the reverse. If I'd learned her philosophy properly and understood it better when young, I'd have got to this point earlier.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

I no longer frame my thinking about emotions, instincts, etc., in the terms you use. I used to, but no longer.

If you want to have a very eye-opening read, one that is easy and even fun for the layperson, check this out:

Meet Your Happy Chemicals: Dopamine, Endorphin, Oxytocin, Serotonin by Loretta Graziano Breuning

I read it. This is a great book.

Warning. This is a path of no return.

If you read this, you will never think the same way again about instincts and emotions. Once you think it, you cannot unthink it.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

Before I read it, I have to put in a few thoughts about the physical cause of emotions. Basically, we are either slaves of physical actions in our brains, or we are (and can be) in charge.

The 'pleasure-pain mechanism' surely has to come about by material causes - a flood of chemicals (as I simplistically put it) isn't contradictory to what one introspects about one's emotions - or Rand on the topic.

However, it is the cause and effect on the subconscious that remains: the recollection of pain or pleasure, and what action-thought initiates either of them.

That's the important part.

The evolution of these brain chemicals was obviously all to do with an animal's survival.

Along the way, man's mind and its necessary adherence to reality (lacking innate survival instincts) must have developed a more sophisticated mechanism - very accurately 'informing' him of his smallest evasion - or his fidelity - to reality. Good, now it's known: by way of chemicals in the brain and their effect on the subconscious.

"Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious", - in other words, stays true and uncontradicted.

But now we know how it happens and how the 'mechanism' works.

If (e.g.) a person feels pleasure - physically manifested by a rush of endorphins - at another person's suffering, it's not the fault of chemicals. it's an improper and irrational emotion by that person, according to his prior, screwed-up values. He has to check his premises.

(Not his chemicals )

I'm sure I'll learn something new from your link, but fundamentally It will take a lot to change my mind!

[moralist]

Tony writes: Basically, we are either slaves of physical actions in our brains, or we are (and can be) in charge.

Bullseye!

There are only TWO states of being.

1. Inside thought... slaves to it as if thought was the totality of our being.

2. Outside thought... calmly and rationally observing thought while silently assessing each one as being worthy or not worthy of our action.

Emotions are only by-products of being immersed in thought, so if we become masters of our thoughts, we will also be masters of our emotions.

The #1 state is the biggest obstacle for intellectuals and academics, as they take pride in their intelligence and see themselves as god creators of thought in their minds, and so they spend most of their time immersed in the subjective virtuality of thought, rather than the objective reality of the world. For as long as they believe the lie that they are the god creator of thought, how could they possibly choose to act against themselves if the chemical brain is the totality of their being?

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Au contraire, realising instinct and emotion has nothing but practical and important use, Brant.

If you would elaborate just a little, Tony--it would be helpful.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Basically, we are either slaves of physical actions in our brains, or we are (and can be) in charge.

 

Tony,

 

Really?

 

It's either-or?

 

Why?

 

Because you say so? Rand said so? Someone else said so?

 

Why can't it be both?

 

In simple fact, when we look and forget what the "said so" people have said, it is both. I, for one, will not deny my eyes what they see.

 

Our experience comes in waves, not straight lines. We are both awake and asleep. That does not mean we are always awake or always asleep. Sometimes we are in one state, sometimes in the other, and most often (for most of us) somewhere in between.

 

In our minds, sometimes we are slave and sometimes we are master. That's just the way our minds are made. The innate part is where we are slave. Neuroplasticity is where we are master--if we want to be. And that's merely one effect of volition. However, it will never be one or the other, slave or master, so long as volition exists in the brain. It will always be both.

 

If you ignore the slave part, it will inevitably become the master of the part you can be master of. Far better to understand the slave part and work with it. As Rand was always proclaiming, nature to be commanded must be obeyed. That also applies to the mind.

 

Take a look at the following video to see a really wicked example of using both slave and master in marketing. Of working with both instead of against them or ignoring the existence of one or the other.

 

Or--best of all--not wicked if you use this stuff for good. You can't deny how massively effective it is, though. Not with the current evidence all around us. And it is based on us being both slave and master of our emotions and habits. 

 

 

Michael

[anthony]

Au contraire, realising instinct and emotion has nothing but practical and important use, Brant.

If you would elaborate just a little, Tony--it would be helpful.

--Brant

At bottom, it is and must be a tight relationship between value judgment and corresponding emotion.

That's really my only point, to esteem one's emotions and keep them close and understood, as much as possible.

At bottom, an emotion may be a painful warning to correct one's view or judgments, or a pleasure and reward in itself. From there onto lesser levels, of course emotions get more complicated and various. Which doesn't negate the basic truth, emotions faithfully follow thought, value and acts.

'Instinctive behavior' in people or justifying one's own acts by it, is simply a cop-out for individuals to avoid thought or the consequences of their acts. Ultimately, there aren't automated 'human instincts', it's all learned or imitated behavior and response.

[anthony]

Basically, we are either slaves of physical actions in our brains, or we are (and can be) in charge.

Tony,

Really?

It's either-or?

Why?

Because you say so? Rand said so? Someone else said so?

No, I seldom argue "either-or", I like to discuss the fundaments - which carries the implication of lesser levels in hierarchy. This is the case now. If one begins with all these factors working upon and within our brains (the "lesser levels") one will certainly lose sight of what can be done and what should be done with human consciousness, I believe. But start with the basics and the rest fits in place, without any contradiction I can see.

Scientific knowledge of the brain tells us the 'what', epistemology tells us the 'how' and pre-dates the former.

If, as this thread began, a prudent predator can gain something by any means - then what's to stop him doing so, in his "self-interest"?

Why not ? - because we pay dearly with our emotional state: In a fairly moral person, his emotions would not let him enjoy (in fact, he'd react with appropriate misery) what he didn't earn, by stealing what someone else did earn.

At this point is the (fundamental) question of who is "in charge?"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At this point is the (fundamental) question of who is "in charge?"

Tony,

I disagree. This is like asking what is more fundamental, the liver or the heart?

Which one is in charge of keeping the body alive?

Which one can you live without?

I, for one, need both of mine. I'm a goner without either.

I see the fundamental problem (one of the main ones in O-Land) as an irrational need to establish a single fundament in ALL THINGS irrespective of what the thing is, the context or observations to the contrary.

Where hierarchy can be observed, there is hierarchy. I'm fully on board with that. I hold it is a mistake to impose hierarchical thinking where a hierarchy cannot be observed.

Existence as a whole is not linear. It also branches. Nets and so on.

In fact, concept formation itself is not linear, albeit one can get that impression from ITOE. But even Rand does not start with axiomatic concepts. She relegated that particular discussion to Chapter 6 and called axiomatic concepts higher-level concepts, even though in linear thinking, they would be the fundament. I have seen many discussions that represent Rand's thinking as if axiomatic concepts are the root of epistemology. And this is wrong.

They are not the fundament of epistemology.

If any single thing is, observation is. But I believe a series of components have to be present and interacting with each other. If any one of them are missing, like the liver and heart with the body, rational epistemology collapses.

For the mind, instead of asking who is in charge as if there were some kind of war between the conscious and unconscious, it would be far better to ask at what time the prefontal neocortex is in charge and what time the components of what is called the lizard brain (and mammalian brain) are in charge.

For example, learn what an emotional hijack really is (when the amygdala goes apeshit).

Who's in charge then?

I actually envy you your upcoming education in neuroscience and modern psychology should you decide to delve into it. I, myself, resisted at first and clung hard to ideas like "pre-dates the former," as if there were a reason this should be a standard other than historical.

I could not deny the facts for long, though. At one point, suddenly the world opened its doors to a magnificent view of the universe.

I can understand my mind!

Instead of being diminished by recognizing the limitations of volition I previously denied, I became empowered. I now know with certainty that the volition left over is a causal agent. And I can make it grow.

What's more, it needs no rationalizations to explain the funky parts when they don't fit.

By allowing that it is less than I previously thought, and by making room for time, experience in waves, and the massive nonvolitional part of the brain, it's actually more.

Here's a visual for an analogy. Imagine the prefontal neocortex is a person sitting on an elephant, and the elephant is the rest of the brain. (The disparity is actually far, far larger--something like 11 million to 40, or 275,000 to 1, but this serves in a clunky sort of way.)

Who's in charge?

Where do the elephant and rider go?

Sometimes where the rider wants to go. Sometimes where the elephant wants to go. One thing is for sure. For the rider to get the elephant to go anywhere, the rider needs to communicate with the elephant in terms the elephant understands. And even then, he will not always get the elephant to obey.

And if the rider gets distracted or too tired to command, what happens? Obviously, the elephant will go where the elephant wants to go.

What's more, if there is a serious disagreement between rider and elephant on where to go, which one do you think is going to win?

That's just simple physics. The biggest one wins.

The point is neither is 100% in charge. They alternate and there are contexts. Both have their own natures and, as Rand kept saying, nature to be commanded must be obeyed.

That especially goes for the elephant's nature if you only think of yourself as the rider.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael: "I can understand my mind!"

Well, are you insane?

--Brant

curious

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael: "I can understand my mind!"

Well, are you insane?

--Brant

curious

Brant,

It gets worse. Far, far, far worse...

You have no idea...

But I ain't telling...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Clown alert! Clown alert! Clown alert!