Another view of Leonard Peikoff


Paul Mawdsley

Recommended Posts

Roger,

Two questions.

Do you consider metaphysics limited to the five senses only?

This is not a trick question. When you say "non-physical," do you mean other reality, or do you mean not perceivable by the five senses? In other words, do you find it plausible that something physical can exist that the five senses cannot detect, or do you think that is an impossibility?

Now, if you limit reality only to man's five senses, don't you think there should be some kind of confirmation of this other than merely stating this is the case? I personally have seen too much evidence that there is more to dismiss it (starting with volition). I would go against my own mind if I denied that. And I consider this slice of reality might be physical in one aspect: it definitely exists, but my perception of it might be weak due to an undeveloped sense organ.

We can start with "mind" as something I am talking about. Please note that I am not saying either-or (the mind as a floating spirit without the rest of its support). That would be a caricature. One does not deny the blue color of the candy because it has a sweet taste, nor claim that blue is floating around somewhere divorced from the candy. Yet many things can be blue.

I am also unsure about another position of yours (the second question).

In your view, is the human mind (conceptual volition) a causal agent or not?

I know you are some kind of determinist.

btw - I fully endorse The Act of Creation.

Michael

I do not understand your first sentence. It makes no sense to me. I didn't know that "the five senses" were part of metaphysics.

If metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality, then surely it boils down to the Law of Identity and its corollaries. Existence is primary and there could have been (and still could be) a universe without consciousness (things that are conscious). But there cannot be a universe without existence (things that exist).

If you mean: do I limit our means of direct knowledge to the five senses? Then my answer is no. I regard introspection as a means of direct knowledge of what is going on inside our heads. I regard enteroception as a means of direct knowledge of what is going on inside our bodies (as in sensations of internal pain, imbalance, hunger, etc.). Beyond this, of course, there is all of our conceptual knowledge, both outward- and inward-looking.

But just focusing on direct knowledge, I'd say it is limited to that for which we have sensitive receptor cells somewhere in our bodies, whether on the periphery (as the five senses) or internally in the body generally (for enteroception) or in the brain (for introspection).

Direct knowledge all works by means of streams of energy received by these receptor cells and then integrated by the brain. It's how we introspective view in "real time" what we are imagining or thinking. We are ~monitoring~ these processes by means of the energy they emit and the receptor cells in our brains that receive those patterned emissions.

Neurologists have even pinpointed the kind of brain cells ("spindle cells") that function in this way and the point in a child's early years when the cells develop, allowing self-awareness. So, it is not just some speculative bad dream I am trying to foist off on unsuspecting Objectivists. :devil:

Your second question: again, I don't know what you mean by some of your terminology. "Conceptual volition"?? Is there any other kind?

What do ~you~ mean by "causal agent"? An entity, right? Is there any ~other~ kind of causal agent? Didn't Rand, Branden, and Peikoff drill into us the Aristotelian view that entities cause actions? Entities are causal agents.

That being so, is mind an entity? Well, again, you tell me! The standard Objectivist view is that mind is an attribute of an entity, not an entity. Mind is the power we have to engage in conceptual thought. ~We~, human beings, are the causal agents. It is ~we~ who do things by virtue of our having certain powers -- including mind -- to do them. But as Aristotle pointed out in De Anima, it is very misleading to say that mind ("soul") does things. Instead, it is human beings ~by virtue of mind/soul~ that do things.

There is ~another~ Objectivist view of mind lurking here and there, even in the writings of Rand, Branden, and Peikoff. They sometimes refer to mind as an entity, "organ," etc. Yet, this is very infrequent, compared to their calling mind an attribute.

Rand frequently compares consciousness to digestion. Obviously digestion is not an entity or an organ. It is a power of certain organs (in the digestive system) to carry out certain processes -- and it is those processes (of digesting food). We refer to digestion in both ways, as power/attribute and process. And that's fine. But we should use the same way of thinking and speaking about consciousness. Consciousness is the power of certain organs (in the nervous system), especially the brain, to carry out certain processes -- and it is those processes (of being aware of reality).

The brain (etc.) is the causal agent carrying out conscious processes, just as the stomach (etc.) is the causal agent carrying out digestive processes. As for my actions, including deliberate choices and movements, ~I~ carry those out, aided by my physical organs, which carry out the processes that enable those choices and movements. I am the overall causal agent, and I act by means of my organs, which in turn function by virtue of their powers. Consciousness/mind is a power by virtue of which my brain functions and enables me to engage in actions.

There -- I hope that answers your question. No, mind is ~not~ a causal agent. Not on the standard Objectivist view that regards mind as an attribute. Objectivists are being illogical when they speak that way.

If you want to embrace ~my~ Neo-Objectivist position that holds that mind ~is~ the brain (or a part of it), then yes, mind/brain has causal power. But again, it is ~I~ the human being that have causal ~agency~. I am the agent. I am "the decider." I am the apex of the hierarchy. The mind/brain is a holon within the hierarchy, as is the stomach, heart, etc. It is all part of the functional infrastructure by means of which ~I~ act and am the causal agent.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I do not know how to discuss anything with comments like these:

What do ~you~ mean by "causal agent"? An entity, right? Is there any ~other~ kind of causal agent? Didn't Rand, Branden, and Peikoff drill into us the Aristotelian view that entities cause actions? Entities are causal agents.

I have stated several times that I believe holons to be causal agents in addition to entities. That is not an Objectivist premise, but one of my own. When you ask me, like you did just now, "Is there any other kind of causal agent?" I respond, "Why yes. Holons. Like I said. Several times already."

(I can provide several links if you like.)

Kidneys cause certain things to happen, for instance, that no other things cause to happen. I am interested in identifying top-down principles in addition to bottom-up ones. I believe recognizing holons, or whatever you want to call a complete system within a larger system, as causal agents is one such principle.

(And I believe the nature of the organizing process in the universe is a form-creating causal agent, sort of like a magnet with metal particles, but that is another matter. In other words, emergence from the bottom is not the only form-creating causal agent. Attraction, for lack of a better word, is another.)

That being so, is mind an entity? Well, again, you tell me!

Actually I have told you. Several times. I said specifically several times that the mind is not an entity. It is an existent. I have called it a holon. I have now (and recently) corrected Paul and William on this and complained that I do not understand why this mistake keeps getting made. Yet it keeps getting made and you just did it.

I am very interested in these ideas, but I do not want to keep repeating myself like I have been doing. My mind starts wandering when that happens. My interest is in exploring and developing the actual ideas, not in the social process of constantly repeating things to correct misattributions in order to maintain dialog. My attention span requires elementary understanding of statements to be on the table.

I will try to get to your other comments a little later.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

This sounds impressive, but let's examine both points a little more closely:

1) The latter first: Philosophy's role is to make sure scientists obey the rules of logic. Errr...we need philosophers for this? Shouldn't this properly be logicians? And isn't logic a set of rules that apply to everyone's arguments, including philosophers? Don't scientists point out logical flaws in each other's theories all the time? Can't anyone - scientist, economist, philosopher, whatever - potentially point out a logical flaw in a scientific theory? Can't they do the same in a philosophic theory?

2) Now the former: Philosophy's role is to make sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology. I'm not sure if Nick means the same thing as Ayn Rand did when she made similar pronouncements in the ITOE (I will get the quote and page later), but all that boiled down to in practice is that philosophers would tell scientists what words mean. Now this is hardly a very important job; in fact all that is required is a dictionary.

Thus on examination it seems that according to the Randian schema at least, the philosopher's role can be easily replaced by giving scientists a basic logic text and a dictionary. Job's done :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

This sounds impressive, but let's examine both points a little more closely:

1) The latter first: Philosophy's role is to make sure scientists obey the rules of logic. Errr...we need philosophers for this? Shouldn't this properly be logicians? And isn't logic a set of rules that apply to everyone's arguments, including philosophers? Don't scientists point out logical flaws in each other's theories all the time? Can't anyone - scientist, economist, philosopher, whatever - potentially point out a logical flaw in a scientific theory? Can't they do the same in a philosophic theory?

2) Now the former: Philosophy's role is to make sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology. I'm not sure if Nick means the same thing as Ayn Rand did when she made similar pronouncements in the ITOE (I will get the quote and page later), but all that boiled down to in practice is that philosophers would tell scientists what words mean. Now this is hardly a very important job; in fact all that is required is a dictionary.

Thus on examination it seems that according to the Randian schema at least, the philosopher's role can be easily replaced by giving scientists a basic logic text and a dictionary. Job's done :) .

The scientific method and scientific methodology is unto science. The role of philosophy is to let scientists be scientists without shooting them or each other and to afirm and reaffirm that the context is reality, not an old invisible man and angels in the sky. However, science's ultimate validation is stuff that works.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr...we need philosophers for this? Shouldn't this properly be logicians? And isn't logic a set of rules that apply to everyone's arguments, including philosophers?

Daniel,

This is what happens when you do not use hierarchy in organizing your knowledge. Logic is a branch of philosophy (falling under epistemology).

Your question makes as much sense as asking why we need cooks and shouldn't we call the bakers instead.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you do not use hierarchy in organizing your knowledge. Logic is a branch of philosophy (falling under epistemology).

Your question makes as much sense as asking why we need cooks and shouldn't we call the bakers instead.

No, this is what happens when you call everything a branch of philosophy. :)

Anyone can use logic to criticise scientific arguments, Michael. Not just "philosophers." In fact, anyone can use it to criticise any kind of argument. This is one of logic's greatest merits: it is an objective system.

So if anyone can do it, why is it a role just for "philosophers"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

I am going to try to go real slow.

A baker is a type of cook. Learning how to bake is a form of learning how to cook. Cooking is the broad category. Baking is the more restricted category. It falls under the broad category of food preparation (i.e., cooking), but it is more restricted because it only deals with one kind of food whereas cooking deals with all kinds of food.

A logician is a type of philosopher. Learning how to use logic is a form of learning how to apply philosophy. Logic is the more restricted category. It falls under the broad category of system of meaning and knowledge about existence (i.e., philosophy), but it is more restricted because it only deals with one kind of meaning and knowledge whereas philosophy deals with all areas of meaning and knowledge .

This isn't rocket science.

If you don't agree that logic is a branch of philosophy, or belongs to the discipline of epistemology, do carry on. I have to do other stuff and this is way too elementary.

btw - Neither I, nor anyone I know of, ever claimed that logic is "a role just for 'philosophers.'" Anyone can use philosophy just like anyone can use science. Anyone can use logic, not just logicians. Knowledge is knowledge. Knowledge is not people. Philosophy is a kind of knowledge. It is the branch of knowledge that sets the rules for how logic works. This is more elementary stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that "pure logic". ie. 2-valued, true/false assertions etc, would be a branch of mathematics since this is the only place it works.

Two valued Boolean logic is also the logic of your computer (and mine). Look up NOR and NAND gates.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic in philosophy is fine. So is reason. Necessary, of course. Once incorporated into science, science becomes philosophy to that extent. Actually, ~science~ becomes science. Once the pump is primed the water keeps flowing.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two valued Boolean logic is also the logic of your computer (and mine). Look up NOR and NAND gates.

Yes, but computers don't always work because they are physical devices.

Quite so. I should have said two valued Boolean logic is the -grundlagen- (basis) of the design for conventional (von Neuman) computers. If quantum computers can ever be gotten to work they will have a different -grundlagen-.

The main point is that two valued logic is as much an applied discipline as it is a theoretical discipline. I guess that is the real point I wanted to make.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point is that two valued logic is as much an applied discipline as it is a theoretical discipline. I guess that is the real point I wanted to make.

I maintain that in the realm of mathematics it works absolutely but the moment it is applied then it is not mathematics anymore and it only works relatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

Nick,

That's one hell of a good quote.

Michael

Too bad that it is dead wrong. It is experiment that falsifies wrong theories, not philosophical disputes and discourses. Serious scientists gave up on philosophy (metaphysics) over a hundred years ago. The only branch of philosophy that has any relevance for science is critical epistemology. The philosopher that has had the most influence on science in the last fifty years is Karl Popper.

In teaching of science, particularly physics, Aristotle's works on matter and motion are used as an example of how NOT to do science. Aristotle got almost everything wrong. Why? He hardly ever checked. Aristotle never properly developed the experimental method.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al

Attacking Aristotle for not developing scientific methods is like attacking Newton for not developing the theory of relativity. You're reading history backwards. Aristotle did a tremendous amount. Criticising him for what he didn't do, or for mistakes made 2000 years before modern science began, is plainly unjust, and that's saying the bare minimum.

Aristotle had a very clear idea of the gradual growth of science: "While no one person can grasp truth adequately, we cannot all fail in the attempt. Each thinker makes some statement about nature, and as an individual contributes little or nothing to the inquiry. But the combination of all the conjectures results in something big.... It is only fair to be grateful not only to those whose views we can share, but also to those who have gone pretty far wrong in their guesses. They too have contributed something: by their preliminary work they have helped to form our scientific way of thinking."

Earlier you attacked Aristotle's cosmology and linked him to the Inquisition. That is equally unjust. Galileo was up against the vast and cruel tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church, not against Aristotle. If Aristotle had had a telescope he'd have done Galileo's job for him. His curiosity was insatiable.

As for Popper, he had no influence on science per se. All he did was to distract a few scientists with his pretended epistemology and inflame the mysticism of men like Eccles with his idealism. That said, one has to admire Popper's persistence. He flogged a dead horse for about seventy years.

Nicholas Dykes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand was a top-down thinker and the algebra comparison with concept formation works from that perspective. It doesn't work from bottom-up.

In other words, from top down, a concept is like a file (or algebraic symbol) that indicates an existent which has observable similarities with other existents, i.e., a category indicating countless existents of the same type. No matter how many new facts are discovered about that existent, the category will continue unaltered.

From the bottom up, new facts engender a new way of observing the nature of an existent. No one symbol, except something so vague it is meaningless, can indicate that flux.

To use an example discussed in depth elsewhere on OL, an observable characteristic of ice is that it floats. But floating is not the only thing a person observes when he first encounters ice and wants to identify it. It is merely one of the main things. From the top down, he makes a category, "ice" and includes floating as one of the ways to identify that category among all the other stuff he observed. Then a rare form of ice is discovered that does not float. Here we have a problem.

From the top down, the category "ice" still continues unaltered and it still means that hard cold stuff we all use in our drinks on up to highly technical subatomic breakdowns on a scientific level. The fact that some form of ice does not float is added to the information in the category, which if verbalized, gets changed to "mostly floats" or something like that. The category for the referent "ice" that the person encounters in reality is what is called open-ended.

From the bottom up, the idea of non-floating ice destroys the category because it falsifies the proposition that all ice floats with one instance. From the bottom up, "ice" does not correspond to a general category we all can observe, but a very specific proposition. And there are countless propositions since there are countless facts. If one tried to keep them all in his head at one time, he would fail.

The way the bottom-up thinker gets around this is to do as Popper suggests and claim that words have vague meanings but are useful. The top-down thinker looks at that kind of approach and, if he is of a nature like Rand's, considers this an attack against thinking in entities and categories. But it isn't an attack. It is refusal to observe the same thing from a different perspective (whether intentional or not), except when not doing so becomes so absurd the bottom-up thinker has to make some kind of allowance in order to be taken seriously. (The proclamation that "all words are vague" serves this purpose well.)

Those who are overly-critical of Rand's theory of concepts do not look at reality from the top down. Rand's main thing was identifying reality starting with observing entities, not the parts. Some people just don't think in terms of entities and they stumble when trying to understand Rand, just as she stumbled on trying to understand them (and started calling them evil and whatnot).

A thinker interested in understanding reality and not just entertaining a pet theory tries to see things from all angles (using sight as a metaphor for sensory, perceptual and conceptual awareness). He knows he is not omniscient, so he needs to move his focus around to get a complete picture of something in reality. And he knows that reality does not exist only from one static viewpoint of the observer. He knows that all things can be seen at different angles and that he has the capacity of moving, so he uses it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attacking Aristotle for not developing scientific methods is like attacking Newton for not developing the theory of relativity. You're reading history backwards. Aristotle did a tremendous amount. Criticising him for what he didn't do, or for mistakes made 2000 years before modern science began, is plainly unjust, and that's saying the bare minimum.

Aristotle had a very clear idea of the gradual growth of science: "While no one person can grasp truth adequately, we cannot all fail in the attempt. Each thinker makes some statement about nature, and as an individual contributes little or nothing to the inquiry. But the combination of all the conjectures results in something big. ... It is only fair to be grateful not only to those whose views we can share, but also to those who have gone pretty far wrong in their guesses. They too have contributed something: by their preliminary work they have helped to form our scientific way of thinking."

Earlier you attacked Aristotle's cosmology and linked him to the Inquisition. That is equally unjust. Galileo was up against the vast and cruel tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church, not against Aristotle. If Aristotle had had a telescope he'd have done Galileo's job for him. His curiosity was insatiable. [...]

For a third of a century I've been looking for a pithy reply, of about this length, to the simplistic Aristotle-bashers among us.

(By "us," I mean the philosophic communities I've been a part of more generally, in and out of college, and not just Objectivists. Though I've seen a surprising number of same among O's and hangers-on.)

You've provided this for me. Thank you! And from where are you quoting Aristotle, in what appears to be a livelier translation than I've ever seen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I do not know how to discuss anything with comments like these:

What do ~you~ mean by "causal agent"? An entity, right? Is there any ~other~ kind of causal agent? Didn't Rand, Branden, and Peikoff drill into us the Aristotelian view that entities cause actions? Entities are causal agents.

I have stated several times that I believe holons to be causal agents in addition to entities. That is not an Objectivist premise, but one of my own. When you ask me, like you did just now, "Is there any other kind of causal agent?" I respond, "Why yes. Holons. Like I said. Several times already."

(I can provide several links if you like.)

Kidneys cause certain things to happen, for instance, that no other things cause to happen. I am interested in identifying top-down principles in addition to bottom-up ones. I believe recognizing holons, or whatever you want to call a complete system within a larger system, as causal agents is one such principle.

(And I believe the nature of the organizing process in the universe is a form-creating causal agent, sort of like a magnet with metal particles, but that is another matter. In other words, emergence from the bottom is not the only form-creating causal agent. Attraction, for lack of a better word, is another.)

That being so, is mind an entity? Well, again, you tell me!

Actually I have told you. Several times. I said specifically several times that the mind is not an entity. It is an existent. I have called it a holon. I have now (and recently) corrected Paul and William on this and complained that I do not understand why this mistake keeps getting made. Yet it keeps getting made and you just did it.

I am very interested in these ideas, but I do not want to keep repeating myself like I have been doing. My mind starts wandering when that happens. My interest is in exploring and developing the actual ideas, not in the social process of constantly repeating things to correct misattributions in order to maintain dialog. My attention span requires elementary understanding of statements to be on the table.

I will try to get to your other comments a little later.

Michael

Whenever you wish to comment will be fine. I'm sorry that this process has been stressful for you. I thought that I ~had~ been "exploring and developing the actual ideas." But I had not noticed a difference in "mind-wandering" symptoms between your repetitious posts and your non-repetitious posts. For better or worse, you seem pretty consistent to me.

However, I think you are right that there needs to be an "elementary understanding of statements." By which I think you mean that we should be operating from the same definitions of our concepts. I can certainly see from the above that we are arguing at cross-purposes, which tells me that we are not quite there yet.

When I say entities are the only causal agents, I do not mean to exclude their component parts (aka holons). I mean to exclude attributes, actions, and relationships. To rephrase Rand's/Aristotle's view of causality: causality is the relation between entities or parts of entities and their actions. In other words, entities and their component parts (holons) -- and ~only~ entities and holons -- are causal agents.

Now: apply it to the "state of the art" in Objectivism (which hasn't budged since the 1960s). If mind or consciousness is an ~attribute~ of human beings, as the orthodox Objectivist view holds (I have quotes from Rand, Branden, and Peikoff supporting this view), then mind is ~not~ a causal agent.

If, on the other hand, as I claim, mind is a ~part~, a ~component~ of human beings -- and more specifically, the brain or a part/component of the brain -- then yes it ~can~ be a causal agent. This is my view, which sees mind (= brain or = part of the brain) as a holon.

This latter view also pops up very occasionally, almost in an off-hand manner, in the writings of Rand, Peikoff, and Branden, but it is clear that they strongly incline toward the mind-as-attribute view.

Whatever validity there is to the Objectivist claims of the "causal efficacy of mind" rests ~entirely~ upon their scarcely-ever-stated, almost implicit view that mind is an entity or component part of one (aka holon). When they instead tie it together, as they almost always do, with their view of mind as attribute, the "causal efficacy of mind" is logically incoherent.

Orthodox Objectivism can't have their Aristotelian entity causality and eat it, too. This is ~orthodox Objectivism's~ problem and error, not mine.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now