Don Atreides


DonAtreides

Recommended Posts

Ba'al, all you are doing is saying an organism has constituent parts. We do not know the universe as an organism but as an idea. Thus you are not addressing my post. Even if we posit the universe as an organism it's still a higher level of reference.

--Brant

If I knew what my "I" was I might be able to respond to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ba'al, all you are doing is saying an organism has constituent parts. We do not know the universe as an organism but as an idea. Thus you are not addressing my post. Even if we posit the universe as an organism it's still a higher level of reference.

--Brant

If I knew what my "I" was I might be able to respond to that.

But you did. So you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, all you are doing is saying an organism has constituent parts. We do not know the universe as an organism but as an idea. Thus you are not addressing my post. Even if we posit the universe as an organism it's still a higher level of reference.

--Brant

If I knew what my "I" was I might be able to respond to that.

But you did. So you do.

But he's an empiricist. You can't nail him down with logic.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The first fissure in my Orthodox Objectivist understanding of free will came when I read this essay by Robert Anton Wilson. It was the first time I came to understand the issue in a nuanced way, without the overly simplistic, black-or-white thinking of Peikoff. In other words, the issue need not be framed as either total determinism, or some simple notion of "flipping a switch" in the choice to think or not.

The idea was that real work and effort is involved.

Back then, I was absorbing all manner of esoteric thinking. Those were my druggie days. I learned a lot, but much of it fell by the wayside eventually. However, one school of thought that stuck with me and might be amenable to Objectivists is Gurdjieff's "4th Way" school. In some ways, it could be considered a scientific approach to "mysticism." Long before all the studies on the triune brain which MSK likes to quote, Gurdjieff had already come to understand such concepts through direct experience and introspection. Furthermore, he knew that there is not one single ego or "I", but rather a multitude of "I"'s: the "I" at time T, the "I" at time T+6 hours, the "I" when one is hungry, etc. His goal was to unify this cacophany of competing Wills into a singular ego.

With respect to the issue of free will, his view was that we are all still monkeys, basically. That we are all sleepwalkers who are dreaming they are awake. His view, which I share, is that the human organism is largely a creature of habit, and this is due to necessity, since we simply cannot hold in conscious awareness all of the subconscious processes which keep us alive. But in order to find "freedom", we must "shock" the system to interrupt some of these patterns and habits and thereby acquire some measure of a truly free Will.

Basically, he had no use for sterile clinical studies or endless philosphical debate. He was more interested in direct experiment on oneself and sought to provide means and techniques for accomplishing a free(er) Will. But he was no New Ager. His focus on WORK and "intentional suffering" should suggest otherwise. His technique of "self-remembering" is germane to the topic of free will.

I no longer follow such things closely anymore, but perhaps a younger Objectivist with more energy than I could find some value in it.

I suppose this is as good a place to start as any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy.

Still not sure how you arrive at this.

I’m curious what part of the brain you believe has the ability to act volitionally. I mean the physical part of the brain – all the pieces that come together to create what we call the “mind” – which constituent part of our brain is not constrained by the law of identity?

Unless you believe in some mystic “soul” dwelling in your body, you probably (like I do) accept that there is nothing more to the mind than what is contained in our brain. And every part of our brain, from the cells to the DNA to the very atoms that bind together to form all these things is subject to the law of identity, meaning that not one single atom in our brains has a choice on how it acts.

Even the electricity which powers our brains is comprised of energy that has no alternative in how it behaves.

So if the matter than comprises our brains has no choice in how it behaves, and the electricity which powers it has no choice in how it behaves, how, then, does the convergence of these constituent parts suddenly create a magical pocket somewhere in our brains that does whatever the hell it wants to do?

It simply isn’t enough to say “We obviously choose what we do! It’s just obvious!”

“We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness.”

Sure, you can say it. And you have. But what you can’t do is point to a single aspect of our brains that flies on its own. Not one cell, not one atom, not one electron. You’re are left with the vacuous assertion that the mind is the product of a brain which is comprised entirely of parts that do not possess volition somehow converging to create a machine that possesses it.

Every argument I’ve heard in favor of free will depends either on special pleading or mysticism. Objectivist obviously reject mysticism, so the standard “special pleading” argument is the one they typically offer. A=A… except the mind, a product of our brains, which apparently does whatever it wants. And the justification for this? "Well… it’s obvious!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy.

Still not sure how you arrive at this.

I’m curious what part of the brain you believe has the ability to act volitionally. I mean the physical part of the brain – all the pieces that come together to create what we call the “mind” – which constituent part of our brain is not constrained by the law of identity?

Unless you believe in some mystic “soul” dwelling in your body, you probably (like I do) accept that there is nothing more to the mind than what is contained in our brain. And every part of our brain, from the cells to the DNA to the very atoms that bind together to form all these things is subject to the law of identity, meaning that not one single atom in our brains has a choice on how it acts.

Even the electricity which powers our brains is comprised of energy that has no alternative in how it behaves.

So if the matter than comprises our brains has no choice in how it behaves, and the electricity which powers it has no choice in how it behaves, how, then, does the convergence of these constituent parts suddenly create a magical pocket somewhere in our brains that does whatever the hell it wants to do?

It simply isn’t enough to say “We obviously choose what we do! It’s just obvious!”

“We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness.”

Sure, you can say it. And you have. But what you can’t do is point to a single aspect of our brains that flies on its own. Not one cell, not one atom, not one electron. You’re are left with the vacuous assertion that the mind is the product of a brain which is comprised entirely of parts that do not possess volition somehow converging to create a machine that possesses it.

Every argument I’ve heard in favor of free will depends either on special pleading or mysticism. Objectivist obviously reject mysticism, so the standard “special pleading” argument is the one they typically offer. A=A… except the mind, a product of our brains, which apparently does whatever it wants. And the justification for this? "Well… it’s obvious!"

To say one thing is connected to another does not necessarily mean absence of variable results thanks to thinking. We can see what happened. It is much more difficult to even see what will happen with those aspects of the future that have and will not have any human input which I do consider to be completely deterministic in the context of what we know scientifically.

--Brant

human consciousness and conceptual thinking count for something and so does choice and the battle is semantical but important because of the power of labeling, the implication being no such thing as free will = no such thing as (political) freedom is really possible and your life on earth is basically a joke on you and your endeavors unless you merely want to live in the day regardless of the future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy.

Still not sure how you arrive at this.

I’m curious what part of the brain you believe has the ability to act volitionally. I mean the physical part of the brain – all the pieces that come together to create what we call the “mind” – which constituent part of our brain is not constrained by the law of identity?

Unless you believe in some mystic “soul” dwelling in your body, you probably (like I do) accept that there is nothing more to the mind than what is contained in our brain. And every part of our brain, from the cells to the DNA to the very atoms that bind together to form all these things is subject to the law of identity, meaning that not one single atom in our brains has a choice on how it acts.

Even the electricity which powers our brains is comprised of energy that has no alternative in how it behaves.

So if the matter than comprises our brains has no choice in how it behaves, and the electricity which powers it has no choice in how it behaves, how, then, does the convergence of these constituent parts suddenly create a magical pocket somewhere in our brains that does whatever the hell it wants to do?

It simply isn’t enough to say “We obviously choose what we do! It’s just obvious!”

“We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness.”

Sure, you can say it. And you have. But what you can’t do is point to a single aspect of our brains that flies on its own. Not one cell, not one atom, not one electron. You’re are left with the vacuous assertion that the mind is the product of a brain which is comprised entirely of parts that do not possess volition somehow converging to create a machine that possesses it.

Every argument I’ve heard in favor of free will depends either on special pleading or mysticism. Objectivist obviously reject mysticism, so the standard “special pleading” argument is the one they typically offer. A=A… except the mind, a product of our brains, which apparently does whatever it wants. And the justification for this? "Well… it’s obvious!"

How does one account for error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy.

Still not sure how you arrive at this.

I’m curious what part of the brain you believe has the ability to act volitionally. I mean the physical part of the brain – all the pieces that come together to create what we call the “mind” – which constituent part of our brain is not constrained by the law of identity?

Unless you believe in some mystic “soul” dwelling in your body, you probably (like I do) accept that there is nothing more to the mind than what is contained in our brain. And every part of our brain, from the cells to the DNA to the very atoms that bind together to form all these things is subject to the law of identity, meaning that not one single atom in our brains has a choice on how it acts.

Even the electricity which powers our brains is comprised of energy that has no alternative in how it behaves.

So if the matter than comprises our brains has no choice in how it behaves, and the electricity which powers it has no choice in how it behaves, how, then, does the convergence of these constituent parts suddenly create a magical pocket somewhere in our brains that does whatever the hell it wants to do?

It simply isn’t enough to say “We obviously choose what we do! It’s just obvious!”

“We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness.”

Sure, you can say it. And you have. But what you can’t do is point to a single aspect of our brains that flies on its own. Not one cell, not one atom, not one electron. You’re are left with the vacuous assertion that the mind is the product of a brain which is comprised entirely of parts that do not possess volition somehow converging to create a machine that possesses it.

Every argument I’ve heard in favor of free will depends either on special pleading or mysticism. Objectivist obviously reject mysticism, so the standard “special pleading” argument is the one they typically offer. A=A… except the mind, a product of our brains, which apparently does whatever it wants. And the justification for this? "Well… it’s obvious!"

It's being supported by neuroscience, I gather. In my layman's understanding we have the ability to 'select' certain neural pathways over the usual, well traveled highways. It bears out one's introspective inductions: "I could, usually would, or perhaps should, have chosen that, but instead chose this. I'm aware of the options I didn't take".

Apart from all that, I think there's a modicum of free-will that even the hardest determinist demonstrates - a default position he may be passively unaware of. Whereas an advocate of free-will can deliberately raise that level by practice, as a self-fulfilling prophecy (sort of).

First, free-will is a consequence of many choices - or at least, the same choice made repetitively, I think.

It's not simply about that ONE-TIME choice, so commonly portrayed. (Serapis gave the cue upthread, saying humans are "largely creatures of habit": Aristotle wrote "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act but a habit".)

Second, an effect of our self-consciousness is we have the capability to evaluate our status at any instant, and to make many infinitesimal changes of course in the direction we consider worthy.

The importance to philosophy - critically to O'ism - of free will is in the realms of morality, concepts and character. If one cannot hold consciously to firm convictions, principles, methodology and virtues, then certainly Objectivism would be defunct, I think. Rand explained her fiction, and all other romantic art, as based on the concept that man is a volitional being. The art provides the inspiration and sustenance for self-determination. Over all, the long term effect is a "self-made soul."(Obviously!)

Having said that, there are limits to volition - and it can be rationalized, exaggerated and rigidified, when O'ists take literally the exploits and character of Howard Roark, for example.

(Roger Bissell, elsewhere recently, gave a great insight into how Objectivists sometimes fall for a categorical imperative with free-will, in terms of values.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can also say some "fall for a categorical imperative with" determinism. All we need to do is drop the labels and examine what people really do and why instead of telling them. The debate is necessarily interminable for from either fortress knights called "facts" ride out to do battle and then all go home unscathed for it's actually the fortresses fighting, not the knights, and the fortresses are invulnerable for they are propositions only good for pillow fights.

--Brant

had to have some fun here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can also say some "fall for a categorical imperative with" determinism. All we need to do is drop the labels and examine what people really do and why instead of telling them. The debate is necessarily interminable for from either fortress knights called "facts" ride out to do battle and then all go home unscathed for it's actually the fortresses fighting, not the knights, and the fortresses are invulnerable for they are propositions only good for pillow fights.

--Brant

had to have some fun here

Believe it or not, I got some of your gist here, as I hope you'll get mine. :smile:

You tickled a rough notion of mine. I have a perception of self-nominated determinists as being anal-retentive deductionists, usually also very intelligent.

(The sort you want to tell "Loosen up a bit, bud - trust yourself!")

I think that basically determinists reason from cause to effect, which is the definition of 'a priori', or deductive cognition. In that manner they struggle to apprehend free will.

To be aware of free-will, I think one has to be able to track backwards, as well, from effect to cause - inductively ('a posteriori').

Maybe to do both almost simultaneously.

My impression is the O'ist's confidence in that inductive-volitional axis is one of the largest stumbling blocks between some non-O philosophers and Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB,

I only learned of Gurdjieff last year when I read a book called Feet of Clay - A Study of Gurus by Anthony Storr. As I was looking it up to post the link here, I saw there was an excerpt from the book online:

GURDJIEFF by Anthony Storr (from Feet of Clay - A Study of Gurus)

In fact, I might reread that excerpt as I got Storr's book from the library and have long since returned it

After I read that book, I started looking at YouTube videos. That's where I saw all the weird dance moves. There are even some videos of film taken of Gurdjieff when he was alive. See here for one:

I think you really have to be under his spell to find this interesting, though. It's just a guy in a street for the most part, some pretty music, then at the end a couple of Whirling Dervishes as a backdrop for a group doing some of his ritual dance moves.

There is one characteristic he had, one that is common to gurus in general, that fascinates me. From what I read (in this material and elsewhere), he was able to focus in on a person when talking and make that person feel like he or she was the only thing in the universe that mattered at that moment. It's a powerful gift (or skill) and easily abused. But Gurdjieff seems like he was a good man.

Ayn Rand is reported to cause that reaction in people, too. And it seems like she never abused it, not really. She had a sharp tongue at times, but I don't recall anyone feeling she had set them up with those all-seeing eyes of hers in order to take them down or exploit them.

Notice that Storr says the person really under Gurdjieff's spell in the Wright household was his third wife, not necessarily Frank Lloyd. Ah me... A woman will drive a man to do all kinds of crazy stuff. :smile:

If you want to understand the heads of gurus, what makes them tick, Storr's book is one of the best things I have read to date. I'm going to probably buy it so I can reread it several times.

Michael

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