Science proves choice is noise

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's embarrassing to have to address "determinism," but if we must, here it is:

An animal has no choice as to the material of its senses: food, danger, shelter and family are instincts, which animals are not equipped to evaluate or cast aside. Animal suicides are unknown. Man, on the other hand, with his special gift of selective and conceptual awareness, might be born in a community of savages and raise himself up to aristocratic pleasures -- or vice versa, to squander his opportunities in life, like worthless heirs and performance artists, whose inarticulate scribblings and degenerate rebellions are a weird spectacle of shame in a supposedly sane society. The important point, however, is that animals do not produce or consume art, whereas humans receive profoundly individual enrichment and inspiration from music, painting, sculpture and dance.

Look at a man's preference in art, and you will see the reflection of his soul. Show it to an animal and nothing happens. Art is a projection of things ahead, a sketchpad of the future, depicting heaven or hell. In the stories and songs of mankind, we hear the exploits of heroes and the seduction of antiquity. Go forward, say some; come back, cry others; but both are offered as a projection of possibilities for man to consider and weigh in the privacy of his own mind.

It cannot be done automatically, or by committee, or by chance. Even a total renunciation of personality entails a series of defaults, a progression of retreats marked by guilt and fear. And achievement -- by God! -- there is nothing harder or more frustrating. Who among us has succeeded without effort, without repeated attempts and failures? These are strictly human characteristics, to learn by experimenting, to keep records and communicate our discoveries with language and mathematics. Throughout, the human condition is a personal experience of choosing to think, choosing to make an effort, choosing between courage and cowardice.

Laissez Faire Law, p.9

The job of living is infinitely complex. No myth, no received wisdom can exempt you from the direct, immediate task of sizing up your situation and making the best decision you can, often in stressful circumstances. Slogans and symbols do not tell you how to conduct your life in detail, nor would you want to obey unquestioningly someone else's creed. Ayn Rand said, "The moral is the chosen, not the forced." If you have no choice, you have no moral responsibility or personal participation in the outcome.

The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.23

A man can live and dream in many places. Born rich, he can visit a poor neighborhood and see the struggle for life in clearer, sharper terms. Born poor, he can ride the subway to better neighborhoods, libraries, galleries—and get a sense of where he wants to go in life. But there is one place where no man can dream: a bus depot. Ticket in hand, stripped of his belongings and forced to leave town, Whitney's dreams had been extinguished.

First Feature, p.23

In public, men twist their faces with slobbering glee over sports trivia. In public, women twitter and moan about each other and their men. Practitioners of public relations do both as a job, not unlike those who perform rituals for money and are called priests or whores. But in private, away from the public, they sober up. Put any man or woman indoors (without TV) and watch the miracle of civilization take hold. Actions become purposeful, thoughtful, self-directed. Instead of mimicking or flattering others, solitude inspires productive work.... At home there is no imam to supervise your piety, no gang of thugs at your back, no faceless victim to clean up your spilled milk or to berate with newly imagined grievances. In private, you are intimately and exclusively confronted by the only person you have a right to obey or resent: yourself. Privacy is the situational source of all growth, improvement, education and morality. It is the fountainhead of art. It is the workshop of philosophy.

"Public Relations" (1991), quoted in Individualism, G21 World Magazine

Which job to take tomorrow and which to aim at later on? How much to borrow and how much to save? Is it possible to love again? Is it too late to change my mind and break free of this dreary hell, price no object? What kind of life is really mine and really meant for me? My joy of joys would be — (infinite multiple choice) — and worse, it's bound to change as one's understanding grows and explores, like a moving target.

All of these matters are personal. Courts and cops and ritual flagellation are irrelevant. We get no creative or critical thinking done at a football stadium or Sunday School. It's uniquely personal, whatever goal you choose in life, whatever obstacles arise and disasters befall unexpectedly. The meaning and criterion of liberty is as private and nontransferable as a heartache, a work of art, a nightmare or a daydream. Individualism is not a creed, but a fact of life.

The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.45

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

This is about as close to a perfect example of a tautology as I can imagine.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You seem to ignore a whole raft of consequences of a living, acting human being. Of a human conscious being having been determined bio-chemically, nature and maybe even nurture, in turn determines using indeterminacy. Hitler wasn't inevitable--or if he was, how could anyone prove it? With a non-falsifiable theory one can only prevail axiomatically. It's all looking backwards saying nothing could have been different, but try turning that around and successfully predict the near particular future.

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on. In principle, it is possible to predict completely the near particular future, so in that sense, Hitler was inevitable.

Determinism is not a theory about how things are. It is a property of certain explanations. It cannot be said to be falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

When someone is exposed to an influence, a great deal of the effect of that influence is determined by how conciousness evaluates the experience. Determined isn't the same as necessarily determined.

--Brant

Consciousness is reducible to nothing more than physical processes in the brain. It is not something that acts "above" those processes. It is those processes.

"Indeterminacy" is not the opposite of determinacy, but only a catchall for what is left over when determinacy is cut out.

Reducing consciousness is the problem for that kills it. Whatcha doing that for?

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

"Indeterminacy" is not the opposite of determinacy, but only a catchall for what is left over when determinacy is cut out.

So... nothing?

Reducing consciousness is the problem for that kills it. Whatcha doing that for?

--Brant

Do stars cease to shine when you've explained how they work?

[Brant Gaede]

"Indeterminacy" is not the opposite of determinacy, but only a catchall for what is left over when determinacy is cut out.

So... nothing?

Reducing consciousness is the problem for that kills it. Whatcha doing that for?

--Brant

Do stars cease to shine when you've explained how they work?

Nothing for you. You made that bed. You made the house you live in. I'm sorry you're so determined helpless, but what skunk made you pass it around?

Your explanation of how things work is so general and reductive to be worthless--of no utility whatsoever--not even pre-science.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

This is about as close to a perfect example of a tautology as I can imagine.

Michael

Just to clarify, since it is like a trap (which I believe makes it close to perfect), according to this way of arguing, if you observe indeterminacy, like parts of free will, and call them that, you are ignoring "what is actually going on," i.e., determinacy.

But if you can't observe the determinacy in the indeterminate part, and can only observe the indeterminacy, you are still wrong if you call it indeterminate because you are "ignoring the determinacy." The determinacy is always valid because it is determinate. It does not need to be observed and can't be in many cases. So why then is it determinate? Because it is not indeterminate. And why cannot it be indeterminate? Because it is determinate.

Tautology. Hidden, but still tautology.

This happens when rationalization--meaning here the rationale divorced from observation--is used as the fundamental standard of truth.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

This is about as close to a perfect example of a tautology as I can imagine.

Michael

Just to clarify, since it is like a trap (which I believe makes it close to perfect), according to this way of arguing, if you observe indeterminacy, like parts of free will, and call them that, you are ignoring "what is actually going on," i.e., determinacy.

But if you can't observe the determinacy in the indeterminate part, and can only observe the indeterminacy, you are still wrong if you call it indeterminate because you are "ignoring the determinacy." The determinacy is always valid because it is determinate. It does not need to be observed and can't be in many cases. So why then is it determinate? Because it is not indeterminate. And why cannot it be indeterminate? Because it is determinate.

Tautology. Hidden, but still tautology.

This happens when rationalization--meaning here the rationale divorced from observation--is used as the fundamental standard of truth.

Michael

Is the tautologous fact that one can never observe a contradiction (that A is A) also a rationalization?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A is A is always accused of being a tautology.

People who do that generally have little regard for the law of identity.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

A is A is always accused of being a tautology.

People who do that generally have little regard for the law of identity.

What are you talking about? "A is A" is a tautology.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Nothing for you. You made that bed. You made the house you live in. I'm sorry you're so determined helpless, but what skunk made you pass it around?

Your explanation of how things work is so general and reductive to be worthless--of no utility whatsoever--not even pre-science.

--Brant

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A is A is always accused of being a tautology.

People who do that generally have little regard for the law of identity.

What are you talking about? "A is A" is a tautology.

What am I talking about?

Law of identity and people who ignore it.

Maybe I can try other words, but that seems pretty clear to me.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you?

That's all right.

I've seen the light bulb go off in more than one person who thought like you. But it takes time.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

Then what is it?

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

Then what is it?

--Brant

I don't know. Rand and Peikoff like to call it "Objectivism".

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it. -Rand

To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. -Rand

Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. -Peikoff

Choice . . . is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation. -Peikoff

[Brant Gaede]

I stopped studying that stuff 40 years ago. You don't need it except for philosophical high-horsing. It was used to combat a mystical mysticism and to secure one's place at the head of the Objectivist table. So, reality is what it is. Go find it using reason. Next!

--Brant

uh, so rationalism is dogma--make up your mind

[Darrell Hougen]

Clods at UC-Davis used a blank screen and a dot to "prove" that choice is random, a result of noisy static in the brain, like an AM radio receiver listening to nothing between two weak signals. They ought to give an award for this, Best Bullshit Science Grant of The Year.

Drudge links to The Independent

I have my opinions about free will and randomness, but I wonder whether the experiments show what they actually purport to show.

The original experiment relied upon the experimental subject to report when he had made a choice and that was used to show a lag between brain activity and making choices. However, it only shows a lag between brain activity and reporting.

The latest experiment is supposed to eliminate that problem by observing brain activity right before the subject is cued to make a choice. However, couldn't the subject be thinking about which choice he will make before the signal? He might keep vacillating until the buzzer. If the silent thought is the choice, then the choice would have already been made before the buzzer sounded.

No offense, but in my view, the experiments show nothing.

Caveat: I haven't read the actual scientific papers, so I'm basing my opinion on the news reports and interviews.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself?

If it is possible to choose to ignore what is actually going on, then choice is possible. But if choice is possible, then things are non deterministic.

Darrell

Edited June 26, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

Michael is right.

It is true that explanations are (typically) deterministic, because only deterministic aspects of reality can be explained (and predicted). But, that doesn't mean that reality is deterministic.

If you're only arguing about explanations and not reality, then you're being rationalistic. You're not looking outward at reality. You're only looking inward at explanations of reality.

Darrell

[SoAMadDeathWish]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself?

If it is possible to ignore what is actually going on, then choice is possible. But if choice is possible, then things are non deterministic.

Darrell

That depends on how you define "choice". For me, there is no conflict whatsoever between the possibility of choice and determinism, as long as by "choice" we mean a decision arising from the beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations of an individual.

Michael is right.

It is true that explanations are (typically) deterministic, because only deterministic aspects of reality can be explained (and predicted). But, that doesn't mean that reality is deterministic.

If you're only arguing about explanations and not reality, then you're being rationalistic. You're not looking outward at reality. You're only looking inward at explanations of reality.

Darrell

Reality in and of itself is neither deterministic nor indeterministic. I think I've said that already.

Rationalism, in the O'ist sense, is when you try to figure out the facts of reality from a priori reasoning alone. However, such reasoning is not by itself rationalism. For example, mathematics is entirely a priori reasoning, but it does not make any claims about the real world, so it's not rationalism.

[Jules Troy]

If Jules speaks in the forest and know one hears him, is he still wrong??

[tmj]

Some discussions and thoughts can at times produce a feeling of headachy vertigo. Lying in bed as a child trying to fathom the idea of infinity and how that may apply to the 'edge' of the universe.
The 'real' world, looking outward at it, is self 'just' an abstraction ,a grounding concept for me to be able to 'get' the rest of it all, separate yet not... probably just my blood sugar, note to self: sometimes coffee just cream.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Some discussions and thoughts can at times produce a feeling of headachy vertigo. Lying in bed as a child trying to fathom the idea of infinity...

More than a few people have confirmed anecdotally, echoing my own experience as a child, of the world zooming away and feeling like a dot, infinitesimally small, which is a shocking experience that lasts about a minute, usually occurring just once at age 9 or 10. I think it's a calibration experience -- not unlike "seeing" Jesus in the clouds and shaking your head to clear it. One's first nightmare is shattering, utterly unexpected.

It's hard work being a child, gaining control of consciousness.

[Darrell Hougen]

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself?

If it is possible to [choose to] ignore what is actually going on, then choice is possible. But if choice is possible, then things are non deterministic.

Darrell

That depends on how you define "choice". For me, there is no conflict whatsoever between the possibility of choice and determinism, as long as by "choice" we mean a decision arising from the beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations of an individual.

But, if your choice is not non deterministic, then your choice to ignore what is actually going on was deterministic. But, that implies that the appearance of non determinism was deterministic which implies that things really are non deterministic (or "indeterministic").

Michael is right.

It is true that explanations are (typically) deterministic, because only deterministic aspects of reality can be explained (and predicted). But, that doesn't mean that reality is deterministic.

If you're only arguing about explanations and not reality, then you're being rationalistic. You're not looking outward at reality. You're only looking inward at explanations of reality.

Darrell

Reality in and of itself is neither deterministic nor indeterministic. I think I've said that already.

Rationalism, in the O'ist sense, is when you try to figure out the facts of reality from a priori reasoning alone. However, such reasoning is not by itself rationalism. For example, mathematics is entirely a priori reasoning, but it does not make any claims about the real world, so it's not rationalism.

What is the third way between deterministic and non deterministic (or "indeterministic")?

Darrell