My problem with Free Will


Hazard

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This argument is essentially the same one I'm discussing in my epistemology post of "was Nietzche right.. emotion comes before reason"

Im coming to believe he was and that Rand was incorrect in her thinking...

First of all I think that free will exists for the very reason that we can choose to cut of our own fingers, whether it is good for us or not..

We can in a way "choose" our values.. such as.. I value my fingers.. but I can choose to stop valuing my fingers as much and choose that my desire to prove free will is higher.. so I can go and cut off my own fingers.. whether any sane man would do that is not anything which matters.. In fact I believe states of insanity might be some of the best to study free will.. That is why I think so much of psychology focuses on studying people with mental disorders..

Also your concept of "one cannot choose to stop valuing water" is true.. Not only water but many things.. if you are an artist and you hate math.. it is reasonable to say that "one cannot choose to start valuing math over art" .. therefore that seems like a proof to me that ultimately man is driven by a combination of random choices and inbred "instinct" of sorts rather than pure reason.. or as Rand would call it "mystical" reasons..

I made an example questioning the idea that all value judgments are basically made of rational self interest.. Such as.. what if I could successfully 100% for sure kidnap a child wandering the streets and get away with it, then 100% successfully sell his organs on the black market to make 50 thousand dollars, take that 50 thousand, come back to America, and start a business from which I become wealthy..

This self interest seems as pure as drinking water.. It is obviously good for me so why not do it? If "mystical" emotions determine nothing.. I would simply just have to switch my thinking.. or find some way I have been unknowingly programmed against killing children.. and switch my thinking.. then I will realize what a wonderful proposition it is, and be able to do it and feel great about it since its good for me and is a rational value judgement.

Therefore it is my belief that our value judgement are based off a combination of mystical type instinct, mystical type random choice, socially-programmed values, and pure rational what is good for me sort of judgement..

I think Ayn Rand was wrong to believe that everything originates and ends in reason..

As I made the argument in my previous post.. she was born in an age of Newtonian physics.. where everything seemed cut and dry and rationally simple.. She did not realize the power of quantum physics yet.. where things randomly pop in and out of nowhere, and everything is based on chance, seemingly non-reason, and probabilities, etc.. and those are the forces by which our mind is run, not Newtonian physics..

So in the end.. free will can be proven by me cutting off my own fingers, whether it is good for me or not..I can choose to kill myself or to keep living.. this is not some rational decision based on whats good for me, but rather an "irrational" decision.. so the question becomes where does irrationality come from? Instinct can be proven by me not wanting to sell children's organs whether it is good for me or not.. or not wanting to become a mathematician, but instead an artist whether it is good for me or not..

What is the rational reasons and causes behind this music? behind these sounds and rhythms? other than that of pure emotional content, which is not rational at all when it comes down to it...

What is the rational reason for what that man is doing? Is he just subconciosly preparing for battle? Having nothing to do with the emotional decision of how much he enjoys it based on purely emotional reasons? And if so being immoral and irrational?

Prove me wrong..

I am beginning to think although Rand had a lot of good ideas on things like capitalism, and the balance of whim with rationality.. she was missing huge parts and was rather silly to assume that the entire world runs on simple Newtonian rationality... That supposedly all choices based on instinct or emotional content or free will which goes against our physical self interest was simply faulty logic. Therefore selling children's organs on the black market to start a business would be a great idea as long as I was rationally sure I could get away with it.

I think some say that rationality is the only thing that matters.. other say emotional whim is the only thing that matters.. it is evident to me that both exist in the world.. and both have their purposes..

obviously free will does not exist

one only has to watch this man to doubt the assertions against free will and that only rational thinking matters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU

obviously immoral and un-objectivist art

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope,

This is a good topic to think through. There's not too much talk in the Objectivist world about timelines (past, present and future) and the divisions of the mind. So let's mention them a bit (in VERY broad terms).

Do you know what a causal agent is? Look into that. It's important in philosophy.

Ayn Rand held that volitional consciousness is a causal agent. This means in her understanding (mine, too), free will exists.

However, there is a part of the mind that gets programmed all during your lifetime through the simple growth cycle, through biological changes, and through experience. When you act automatically on what emanates from there, you are not exercising free will. You literally have no choice.

How many times have you done something stupid and later thought, what was I thinking? That is an abstract example, but a common one we all share.

Are you aware of a concept called the triune brain? You should look that up, too. (Google is your friend. :smile: )

Your brain is physically divided into roughly three areas, each with a predominant characteristic. In the early days, people tried to make this an exact division and it didn't work. For instance, the lower part of the brain is called the reptilian brain, which controls basic automatic functions, the fight-flight response and sex (and some other stuff like preprocessing sensory inputs). The theory was that it evolved when humans were in the reptilian stage of evolution. But there has been a lot of nit-picking on how the brains of reptiles actually are and so forth, so today the triune brain is not seen as an exact model. However, it is an extremely useful general model.

Basically, in the triune brain concept, the reptilian brain takes care of the basic survival stuff, the mammalian brain takes care of the emotions and the neocortex takes care of higher thought. They are interconnected and there are crossovers, but that's the way it works overall.

Your subconscious, which is the part that gets programmed, is in all three. Your conscious awareness, which is the only part that has conceptual free will, is in the neocortex--most specifically the prefrontal neocortex.

(I believe there is some free will on the mammalian level, too, but it is not conceptual.)

This is just a taste. And I know this brain stuff can get boring. But if you believe the mind and the brain are interconnected, it is essential to understanding how the mind works. It's not the whole shebang, but it has to be there when proving certain theories.

Add to that a concept called neuroplasticity, which means the mind can (and does) physically transform the brain and--up to a point--you can control in advance some of the stuff coming from your subconscious. You can program it so it will serve up certain things to you automatically. You can become a causal agent of the automatic (non-free will) stuff you live.

In short, humans have free will, but there is a lot about human life that is buzz whrrrrr ding like a windup toy.

One of the great parts of Nathaniel Branden's work is that he helps people amplify the free will part through amplifying their conscious awareness. (He does with with a 5% at a time increase self-talk technique on awakening and on going to sleep. I have only done this a little bit, but it definitely makes a difference.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am quite aware of that which you speak of.. I have studied some of this brain info for quite a long time.

There is the subconscious mind.. which is basically like a machine, computer, only based on simple rational equations.. you plug in the circumstance.. the solution pops out

There is also the conscious mind.. that which is known as the free will.. which can also in fact re program some of the equations of the subconscious mind, through a process which is still unknown to us.. even so much as the very physical structure of our minds and bodies

My assertion is the conscious mind nor its decisions can be explained through simple determinism, rationality, or reason.. they just ARE.. or at least yet unexplained.. these are quantum processes, and delves into the quantum nature of consciousness it is not easily explained through basic Newtonian rationality

therefore that connotates a sort of "mystical" approach to decision making.. which from what I understand, Rand tried to argue against the existence of..

Also I believe there is another "mystical" part of the brain, which is neither purely consciousness, nor purely mathematically unconsciousnesses..

Such as, why does one man wish to be an artist, while another wishes to be an engineer..

These things cannot be explained through simple logarithmic rational programming, nor can be explained through conscious decision making..

They just ARE..

This reminds me of Nietzches statement of "it thinks"

Basically there is a whole lot of "mystical origin" to the mind, or as I may refer to it "yet-unexplained quantum origin" which facilitates us in every day decision making, how we plan out our lives, creativity, etc...

This is something I think Rand attempted to argue against, placing all thoughts and actions in the realm of simple Newtonian style reason.. This is the main beef I have with her ideologies.. Not in economic theory, or theory of rationally balanced thought, but at the base level theories of epistimology, metaphysics, etc..

Such as.. decisions and emotions are caused by values.. but what are those values caused by... which state of mind, subconscious, conscious or the "supra-conscious" as I may call it.. or "IT THINKS" ... From what I understand, Rand attempted to say that the subconscious - style of basic rationality and reasoning is all that which runs the world and makes decisions.. as evidenced in this statement:

From an interview with Playboy regarding emotions:

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

I think in fact the joke may be on her..

Apparently 2/3 of our major thought processes lie in the realm of "mystical" or "irrational"

If all thinking, and all the world of the human mind was as easily explained by reason as Rand assumed it to be, I believe there would still not be any mystery left in human consciousness or emotion, or creativity, etc.. science.. the ultimate tool of rationality, would have figured it all out a long time ago..

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope,

There's nothing really to correct.

You are stating your conclusions so far.

I could quibble a little, I suppose.

Say, focusing too much on the aspect of Rand was wrong or Rand was right qua Rand was wrong or Rand was right. But only because there is a HUGE pro-and-con hostility over this--one that I try to avoid as much as possible. Maybe my impression is due to seeing it too much.

The way I come to terms with Rand's ideas is to divide them into

(1) Things she absolutely got right (like axiomatic concepts, the algebraic basis of how concepts work abstract-wise, i.e., units and measurement),

(2) Things where her insights are deep, but her scope was off in that she tried to apply an insight to places in human life it did not apply to (like reason--which actually did need defending in our culture, but does not apply to, say, the reptilian brain, nor does it precede emotions in brain functioning and things like that),

(3) Things where she was flat-out wrong, like women who would want to be President are psychologically impaired at some level, and

(4) Things she did not consider, like mapping as a great metaphor for low-level abstraction and some other goodies I have been mulling over.

In the overwhelming part of the cases where Rand is proven to be wrong about something, if you stand back a little and look at a bigger picture, you will generally see deeply penetrating insight (often unique to her) allied to a scope problem. What's right is really right and often you don't get that stuff anywhere else, but it does not apply to the whole shebang. Not a flat-out wrong problem.

So I don't see it as a duel between Rand and Nietzche. Besides, the phrase, "it thinks" sounds trivial on the surface. Sort of like "it lives." "It exists."

What is the difference between "it thinks" and consciousness as an axiomatic concept? I see none.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention Rand's abrasive insults.

To me, that was more marketing than outright hatred The squeaky wheel gets the oil, so to speak. Although, it's clear that some of it really was hatred, and that seemed to grow as she aged.

Also, she cultivated certainty as a style of expression and thinking. So she portrayed certainty even when she was in doubt. That can send all kinds of mixed signals to people looking into her ideas.

Once again, there is a scope thing with that habit. Too many people learn to doubt the obvious stuff because they do not cultivate certainty, and that's a tragedy. They don't take ownership of their minds. So its a good thing to do that.

You can go too far, though. Then you become a guru and gather a following... :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.. Nice.. again I actually agree with 100% of what you say here..

I just looked up axiomatic concepts in the lexicon..

This is interesting..

She says "existance" and "identity" are axiomatic concepts.. which is interesting because in my other post about emotion vs. reason.. this is exactly what I came to as the basis of life itself..

However my whole point there that what Nietzche got right, and where Rand I believe was mistaken in a way.. is WHAT is identity? and if identity cannot be broken down then there is no reasoned explanation from it.. And identity in itself as I see it is SEPARATE from existence .. and is defined by more than where one physically stands.. Identity can be part of somebodys emotional process, what they inherently like and dislike, what careers they will prefer to go in or not, what will "vibe" with them and what doesnt.. the essential value decisions they make on how much they value certain people or not, what makes them happy and what doesnt.. I believe that is all under the function of "identity" based on my seeming inability to figure out how it could be broken down into any reason.... or what someone like Nietzche would refer to as "instinct" etc.. for which Rand criticized him as being a mystic and said this statement:

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

If I am correct in my assertions, this statement, and therefore possibly a large part of her core ideology was wrong on the basis of irony.. that reason comes from identity.. since identity does not come or can be broken down with reason.. and Identity is where a large part of emotions, and personal value judgments actually come from... so therefore a person is almost entirely FUNDAMENTALLY guided by "emotions" or "instinct" or whatever else kind of title you would put on those value-judgement parts of his identity which just ARE and are so far explainable with reason..

For example: how much we contribute to others is based on value judgments, which is where the emotion of how much we love them/care for them comes from.. therefore we contribute to others by how much we value them vs other things.. but the question in this case becomes.. WHERE do those essential value judgments come from? I do not believe it can come from purely physical self interest to ones own life.. such as.. I love my father as long as he provides me money, after which I will not love him anymore.. If I judge somebody based on how much pleasure they bring into my life.. that essential judgement is in itself based on a consciousness-centered EMOTIONAL value.. which is SUBJECTIVE..

And therefore comes my conclusion that people do not live on the basis of reason or rationality ALONE, and that in this statement

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

the joke might be on her..

If all things are based on value judgments, and value judgments are based on irreducible "emotion" "identity" "instinct" "free will" etc... and all reason stems from value judgments..

Therefore Nietzches claim I believe that no 1 philosopher can be "right" nor can they be "wrong" in the sense of their value judgments and the basis of their philosophies.. since those philosophies come from a set of value judgments themselves, and value judgments are a part of "identity"..

As he said:

“What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is not that one discovers again and again how innocent they are, how often and how easily they make mistakes and go astray, in short, their childishness and childlikeness, but that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely. They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic (as opposed to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and doltish, and talk of ‘inspiration’), while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of ‘inspiration’, most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract, that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact”

A good analogy for this is the music program which I often work with is called "Reason" as making electronic music is an extremely logical and clinically reasoned procedure.. however the "idea" the "emotion" the "inspiration" aka the "value judgments" which I put in are in essense part of identity and "mystical" in origin.. and then I use reason to achieve them, which I then enjoy when my value judgements are achieved through the process of emotion again.. so all things begin in "identity" "emotion" "free will" and other mystical concepts.. then are achieved through reason.. then are translated back into a more reasoned definition of emotion..

Which is interesting, because if Im right, Rand was wrong in criticizing Nietzche as others as "mystical fools"

How does one decide their favorite color is green? how does one decide to like star shapes over triangle shapes? etc..??

For example, my favorite color is black, you could argue that that could have been because I saw something which I liked black as a child, but why did I like it? "black" never came to save my life or feed me.. the only answer I could come to is "I like it because I do".. so.. whats up with that?

Irreducible parts of "identity"? "instinct" "mystical origin"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the day somebody explains to me why I like the sound "pow wub pow wub" more than I like the sound "pink pink boink pink"..

And why if i guide my music off emotional determinations and I'm satisfied with the result, why its wrong for me to live some of my life in the same manner..

I will stop believing in primacy of consciousness and being against reasoned - determinism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the day somebody explains to me why I like the sound "pow wub pow wub" more than I like the sound "pink pink boink pink"..

And why if i guide my music off emotional determinations and I'm satisfied with the result, why its wrong for me to live some of my life in the same manner..

I will stop believing in primacy of consciousness and being against reasoned - determinism

Why?

They're both crap on their own.

Both consciousness and determinism exist, just like top and bottom exist.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see that may be your value judgement..

That an individual sound is crap... however.. I am a sound designer.. as in.. I am skilled in the practice of designing individual sounds.. so I can find beauty in a sound on its own..

Can that objectively be explained?

I agree.. that both conciousness and determinism exist.. this is the essence of my very worldview.. what I find silly is Rand apparently tries to claim that only determinism exists in a certain way.. to a certain extent..

Such as determinism is the plane of formulas, and conciousness is in the plane of the quantum unknown.. sometimes it seems to me what she says is all of life can be lived and all things can be determined based on logic and reason alone.. which technically puts things into the realm of pure determinism.. and your goal of conscious decision being to either follow that deterministic path or not.. which I agree with to a certain extent as well..

However it is also my point that each persons values/deterministic elements within their consciousness.. are in many ways essentially different.. and cannot all simply be explained away with rationality.. so claiming that one can live by reason alone and ignore things such as "mystical instinct" "free will from seemingly nowhere" and other forms of "mystical type thought" etc,, seems rather non-sequitor

which sort of takes us more into subjectivism and primacy of consciousness rather than a pure objective world..

My view is that reason is the method which guides us between various subjective goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primacy of consciousness?

The opposite of consciousness is not determinism. But, setting aside that error and to continue with my question.

Primacy?

Like in more important than...?

Like more fundamental than...?

Here's a metaphorical analogy. Which is more important to a person, the heart or the liver?

Do you believe in the primacy of heart or primacy of liver?

Or do you believe that if you eliminate either, the person dies?

Which is more important to a form, the top or the bottom?

Primacy of top or primacy of primacy of bottom?

Or do you believe you cannot have form without both?

Think about it.

Primacy of existence is the proper primacy.

(btw - You'll eventually find this, but I'll give you a jump-start. You don't prove or disprove axiomatic concepts. You identify them and use them as premises. What separates an axiomatic concept from a simple presumption or assertion is that you have to be it or start in a state of it in order to disprove it. You have to exist to disprove existence. You have to be conscious in order to claim that consciousness is an illusion. You have to be a specific individual with a specific nature in order to question the law of identity.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm ok.. I agree..

You do seem rather well versed in all of this

It seems to me that Rand doesn't agree with this though.. at least my line of thought .. as I cannot assume I 100% grasp your line of thought..

Here is the lexicon article:

http://aynrandlexico...sciousness.html

Rand seems to assert FACTUALLY that somehow THINGS exist without the need for a consciousness.. that man does not create things, nor that does anything come from any "mystical" irrational place.. in a sense she takes a very Newtonian model of existence.. and in that sense, a rather primitive, and un-scientifically updated one..

Others seem to believe that man creates EVERYTHING in his mind..

First of all.. as far as I see it you cant logically prove either one of these assertions.. as without consciousness.. there is noone to KNOW if reality exists or not.. or in which form it exists..

I seem to hold an idea between both ends personally.. which it seems to me you do as well but Im not sure..

That in what seems to be the highest possibility event.. man does not necessarily create EVERYTHING, nor does he create NOTHING.. as it was always my belief that man is said to be in the image of a creator, not because a creator is some man in the clouds, but because the creator creates.. The human is the only being with the possibility to create NEW things.. specifically NEW ENTITIES.. man can pretty much create any new entity he desires theoretically within the laws of physics.. what he does not seem to be able to create is the raw materials themselves..

A man can imagine something in his mind.. and then create it into reality..

So its not that consciousness doesnt create reality.. nor that reality doesnt create consciousness ,, but a sort of mixture of both.. at least in the realm of human consciousnesses..'

It seems with this paradigm in mind, even in science.. mans creative force and ideas are not determined through sheer objective reason or calculations.. but his processes through which he achieves those ends are.. the laws of physics..

there is BOTH a subjective AND an objective part to the world

it seems to me having to pick one or the other exclusively is a false dichotomy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope FYI:

Many of us here on OL attended NBI in the 60's. A number of us have taken much of what Ayn broke ground with philosophically and incorporated it into our lives and ideas.

However, many of us have made distinctions from her ideas. Some have enhanced her ideas. Some have rejected some of her ideas.

Therefore, a mere departure from her line of thought has no effect on the tremendous respect we all have for how much she has given to us.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Selene, I actually agree with you and share your views on that 100%

I just try to ask some fundamental questions..

I guess what sort of bothered me is the entire concept of objectivism being called "objectivism.. as being the one and only complete truth..

And I guess that is what I was trying to break through..

But I guess I am simply behind the curve on that already ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Selene, I actually agree with you and share your views on that 100%

I just try to ask some fundamental questions..

I guess what sort of bothered me is the entire concept of objectivism being called "objectivism.. as being the one and only complete truth..

And I guess that is what I was trying to break through..

But I guess I am simply behind the curve on that already ;)

Pope:

Not really. I think we all dove head first into Objectivism with complete awe when it first hit us. I was about 14 or 15 when I finished Atlas. I was sitting on the Delaware River in the evening as the last glow of sunlight started to sink below the mountain tops, casting a hot red hue over the fog that was rising from the majestic river.

I closed the cover, picked up my Nylon 66 semi auto 22, my Irish Setter perked up as I moved and I said out loud to reality, "But of course." I have never looked back.

I now refer to myself as a small "o"bectivist. However, I will never forget how powerful her confirmations of what I believed were that evening. She is a great writer and I owe her a lot.

So, if anything I understand. Don't struggle so hard. Enjoy what you are learning.

Out of curiosity, are you a student, or, worker? Have you selected a path for yourself in terms of what you love to do?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • @ Selene
    I am in between student and worker.. a rather personally embarrasing position..

  • Yes I have found my personal path, I am going to make it in the music industry.. and I have many rational paths and plans of getting there.. not in a single minded manner of "I want to get signed and be a star for 15 minutes" as most people my age think.. I have already made about 2 thousand dollars out of my bedroom from my music in various ways, and without even trying very hard, I have plans to make much much more
    I am somebody who has just finished the first phase of my life of indoctrination, and occupation.. being to indoctrinated to be happy, and too occupied to think clearly.. I broke free of my religion a long time ago.. however I never FULLY broke free from it in heart until recently, as I said i was too occupied to think clearly..
    What I encountered was a sort of existential crisis similar to that of Nietzche.. the same question everybody asks, why am I here, what am I doing, what does it matter if nobody remembers me.. Which to an extent, I believe a question largely asked by people due to the proposition that they must somehow live for some external being, external society, external cause, under external rules for their life to be meaningful, that they cannot live for themselves.. the underlying altruist mentality rules here.. that is the fundamental conclusion I eventually came to after reading Rand, and then recently Nietzche in combination with my own previous self made philosophies to personally confirm it
    But somehow deep inside I had the determination to keep living.. I was not about to sit back and resign myself to Nhilism nor waiting for death.. I already knew religion was bullshit.. and i have had enough personal experience with "having nothing" in my life to know that all the life ideologies which idealized "having nothing" as ideals to happiness to be dead wrong..
    I came up with my own philosophy in a time.. I realized that the essence of my philosophy for personal fulfillment essentially had to do with a gaining - of - self.. rather than a giving away of self.. I came to realize nobody was depressed because they did not give enough, but plenty were depressed because they did not have enough..

  • what I essentially also came to was the realization that the large majority of the moral system of society, would shame my ideas, and that in a sense, that was the very thing I was allowing to keep me down, I began researching on others who agreed with me that selfishness was a key to personal happiness.. for evidence that wealth and prosperity DID in fact create happiness, and that happiness and purpose could in fact be found in the material world, rather than in some immaterial "after life". I found few people in agreement, and massive people in disagreement, promoting the destruction of the self and altruism, etc.. as some universally worshipped ideal, backed with savage emotions and name calling to re-enforce their points.. Then I found Rand.. then Nietzche.. and they both confirmed in slightly separate ways what I have believed all along.. With Rand espousing creating ones own values based on rational selfishness if one wishes to be happy,
    and Nietzche with a total destruction of common social morality and an ideal of returning back to nature, and the body, and ones instincts, and drives for life, and for power, the very things which the altruist, self immolating, self oppressing moral system of society at large is intented to shame..
    Anyway.. thats my story.. Im glad to hear another person saying they followed the philosophy against public morality, and never looked back since.. that only confirms my personal beliefs more..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is BOTH a subjective AND an objective part to the world

it seems to me having to pick one or the other exclusively is a false dichotomy

Put it this way.

For you, you have to have both. For me, I have to have both. For the rest of existence, it can get along just fine without either of us.

Michael

Haha .. I love it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put Pope.

Welcome to OL once again.

Adam

Now we can work on "brevity being the soul of wit" lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we can work on "brevity being the soul of wit" lol

HAH.. ah yes.. I have always had issues with this, which have been a curse and a blessing.. a blessing in the sense that in my school days, I could be asked to write a 10 page essay on the texture of bread and be able to do it with no problems :) LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understandable.

In grad school I had a great teacher who would have us critically analyze a particular book or speech and you were restricted to two pages. You do learn to compress your thoughts and make every word count.

Similar to being in a battle were you can use only the ammunition that you carried into the fray. Hence the classic line from the movies when them thar "injuns" are about to attack in wave formations and you hear your Sargent direct you, "To make every shot count, boys!"

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I wanted to reopen this forum-- I read the whole thing, though not entirely critically, and I think many people have brought up some very good insights-- it seems most concluded or came to understand that there was some level to which human/higher animal (i.e. "conscious") life is predetermined, and some level/degree in which conscious beings have control over their own actions, following from this that "choice" does not necessarily equate to entirely "free" will, but at least some level of freedom. I agree with this assessment.

My reason for wanting to reopen this topic is due to some conversations I've been having in the forum "DL's book," (Evoltiion: A Theory of Everything), with Peter Taylor especially. And the main question is: How does choice form from the inanimate on the level we/higher animals experience it -- is choice only conscious? Here is a segment from my book where I propose the idea of "cholce," or "holistic choice," as a potential option for understanding how the inanimate may possess some kind of the same mechanism of functioning by "self-regulating" their internal states:

---------------------------------------------------

"Things can maintain themselves, grow, or devolve as they change, depending on their different contexts. However, apart from any specific evolution, changes must always go from one state to another, thus involving at least two actions. Two (or more) actions can either happen either at the same time or one before/after another. Thus, versus ideas like growth that can describe progressive change, more generally, simultaneous or sequential actions seem to carry knowledge processes forward first.[1]

When considering that different events seem to happen alongside one another all the time, both externally and introspectively, simultaneity as a basic active context is not hard to fathom. Simultaneous effects could be seen as different pathways (or records) of action occurring at the same time. We experience this phenomenon astutely through our synchronous levels of consciousness, highlighted further by our volitional capabilities, or through the plethora of states from instincts to choices, that fuel all our actions. Although all things do not possess our conscious levels, all co-effects or simultaneous actions, because they occur within one referential frame, could be seen as holistic choices, or cholcestwo or more effective states held within and/or used by any entity.

I realize predetermination or the probabilities implicit in physics could be used to explain away volition-like capabilities, especially for things that don’t experience choice (human cholce) like we do. A common evolutionary argument is that life-forms are predetermined products of both their genetics and environments, so any “choices” are at best, secondary affectations of self-awareness. Thus, the phenomena we experience as choice could be dismissed as a dubious power, despite other “freedoms” (like “random” mutations or sporadic quantum movements) that may be at work in nature. Similarly, disbelief in authentic “will” could be argued from the standpoint of evolutionary reduction—since the same physical mechanisms already underlie all things, at what level do some have cholce while others don’t?

However, cholce, being removed from any mental and human constraints, could qualify a level of control (however strong or weak) within all entities, without discounting any physical causality. I envision cholce reduced to some basic “self-regulatory" mechanism, perhaps like an electrical feedback loop of conductance (yes) and resistance (no). Any "self-regulatory" process of basic complexity in an entity could be seen as exhibiting a level of self-control simply because some internal force (like strong nuclear) is holding its various components together, thus to some degree internally-modulating its own properties and/or powers. Cholce could describe any or all of these internal, self-regulatory processes.[2]

That said, it is neither uncommon nor unwise to think that until the creation of life (or animals or even the human mind), the forces that drove and composed inanimate matter had no dominant self-regulation. But if self (as will be examined later) holds as an axiomatic concept, this could implicate some kind of all-pervading separating, or individualizing force on all levels of existence. Such self-regulatory forces seem necessary for entities to maintain their unique positions and powers in space-time.

Basic self-regulation (as cholce) within all entities could help establish a better evolutionary context for the emergence of new forms, qualities or abilities, without having to revert only to ideas of predetermination combined with “chance” or “randomness”(which for living entities, could be genes interacting and mutating “spontaneously” in their environments). Still, cholce is easy to dismiss as an unnecessary anthropomorphic term—genes within environments (or whatever the predetermined probabilities) may be capable of explaining most if not all evolutionary phenomena. Even if cholce can be broadly defined as any/all self-regulated states, if it reduces to these more basic causes, does it really add anything useful to our understanding of knowledge capacities?

Following the logic of evolutionary gradualism, if complex things first evolve from one or two basic things (like genes and environments), it is not unreasonable to assume in a naturally-caused universe, these things should self-replicate. And self-replication seems often to involve some regulated containment or enclosure of information, where things of complementary nature surround and siphon from themselves in order to grow and/or reproduce; particles within particles like nuclei in atoms and cells, or suns within celestial systems, seeds rooting plants, brains controlling bodies, or even “minds” (like our frontal cortex) within brains giving rise to new levels of awareness—all these similar, significant organizational patterns up and down the evolutionary ladder suggest that entities grow in complexity by some cumulative balance around centers or nexuses. An idea like cholce could help inform us of even greater potential, self-regulatory controls or “freedoms,” e.g. by better understanding how knowledge is held, used and compounded through and by entities, so that “higher”level patterns, i.e. new evoltuoinary abilities, could emerge or be created.

Again this doesn’t mean that a rock, or water, or any more basic form of nature, has or can have the same volitional capabilities as human beings. Cholce just unifies all inherent multiple or simultaneous actions by self-capacity. So water changing to a solid, liquid or gas state with fluctuations in temperature would be similar to us wearing clothes or seeking shelter to adapt to or “survive” the same changes. One could say we choose to go in or outside or take on or off our clothes despite the weather, while the water can’t choose its state. But just as knowledge need not presume life, cholce need not presume the consciousness of actions—there are many processes that happen within us automatically that also could be considered cholce."


[1]. Although growth adds the idea of ‘progress’ to change, change itself can involve both/either growth and/or decay processes. It may even be probable that decay processes sometimes ‘advance’ things. Thus, logically, it becomes more accurate to say initially, one thing must become two (or more) things without itself being replaced, if we want to encompass a fuller sense of evolution or progressive change. This is why simultaneous events/effects (as will be described as cholce) seem to work more fluidly to elaborate our ideas of knowledge, specifically of what follows after a single change or effect.

[2]. Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger may have been the first to suggest volition as a kind of focused or “goal-directed” action in his essay, “Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation.” I am not completely convinced with this definition, since a goal hints more at a specialized level of volitional processing, rather than a defining quality of choice, but the idea of self-regulation intrigues me, since this idea could extend beyond cognition as we know it altogether. Experimentally, we do not currently know enough to predict how far volition extends down the chain of life (notwithstanding matter), but choices abstracted to any internal or self-regulatory processes as cholces, give us an edge to start comparing how simultaneous events, i.e. knowledge pathways, can work together to create new, emergent abilities in all entities. All entities, being physical (rather than metaphysical), may have a level of cholce due to their more separable forms. So some things (like perhaps “particle-waves”) may not possess cholce, being completely determined by set variables, inseparable from the universal matrix, and only capable of changing one way. On the other hand, entities (e.g. particles) would have at least more than one pathway to move simply by way of their greater separation. Note that self-separation or self-regulation does not mean evolution or growth is automatically ‘willed’—sometimes the only path to growth may be to succumb to outside forces.

-----------------------------------------

I think when Michael was discussing the truine brain, he was touching upon some of the physical mechanisms that may be involved in what we normally consider such "lower" and "higher" cognitive abilities--but he doesn't take this to unscncious living levels (e.g. those of plants), and I think Pope touches on and challenges this also with his comments about emotion vs. reason in this forum-- how reason is often favored in Rand's/common Objectivist as the "right" (if not the only right) way to really think and pursue truth. I think most people on here probably agree that there are other pathways to true and moral outcomes besides just reason, but why should reason (or even "conscious choice") be given superiority as a process over something like emotion, if, for example, someone is incredibly intuitive and following their emotions, and this has lead them down good paths? I'm not even saying that reason doesn't deserve a higher standing to emotion in general, but can we really prescribe this to all conscious contexts and/or all people? I'd like to hear what you all feel/think about this, especially in an Objectivist forum, inundated with us "rational" thinkers:).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dlewes, (and Hazard),

I am in agreement with the first post. I think our reality is a deterministic/causal continually changing system.

For example, when someone says they chose something for a reason they unknowingly are saying that they are doing it due to a rational/deductive/inductive deterministic process. Then when one does something only by emotion, one is more or less just going by what one's genes have been programmed to do over the span of evolutionary time to react to do rather than using newly reasoned/deduced/inducted behaviors. Either way its still deterministic.

Gotta go to bed now. Cheers,

Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think important to note is that Rand held that "Man is a being of volitional consciousness".

Essentially - whatever a prior causation - consciously 'the buck stops here'. Her statement does not in the least imply any one outcome in reality for a person - i.e., that what you wish for, is what you get. Advisedly, I think of it as 'soft volition'- heh -as opposed to "hard determinism".

'Free will' probably indicates clearer that self-directing aspect.

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