Refuting Nathaniel Branden's 6 Pillars of Self-Esteem

[SteveWolfer]

7 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Oh. I guess that settles it. I only spent a minute or two.

Ah, good that settles it then. 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 7/25/2016 at 11:24 PM, wolfdevoon said:

For the record, I dispute all three of those propositions. Miss Rand made mistakes.

In a very ill behaved world,  how shall our nation survive without a military force,  unless you object to the existence of -nations- as such.  Nation is an inherently a collectivist  concept. 

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

For the record, I dispute all three of those propositions. Miss Rand made mistakes.

In a very ill behaved world,  how shall our nation survive without a military force,  unless you object to the existence of -nations- as such.  Nation is in inherently a collectivist  concept. 

[BaalChatzaf]

Live to Conquer or Live to Accomplish.  Conquering means vanquishing someone else.  Accomplishing does not necessarily imply conquest. 

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Nation is in inherently a collectivist  concept. 

I don't think that is necessarily so.  For example, if two or three people get together to form a limited partnership, that isn't necessarily the application of a collectivist philosophy. 

In a world where very different ideologies and cultures wield power, there will be nations to separate them with borders.  It makes concrete the separation of the different political systems.

It is true that "nation" can be used as part of a collectivist motivation, as in Nazi Germany, or as in flag-waving patriotism that is used to motivate people to support a political campaign.  But nation can also be a way asserting the rights of the nation's citizens to not be abused by other nations (We broke away from the nation of Great Britain to form our own nation - and we did so in a way that supported the political application of individualism - not collectivism.)

Whenever or wherever we can point to a national act that is in support of individual rights, it would make no sense to say that was a collectivist act.

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: In a very ill behaved world, how shall our nation survive without a military force, unless you object to the existence of -nations- as such.  Nation is in inherently a collectivist concept. end quote

Steve responded: In a world where very different ideologies and cultures wield power, there will be nations to separate them with borders.  It makes concrete the separation of the different political systems. end quote

I listened briefly to a highly agitated Mark Levin yesterday on the radio (he shouted a lot) and Mark thought the best political system ever devised was our combination of freedom, capitalism, and federalism. And by federalism he meant a group of individuals and states, all with their own inclinations and laws, united under a benevolent government designed to protect itself and individual rights.

Without government we have the Alan Ladd movie, “Shane:” Collisions of interests and the strongest and most vicious ruling until they are unseated (or shot dead.) As the little boy in the movie crowed after the hero shot the cattle baron, the baron’s brother and a hired gunslinger, “I knew you could do it Shane!”

U.S.A.!  U.S.A.!

Apparently there is evidence that Russia did hack Hillary and the DNC and Wikileaks  released the info in time to do the maximum damage to Hillary Ride-um Klingon. I think Putin must have a crush on The Donald.  

Peter 

[william.scherk]

On 7/25/2016 at 1:29 PM, william.scherk said:

I tend to smudge over any clash in my mind by thinking of volition as a kind of determining factor in equations of common-sense determinism. Volition (in its ambit) is part of a deterministic universe of forces. 

"Will" is a determining factor, a determinant?

Here is some fun new research that approaches volition (deliberation, decision-making) from a fresh neurophysical angle. 

What Free Will Looks Like in the Brain

Quote

 

July 13, 2016

Johns Hopkins University researchers are the first to glimpse the human brain making a purely voluntary decision to act.

Unlike most brain studies where scientists watch as people respond to cues or commands, Johns Hopkins researchers found a way to observe people’s brain activity as they made choices entirely on their own. The findings, which pinpoint the parts of the brain involved in decision-making and action, are now online, and due to appear in a special October issue of the journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

“How do we peek into people’s brains and find out how we make choices entirely on our own?” asked Susan Courtney, a professor of psychological and brain sciences. “What parts of the brain are involved in free choice?”

The team devised a novel experiment to track a person’s focus of attention without using intrusive cues or commands. Participants, positioned in MRI scanners, were left alone to watch a split screen as rapid streams of colorful numbers and letters scrolled past on each side. They were asked simply to pay attention to one side for a while, then to the other side — when to switch sides was entirely up to them. Over an hour, the participants switched their attention from one side to the other dozens of times.

Researchers monitored the participants’ brains as they watched the media stream, both before and after they switched their focus.

For the first time, researchers were able to see both what happens in a human brain the moment a free choice is made, and what happens during the lead-up to that decision — how the brain behaves during the deliberation to act.

 

 

 

 

 

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

"Will" is a determining factor, a determinant?

I think you're equivocating on 'determining' and 'determinant' here

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Here is some fun new research that approaches volition (deliberation, decision-making) from a fresh neurophysical angle. 

Here is the abstract from the study:

The neural substrates of volition have long tantalized philosophers and scientists. Over the past few decades, researchers have employed increasingly sophisticated technology to investigate this issue, but many studies have been limited considerably by their reliance on intrusive experimental procedures (e.g., abrupt instructional cues), measures of brain activity contaminated by overt behavior, or introspective self-report techniques of questionable validity. Here, we used multivoxel pattern time-course analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data to index voluntary, covert perceptual acts—shifts of visuospatial attention—in the absence of instructional cues, overt behavioral indices, and self-report. We found that these self-generated, voluntary attention shifts were time-locked to activity in the medial superior parietal lobule, supporting the hypothesis that this brain region is engaged in voluntary attentional reconfiguration. Self-generated attention shifts were also time-locked to activity in the basal ganglia, a novel finding that motivates further research into the role of the basal ganglia in acts of volition. Remarkably, prior to self-generated shifts of attention, we observed early and selective increases in the activation of medial frontal (dorsal anterior cingulate) and lateral prefrontal (right middle frontal gyrus) cortex—activity that likely reflects processing related to the intention or preparation to reorient attention. These findings, which extend recent evidence on freely chosen motor movements, suggest that dorsal anterior cingulate and lateral prefrontal cortices play key roles in both overt and covert acts of volition, and may constitute core components of a brain network underlying the will to attend.

I really like the effort here, much better than the trend of trying to prove free will volition doesn't exist.

Edited August 2, 2016 by KorbenDallas
technicality

[william.scherk]

28 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Will" is a determining factor, a determinant?

I think you're equivocating on 'determining' and 'determinant' here

As I said above, I am philosophically naive. I view 'free will' as part of  an 'equation' of a deterministic universe.  A factor among factors.  I am puzzled by those who cannot see human decision-making as contingent on brain processes. I am almost equally puzzled by those who cannot grasp their own deliberative processes as having physical 'reality.'  The "I don't have a Mind" folks, so to speak.

Hi Bob. I hope you enjoy reading about the research touted above. 

[KorbenDallas]

27 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Hi Bob. I hope you enjoy reading about the research touted above. 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Will" is a determining factor, a determinant?

Here is some fun new research that approaches volition (deliberation, decision-making) from a fresh neurophysical angle. 

What Free Will Looks Like in the Brain

 

 

 

 

They are looking at an effect.  How do they know what the cause(s)  is(are)?  

[Brant Gaede]

Does man have free will?

Does a man have cognition?

Why must the answer to the first question be the same as the second?

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

They are looking at an effect.  How do they know what the cause(s)  is(are)?  

This is how they setup the experiment, from the article WSS linked to:

The team devised a novel experiment to track a person’s focus of attention without using intrusive cues or commands. Participants, positioned in MRI scanners, were left alone to watch a split screen as rapid streams of colorful numbers and letters scrolled past on each side. They were asked simply to pay attention to one side for a while, then to the other side — when to switch sides was entirely up to them. Over an hour, the participants switched their attention from one side to the other dozens of times.

Researchers monitored the participants’ brains as they watched the media stream, both before and after they switched their focus.

For the first time, researchers were able to see both what happens in a human brain the moment a free choice is made, and what happens during the lead-up to that decision — how the brain behaves during the deliberation to act.

I underlined some of the important aspects..

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

This is how they setup the experiment, from the article WSS linked to:

The team devised a novel experiment to track a person’s focus of attention without using intrusive cues or commands. Participants, positioned in MRI scanners, were left alone to watch a split screen as rapid streams of colorful numbers and letters scrolled past on each side. They were asked simply to pay attention to one side for a while, then to the other side — when to switch sides was entirely up to them. Over an hour, the participants switched their attention from one side to the other dozens of times.

Researchers monitored the participants’ brains as they watched the media stream, both before and after they switched their focus.

For the first time, researchers were able to see both what happens in a human brain the moment a free choice is made, and what happens during the lead-up to that decision — how the brain behaves during the deliberation to act.

I underlined some of the important aspects..

Did something external cause them to switch sides?  Was it cosmic rays?  Was it quantum indeterminism?   Somewhere along the line someone is going to insert a hypothesis to account for what was seen.  Do you see the epistemological problem that is lurking here?

[KorbenDallas]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Did something external cause them to switch sides?

The fact they repeatedly saw the same brain activity for the same action for over an hour would rule this out.

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Somewhere along the line someone is going to insert a hypothesis to account for what was seen.

I think the scientists did that already...

21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Do you see the epistemological problem that is lurking here?

Yes!:

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Was it cosmic rays?  Was it quantum indeterminism?

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

The fact they repeatedly saw the same brain activity for the same action for over an hour would rule this out.

I think the scientists did that already...

Yes!:

No it wouldn't.  A persistent external cause could account for this.  Alas,  someone Begged the Question. Unless an external cause is eliminated, the question has not been answered in a completely logical manner. 

[william.scherk]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

For the first time, researchers were able to see both what happens in a human brain the moment a free choice is made, and what happens during the lead-up to that decision — how the brain behaves during the deliberation to act.

Did something external cause them to switch sides?  Was it cosmic rays?  Was it quantum indeterminism?

How do energized particles like 'cosmic rays' usually affect a brain? Is there any research on this, Bob, that you have heard of?  Is it a pressing concern?  Do you have a hypothesis yourself?

What I am not understanding, Bob, is if you actually think cosmic rays effect your own decision-making, deliberation, and (apparent) will.  I wonder if there is some pre-existing research that supports the notion. Is it plausible that cosmic rays are a factor in decision-making in your brain?

From the abstract:

These findings, which extend recent evidence on freely chosen motor movements, suggest that dorsal anterior cingulate and lateral prefrontal cortices play key roles in both overt and covert acts of volition, and may constitute core components of a brain network underlying the will to attend.

 

14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Somewhere along the line someone is going to insert a hypothesis to account for what was seen.

I think the scientists did that already...

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Do you see the epistemological problem that is lurking here?

Yes!:

I don't see it. Help a naive fellow out, and he will reward you with research.

In any case, what is the next research question -- with suitable safeguards/shielding -- that would properly follow this publication, Bob?

Additionally, and naively, I find the concept of quantum indeterminacy to be mostly woo as applied to cognition.  At the level of thought, action, deliberation, decision-making, emotion, attention, do you think some woo contributes to the final 'product' in human action? (and if that is your hypothesis, how could it be falsified?)

I mean, it seems to me that a quantum effect would be assessed probabilistically. And that the probability of a discrete bit of quantum woo-factor at the sub-atomic scale (altering a discrete action of the brain enough to influence deliberation) is practically impossible to determine. Thus the invoking of quantum woo is a dodge, equivalent to incorporeal spirits or the action of grace. Equivalent to pixies in the garden.

In other words, my takeaway from your brief remarks is that we humans, we sapiens sapiens, are all automata -- except for the 'hand of god' in the subatomic realm. Quantum pixies, and cosmic prods.

All that said, I would be interested in a substantive critique of this new research, even if suffused with appeals to Woo.

Edited August 3, 2016 by william.scherk
Pixies! Woo! Spelling.

[Peter]

PBS had a new documentary on last night about Koko, the “talking gorilla,” with a sign language vocabulary of 300 words. She is in her forties now. Most scientists think she is responding to visual cues from the human she is chatting with. She asks her human handlers to “feed me” quite often. But occasionally as when her pet kitten was run over she seems to respond much like a four year old human might, but only after being asked a question, such as how does her death make you feel?

THE MOST TELLING factor about Koko is that they still need to keep her on a leash and in a cage. When they introduced her to a smaller male to see if they could grow to like each other and then mate . . . she beat up on him.

Peter     

[Peter]

I would consider it a proof of deterministic human behavior, if advertisers could always predict buying preferences. Joke. It is in their interest to succeed as with all other life forms, including humans. I would consider it a proof of deterministic human behavior, if the MRI observing scientist could predict what a human will do or say, several seconds before they act in that manner. Would five seconds before the action be proof? A minute? A day? Or then again, maybe never. Self diagnosis of deterministic thought process might lead to insanity. Now why did I just say that . . . and that . . .  and that? Aaarg!

Peter

NOTES about Popper: The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974) by ??? . . . . A very different part of the commonsense view of the world is the commonsense theory of knowledge. The problem is the problem of how we get knowledge about the world. The commonsense solution is: by opening our eyes and ears. Our senses are the main if not the only sources of our knowledge of the world. This second view I regard as thoroughly mistaken, and as insufficiently criticized (in spite of Leibniz and Kant). I call it the bucket theory of the mind, because it can be summed up by the diagram overleaf. What allegedly enters the bucket through our senses are the elements, the atoms or molecules, of knowledge. Our knowledge then consists of an accumulation, a digest, or perhaps a synthesis of the elements offered to us by our senses.

Both halves of commonsense philosophy, commonsense realism and the commonsense theory of knowledge, were held by Hume; he found, as did Berkeley before him, that there is a clash between them. For the commonsense theory of knowledge is liable to lead to a kind of anti-realism. If knowledge results from sensations, then sensations are the only certain elements of knowledge, and we can have no good reason to believe that anything but sensation exists. Popper has argued (I think successfully) that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false.

. . . . (8) Neither observation nor reason is an authority. Intellectual intuition and imagination are most important, but they are not reliable: they may show us things very clearly, and yet they may mislead us. They are indispensable as the main sources of our theories; but most of our theories are false anyway. The most important function of observation and reasoning, and even of intuition and imagination, is to help us in the critical examination of those bold conjectures which are the means by which we probe into the unknown. Even where a term has made trouble, as for instance the term 'simultaneity' in physics, it was not because its meaning was imprecise or ambiguous, but rather because of some intuitive theory which induced us to burden the term with too much meaning, or with too 'precise' a meaning, rather than with too little. What Einstein found in his analysis of simultaneity was that, when speaking of simultaneous events, physicists made a false assumption which would have been unchallengeable were there signals of infinite velocity. The fault was not that they did not mean anything, or that their meaning was ambiguous, or the term not precise enough; what Einstein found was, rather, that the elimination of a theoretical assumption, unnoticed so far because of its intuitive self-evidence, was able to remove a difficulty which had arisen in science. Accordingly, he was not really concerned with a question of the meaning of a term, but rather with the truth of a theory. It is very unlikely that it would have led to much if someone had started, apart from a definite physical problem, to improve the concept of simultaneity by analyzing its 'essential] meaning', or even by analyzing what physicists 'really mean' when they speak of simultaneity. end quote

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Aristotle on choice. Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:09:06 -0600: As I have noted before, one of the best treatments of "choice" ever written appears in Book III of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics.* The following sketch of his basic points is from the translation by W.D. Ross in *The Basic Works of Aristotle,* ed. Richard McKeon (Random House, 1941). This summary is taken from Aristotle's introductory remarks on pp. 967-71, after which he explains and defends his views in more detail -- so please don't take this as a comprehensive statement. I encourage everyone to read Aristotle's discussion in its entirety, for two reasons. First, it exerted an enormous influence on subsequent advocates of "free will." Second, it is filled with insights, distinctions, and arguments that every volitionist (including Objectivists) will find of value, even if they take exception to some points.

Summary: Choice does not pertain to what is impossible. We can wish for something impossible (e.g., immortality), but we cannot choose it. An agent chooses "only the things that he thinks could be brought about by his own efforts." Wish relates the end of action, whereas choice relates to the means. For example, we can wish to be healthy but we cannot choose to be healthy per se, because this does not lie directly in our power. Instead, we choose *means,* or specific actions, that we think will make us healthy.

Choice "involves a rational principle and thought." This means that choice is preceded by deliberation. This distinguishes the realm of choice from the realm of the voluntary. All chosen actions are voluntary, but not all voluntary actions are chosen. Something is voluntary if "the moving principle is in the agent himself, he being aware of the particular circumstances of the action." Hence if we act spontaneously from a strong passion, this action is voluntary (i.e., it was not compelled by an external agent) but not chosen per se, because it was not the result of deliberation.

The same is true of habitual actions. These are voluntary but not chosen, since to act from habit is to act without conscious reflection or deliberation. We can, however, choose means that we believe will alter our habits; and it is also the case that our habits are the result of earlier choices. This notion of indirect choice (which is my characterization, not Aristotle's) plays a crucial role in Aristotle's treatment of virtues and vices, which are essentially good and bad moral habits.

(Aristotle's distinction between the voluntary and the chosen – which he discusses in far more detail than indicated here -- is relevant to the topic of soft determinism. He would maintain that the soft determinist confuses voluntary actions with chosen actions. Suppose that all of our actions are necessitated by antecedent causes. Although these determined actions can be described a "voluntary" (because the source of action lies within the agent), they are not a matter of choice. This is because choice presupposes deliberation, and we deliberate only about *alternatives* that we regard as both possible and within our power to do or not to do. )

Aristotle asks: "Do we deliberate about everything, and is everything a possible subject of deliberation, or is deliberation impossible about some things?" We do not deliberate about things that occur necessarily or by nature, nor about chance events. (These are other ways of saying that we do not deliberate about things that lie outside of our control.) For instance, we do not deliberate about solstices, droughts or rains, nor about the accidental finding of a treasure. Nor do we deliberate about every human action, but only about those things that "can be brought about by our own efforts."

In short, "we deliberate about things that are in our own power and can be done." This means that we do not deliberate about the conclusions of the exact sciences in which conclusions follow with logical necessity from evident premises. Nor do we deliberate about how the letters of the alphabet shall be written, for such matters have already been determined (by convention, in this case) and present no options. Deliberation is possible only when (1) alternatives are possible, and (2) these alternatives lie within our own power to do or not to do. "Deliberation is concerned with things that happen in a certain way for the most part, but in which the event is obscure, and with things in which it is indeterminate."

"We deliberate about ends but not about means." A doctor qua doctor does not deliberate about whether he shall heal, for this purpose is a defining characteristic of his profession. This end is assumed -- it is accepted as a given by the doctor qua doctor -- who deliberates only about the means appropriate to healing, when different options present themselves and a course of action is not absolutely dictated by logical necessity. (Aristotle obviously does not deny that one can deliberate about becoming a doctor, but in this case the profession is viewed as a *means* to some other end, e.g., a fulfilling way of life, a good living, or happiness.)

All deliberation is a type of investigation; to deliberate is to consider various means and to assess their relative desirability vis-à-vis a given end. And if, during the course of this investigation, we encounter an impossibility, we "give up the search" because we realize that something is not within our power. (e.g., "if we need money and this cannot be got; but if a thing appears possible we try to do   it.") Deliberation "is about the things to be done by the agent himself, and actions are for the sake of things other than themselves."

The object of deliberation in a particular case is the same as the object of choice, "except that the object of choice is already determinate, since it is that which has been decided upon as a result of deliberation that is the object of choice."  Again: "The object of choice being one of the things in our own power which is desired after deliberation, choice will be deliberate desire of things in our own power; for when we have decided as a result of deliberation, we desire in accordance with our deliberation."

(The term "deliberate desire" is very important. Aristotle denies that our choices are necessitated by our desires. True, we don't choose something unless we desire it in some sense, but can generate, and thereby control, our desires through deliberation, which is an intellectual process that a person has the power to initiate and direct. To put the same point in Randian terms, feelings are not a primary.)

Ghs

[KorbenDallas]

On 8/3/2016 at 0:26 PM, william.scherk said:

What I am not understanding, Bob, is if you actually think cosmic rays effect your own decision-making, deliberation, and (apparent) will.  I wonder if there is some pre-existing research that supports the notion. Is it plausible that cosmic rays are a factor in decision-making in your brain?

I remember reading this exact thing when researching Sam Harris, but I don't know if I heard it from him or not, cosmic rays could effect volition.  I've also seen dark matter, effects from another dimension... 

On 8/3/2016 at 9:32 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Alas,  someone Begged the Question. Unless an external cause is eliminated, the question has not been answered in a completely logical manner. 

There is no proof to this, it's an ad ignorantiam...  then coming back like there is some petitio involved, when it's a solid experiment, seems to take the topic off point.  You asked earlier if I saw the epistemological problem, and I did, it was the ad ignorantiam

[BaalChatzaf]

20 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I remember reading this exact thing when researching Sam Harris, but I don't know if I heard it from him or not, cosmic rays could effect volition.  I've also seen dark matter, effects from another dimension... 

There is no proof to this, it's an ad ignorantiam...  then coming back like there is some petitio involved, when it's a solid experiment, seems to take the topic off point.  You asked earlier if I saw the epistemological problem, and I did, it was the ad ignorantiam

It is well known that  cosmic radiation easily penetrate bone and flesh.  Our astronauts experience "light flashes"  well wrapped in ISS.  These are caused by charged particles   hitting the optic nerve and portions of the brain.  I am not saying cosmic rays cause our thinking but since they physically interact with our neural tissue they might have an influence.  Unless cosmic radiation is  eliminated from the free will experiments (this by wrapping up the subjects in a well insulated thick chamber)  we have no assurance that cosmic radiation does NOT affect  what is going on in our brains.  So the solution is do the experiment in a well insulated chamber.  If the results are the same then we know cosmic rays have nothing to do with what is observed. 

[KorbenDallas]

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is well known that  cosmic radiation easily penetrate bone and flesh.  Our astronauts experience "light flashes"  well wrapped in ISS.  These are caused by charged particles   hitting the optic nerve and portions of the brain.  I am not saying cosmic rays cause our thinking but since they physically interact with our neural tissue they might have an influence.  Unless cosmic radiation is  eliminated from the free will experiments (this by wrapping up the subjects in a well insulated thick chamber)  we have no assurance that cosmic radiation does NOT affect  what is going on in our brains.  So the solution is do the experiment in a well insulated chamber.  If the results are the same then we know cosmic rays have nothing to do with what is observed. 

Ba'al, earth's atmosphere reduces cosmic radiation to the point it doesn't affect us in those ways.

[BaalChatzaf]

23 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Ba'al, earth's atmosphere reduces cosmic radiation to the point it doesn't affect us in those ways.

Not completely.  Look at the northern lights sometime.  Also we are bombarded by neutrino which go through lead like was vapor.

[KorbenDallas]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not completely.  Look at the northern lights sometime.  Also we are bombarded by neutrino which go through lead like was vapor.

That's because of the magnetic field, in other areas on Earth we're pretty safe.  (edit:)  Arg, neutrinos?

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

That's because of the magnetic field, in other areas on Earth we're pretty safe.  (edit:)  Arg, neutrinos?

The northern lights were seen on Mt. Washington in New Hampshire yesterday.  During the Carrington Even of 1859  Northern Lights were seen as far south as Washington D.C.