peterdjones

Good points, I'll add them to the list.

Where "force" doesn't mean "force"

The act may be caused, but the decision cannot be (fully) caused, or it would not be free. An entity can't make an uncaused choice between motive-action pairs if there is no indeterminism. Volition is blocked off be determinism, the nature of consciousness doesn't come into it. But causality is also held to be directly perceived. To make a free choice is to make an unforced choice, and that *does* contradict universal determinism.

Ever heard of the Poverty of the Stimulus?

The Peikoff quotes come form works approved by Rand. Much more on the three-way contradiction between free-will, determinism and incompatibilism here

Yes she does. Here she is saying so: "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 [ emph. added ] by the identities of the elements involved". "It's negation is a self contradiction" is a classical way of defining an apriori statement, found in much philosophical literature. So your objection is like saying "it's an equine quadruped, not a horse". Wrong. If your statement means anything, you conflate epistemology and metaphysics. A concept is not a physical box. "If the shoe fits" is not a literal call to find Cinderalla. I am referring to this claim by Peikoff: "Metaphysically, an entity is what it is, (it has all of the characteristics that it has) therefore there is no basis for saying that some characteristics are contained within the meaning of a concept and some are not, therefore there is no basis for the analytic/synthetic dichotomy'. " I agree that his idea of "containment within a concept" is both unclear and unlikely. If you want to say he is just plumb wrong. go ahead....although you will then need a substitute argument against the A/S dichotomy. Wrong. These are not Rand's words and she obviously recognized the need for a cassus belli. Well, Peikoff doesn't.

If true, that refutes one position on free will (interactive dualism/supernatural FW) and leaves all other options open.

y,You seem to be saying the solution is to just abandon induction. But Rand can't, since many of her dearly held principles are based on generalisations of observation. To put it another way, if you reject the apriori, as she does, and you reject induction as well, you are not going to have much of an epistemology left.

Metaphysics. She accepts both free will and determinism (the law of casuality) but rejects compatibilism. Epistemology: There is no apriori, but there are "axioms". Concepts are formed by the mind yet somehow encompass the totality their referents. Ethics: Initiation of Force is always wrong, but pre-emptive military strikes are OK. Selflessness is not so much of a virtue that you should practice it for its own sake, but enough to practice it as part of a campaign of self-improvement.