My problem with Free Will

[deanwins]

Skinner argued that if he knew all the forces that could effect you flipping a coin, he would be able to predict, with absolute certainty whether the coin would land on the head side, the tail side, or on it's edge.

He then trtansformed that statement into stating the same about humans.

The problem with Skinner's attempt to predict such things in real is that at some point the complexity of the system goes beyond the noise floor and there is simply too much information to have to know and too much to process in order to predict with absolute certainty the complex systems. A butterfly flapping its wings rather than not causing the center of gravity of earth to change and a coin on the other side of the world to land on heads rather than tails. No computer can be made within reality to predict with certainty what reality will become... instead we can only make some predictions about portions of reality and for the rest we have to wait for the future to become present to observe what will be.

[Selene]

Skinner argued that if he knew all the forces that could effect you flipping a coin, he would be able to predict, with absolute certainty whether the coin would land on the head side, the tail side, or on it's edge.

He then trtansformed that statement into stating the same about humans.

The problem with Skinner's attempt to predict such things in real is that at some point the complexity of the system goes beyond the noise floor and there is simply too much information to have to know and too much to process in order to predict with absolute certainty the complex systems. A butterfly flapping its wings rather than not causing the center of gravity of earth to change and a coin on the other side of the world to land on heads rather than tails. No computer can be made within reality to predict with certainty what reality will become... instead we can only make some predictions about portions of reality and for the rest we have to wait for the future to become present to observe what will be.

Agreed. He was a utopian statist. Walden II is as non Thorouian [sp?] s anyone could imagine.

[anthony]

"As moral a system as individual rights is, it is not a morality in itself, but a guardian of morality." Individual rights as written on paper is a description of rules of interactions between people. A moral system is a vast collection of ideas all related in the purpose of achieving a collection of goals. Morality of a person is the extent at which the effect of their actions increase their goal attainment. There are two kinds of moral systems: 1. Rule based: you follow the rules and either are moral by following them or are not moral by disobeying them; 2. Life based: there's no limit to what one's goals can be nor the extent at which the goals can be more satisfied. Individual rights is a rule based moral system. Accepted as a goal for a person to obey, it becomes their moral system, their bases for their morality.

Well, Dean, you've got me a little puzzled. I'm not sure we're on the same page... maybe not the same book.

You know as well as I, an Objectivist already has his morality coming in (and without the rules).

Trying to look at the big picture, it seems to me one has to isolate those elements which are ends in themselves, from those that are means to ends. (Together they all blend seamlessly).

I think you and I can agree on one thing for certain: freedom is an end in itself. The ultimate societal purpose.

Freedom from whom? Of course, from "our brothers", of course, from government - but they both amount to the same thing.

("To be free, man must be free of his brothers.")

Individual rights; a limited government; rule of (objective) law; Capitalism; -- are each a manifestation of a free society.

Each is a means to an end.

But does this whole package make people moral and rational? As you put it, "[individual rights]...becomes their moral system, their basis for their morality". I'd say not, to both.

First, a system or code which is 'moral', should be distinguished carefully from 'a system of morality' i.e. a philosophical ethics.

Next, how does such a society come about in practice? By the majority of rational citizens who demand it? - or - through a system which is implemented (somehow), and which then educates citizens (hopefully) to the merits of being moral?

I doubt it - moral conviction motivates, has staying power, and is a precondition of the rest.

In O'ism, individual rights have a twin derivation, if I'm right - from rational selfishness and also 'right to life and property' as in Rand's comprehensive rationale. Either way, as I said simplistically, the purpose of rights is the guardian of morality, while not being 'a morality' per se.

Capitalism is very simply rational self interest in action.

-------

"Rights are a moral concept--the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions, to the principles guiding his relationship with others--the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics".

"Individual rights are a means of subordinating society to moral law."

-----ARand: 'Man's Rights'.

Arriving back at the starting point, the primary "end in itself" with the morality of rational selfishness.

To put the "social context"- and the "legal code of a society"- ahead of rational morality, is cart before horse, I think.

[deanwins]

Tony Garland,

Obeying capitalism/individual rights/property is a rule. Long term self interest is not. They can contradict. In Objectivist circles AFAIK there is disagreement on this, and when recognizing the contradiction there are differing opinions on which should override the other.

In short, know that I am a subjectivist who recognizes harmony of interest... so no we are not quite the same book if you are Objectivist. An Objectivist would say "if you are a man" then "you should live like man", where man in the first is maybe by genetic determination and the second is Rand's caracature of humans especially highlighting differences between man and animal: a switch of definitions of words mid argument. Shoulds/moral judgements do not exist for a person until after a person has accepted a goal for themselves. Objectivists have accepted living like Rand's caracture as thier goal. Despite recognizing this... I do accept living like Rand's charactature as my goal.

[Brant Gaede]

Tony Garland,

Obeying capitalism/individual rights/property is a rule. Long term self interest is not. They can contradict. In Objectivist circles AFAIK there is disagreement on this, and when recognizing the contradiction there are differing opinions on which should override the other.

In short, know that I am a subjectivist who recognizes harmony of interest... so no we are not quite the same book if you are Objectivist. An Objectivist would say "if you are a man" then "you should live like man", where man in the first is maybe by genetic determination and the second is Rand's caracature of humans especially highlighting differences between man and animal: a switch of definitions of words mid argument. Shoulds/moral judgements do not exist for a person until after a person has accepted a goal for themselves. Objectivists have accepted living like Rand's caracture as thier goal. Despite recognizing this... I do accept living like Rand's charactature as my goal.

You are not an Objectivist. You don't have a problem with this or you're fighting your subjectivism, in which case you'd be a subjectivist searching for an Objectivist foothold if not orientation. That impression is not being generated. An Objectivist would have no problem with you not being an Objectivist as long as you mind your manners and don't violate human--especially his--rights. So, why are you trying to inform Objectivism? I ask because of the seemingly implicit hypocrisy.

--Brant

small

"o" or big "O"

objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist

[deanwins]

So, why are you trying to inform Objectivism?

Objectivism is my philosophy, depending on definition. Much has been discovered since Rand's time in physics, biology, and computers that I have found to reveal issues in Rand's philosophy. Never the less, there is no other philosophy out there that I'm aware of that is anything more consistent with my current understanding of ethics, learning, axioms, knowledge, politics, esthetics, and humans.

We want the world to become more capitalist. We want people to think for themselves and to be able to do their own thing in private. We want to find ways we can help make this all happen.

Why do Objectivists try to inform mystics and postmodernists and socialists and Atlases and those who have given up on thinking?

Philosophy and worldview effect what one thinks is possible to achieve and which methods are most promising. Invalid philosophy results in less goal attainment. Given harmony of interest, helping friends discover mistakes in philosophy can help both increase their own goal attainments.

And other than informing objectivists, I stll have things left to resolve to inform myself. Who better than objectivists to debate with?

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

Responsibility to self - i.e. in thoughts, character and actions - is the primary. It necessitates a person constantly reasoning and then acting with consistency on the principles he holds true, those of objective reality . . . . It has nothing, (primarily) to do with society or other people. It is for his own sake.

end quote

Well said Tony.

And Dean Gores responded:

Random : Unpredictable causal event

Free Will : Causal unpredictable choice

end quote

*Free Will* need not necessitate “un” - predictability. To the contrary, in a very similar circumstance a person of a specific morality would respond in the same fashion every time. It is those “gray areas” where two people of reason and morality would differ. I will grant you that the degree of different responses from Objectivists in the gray areas has astonished me over the years. There is no universal consistency within the group called Objectivists. Would anyone say Objectivists are more consistent than persons of different philosophical beliefs? I would say yes in spite of the schism between the ARI and the rest of Objectivism. Whichis being more objective?

Tony quoted Ayn Rand “. . . Individual rights are a means of subordinating society to moral law.”

When discussing the branch of philosophy called, “Politics,” it is interesting that Rand did not say, “. . . Individual rights are a means of subordinating government to moral law,” which a professor of polysci might say. Rand combined government and the individuals agreeing to be governed into the phrase, “society,” which is much more economical.

As an aside, a rational anarchist might say “government” in that definition too, but only as a transitional phase until government is abandoned. Rational Anarchism and limited Objectivist government can share the same strategies to travel away from Statism. But when we get to the end of the road to a free society, the two differing evaluations of intrinsic human character necessitates two different outcomes. To an Objectivist a government MUST BE the final arbiter to protect individual rights. And of course to a rational anarchist there is an inherent evil to any sort of government. My challenge to the rational anarchist is to factor in *time* to any society lacking a government. And as a challenge to a Constitutionalist I would challenge you to rethink the checks and balances within that document.

As I may have mentioned, responders to this thread might want to take a look at another thread called “DL’s book.”

[Selene]

Why do Objectivists try to inform mystics and postmodernists and socialists and Atlases and those who have given up on thinking?

Excellent question. The simple answermay not be so simple.

It is also a plan that is doomed to failure. Perfect example is watching the Republican Party collapse upon itself because they want to be accepted by folks other than their base.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

So, why are you trying to inform Objectivism?

Objectivism is my philosophy, depending on definition. Much has been discovered since Rand's time in physics, biology, and computers that I have found to reveal issues in Rand's philosophy. Never the less, there is no other philosophy out there that I'm aware of that is anything more consistent with my current understanding of ethics, learning, axioms, knowledge, politics, esthetics, and humans.

We want the world to become more capitalist. We want people to think for themselves and to be able to do their own thing in private. We want to find ways we can help make this all happen.

Why do Objectivists try to inform mystics and postmodernists and socialists and Atlases and those who have given up on thinking?

Philosophy and worldview effect what one thinks is possible to achieve and which methods are most promising. Invalid philosophy results in less goal attainment. Given harmony of interest, helping friends discover mistakes in philosophy can help both increase their own goal attainments.

And other than informing objectivists, I stll have things left to resolve to inform myself. Who better than objectivists to debate with?

I'm not a subjectivist. You are. If Objectivism is your philosophy the contradiction is also yours.

You are making a questionable assumption about "those who have given up on thinking" and who is actually being addressed.

Debate away, but if it was only one-on-one there might not be a debate or much of a conversation.

I'm all for a subjectivist being for more freedom and do hope he knows to some extent what he's talking about. Dubious, but hopeful. Conservaives usually don't. They're for "freedom" but haven't a whit about human rights except that biggie, "the right to life."

You can define yourself into and out of anything--aka shifting the goal posts.

--Brant

if I missed anything, I apologize

[deanwins]

Brant, You are lumping me into the same category as other "subjectivists" as slander.

My point is simple: One cannot have a should in a conclusion unless there is a should in one of the premises. Doing so is a blatant logical error. Its not a contradiction... simply invalid. Like saying "The picture sounds green." Green is not a sound (air pressure wave), its an electromagnetic wave with a particular frequency.

[Darrell Hougen]

I would argue that there is more than nature and nurture. There is also choice. But, my argument does not hinge on examining an endless series of individual cases. Instead, I would argue that there is ample indirect evidence of choice. Start by looking at all of the new products that are created every year that never existed before. It is hard for a determinist to account for the increasing complexity of civilization.

That's not true. We don't need free will to account for man's ability to look at the world around him and generate new products. The brain is a complex organ which is able to process the evidence of the senses, categorize it and re-categorize it in countless ways and store it for a lifetime. Inventions, new products and artistic creations do credit to an individual's power to make new connections that others did not previously consider. Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation discusses "bisociation" – bringing together components from two or more previously unrelated sources into a new configuration.

For example, on another forum, someone misspelled "clever" as "cleaver" and someone else responded with "meat new people." It was a good joke. But it does not require a spirit independent of physical cause and effect to draw the connections between "cleaver," "meet" and "meat."

Motion pictures, the airplane and the radio are all products that were the result of assembling previously discovered elements in a new way. To explain them we do not need to posit a magic genie operating outside causality.

The problem is that the brain is not literally able to "categorize it and re-categorize [evidence] in countless ways," at least not in finite time. Within any finite time frame, the brain is only able to categorize and re-categorize data in a finite number of ways.

I realize that you may not have intended the word "countless" to be taken literally. You probably intended for the word to be taken to mean a very large number of ways. Dean made a similar argument above. The problem is that even if the number of ways in which the brain can categorize evidence or combine it into new configurations is a large number, it is not infinite, and in this context, the distinction is important.

The problem is that if you have a system that can only combine data in a finite number of ways, you start to see regularity after a while. Since Stephen Wolfram has been a prominent exponent of a deterministic theory, I will use an example from his research into cellular automata. Wikipedia has an article linked here on Wolfram's famous "rule 30." Here is a picture of the pattern produced by rule 30:

Starting from a single black pixel in a row of white pixels, the pattern evolves down the page by repeatedly applying rule 30 to the row of pixels above. Apparently, the pattern passes certain tests for randomness and chaotic behavior. In particular, there is supposedly no discernible pattern in the center column of pixels going down the page. However, there is clearly some sort of regularity in the pattern. Note, the various white triangles. Also, some tests of randomness have not been totally satisfactory.

Of course, rule 30 is particularly simple, taking only three inputs --- the pixel directly above and the two pixels on either side of that pixel --- on each iteration, and it is likely that more complex rules or sets of rules could produce much more complex and chaotic patterns. However, having looked at numerous cellular automata output, one notices that they all have a certain character to them.

The above has been a qualitative argument, but there are also more formal arguments. For example, Godel's theorem states that, given any sufficiently powerful axiomatic system with a finite number of axioms, there are infinitely many true statements that cannot be proven from the axioms. In addition, there are infinitely many false statements that cannot be proven false.

Both the informal and formal results point to a limitation of finite systems. The amount of information in such systems doesn't fundamentally increase over time. There might appear to be a stupendous number of possible states of such systems, but the complexity of such states cannot be fundamentally greater than the complexity of the original state. So, after a while, the evolution of such systems reaches a point where the character of the results doesn't fundamentally change.

Now, one could argue that reality is actually infinitely complex at any point in time, but I think that leads to other philosophical problems. The only alternative that I see left is to argue that the evolution of states must have an element of randomness to it.

Darrell

Edited February 8, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Peter]

Darrell wrote:

Now, one could argue that reality is actually infinitely complex at any point in time, but I think that leads to other philosophical problems. The only alternative that I see left is to argue that the evolution of states must have an element of randomness to it.

end quote

If something exists, it must be definite and bounded. That’s the anti-chaos theory mentioned below. This universe has no Harry Potter’s “Hogwarts.” That may be why we enjoy fantasy so much. Is the concept *fantasy* infinite?

Your diagram got me thinking and searching Darryl. The only attribution I have from my archives for the following is, “I posed Keyser's question to my friend and following is his reply. See how complicated things are:-)”

Here is what the person labeled “my friend” or “Gayles friend” said:

I don't think I'm borrowing the infinity of time and applying it to space. Nevertheless, I'm not being completely precise, and there is theoretical work to be done on these subjects. Still, the main point is that the predetermination of events has no fatalistic significance of how to treat consciousness -- there's always a mixture of things that can be changed and things that cannot. As I understand chaos theory, they treat physics classically as involving infinitely divisible space, continuous measurements in real numbers. The simplest model for a chaotic process is shifting a transcendental number like Pi to the left and truncating it, playing out over time the digits of an infinitely non-repeating series. Most real numbers measuring position are of this infinite-information variety. Something like that shifting happens in non-linear interactions, described as chaotic processes. In these, no matter how many decimal places are carried in a predictive computation, there is something in the remaining places which is not randomly canceling out over time (as they do in linear systems), but accumulating into unpredictable effects. We can say that the past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe, and also that the past contains an inherent disorder in what the future will be, some random dispersions of events -- the fact this is all contained in the past doesn't change its consequences. There is a mixture of order and chaos to things. Thermodynamics involves a kind of preservation of disorder in systems. Randomness can be defined in terms of whether subsets of the past data can predict the rest of the data, whether it is ordered or not, or can be captured with a compression algorithm, has a recognizable pattern. Quantum mechanics has a different view of some intrinsic probability and chance created moment by moment, in a world with only finitely defined, discontinuous, quantified measurements. There could be a mathematical equivalence between these cases, and if not exactly, at least that there might not be much difference to anything whether randomness is a chaotic process playing back an infinity of hidden information in the past or is an intrinsic uncertainty in each moment. There is a similar state in which no subset of the universe can predict everything that will happen and there is dispersion in what happens, gases remaining dispersed etc. Freedom of will is definitely not pure randomness, but it may be useful to consider an evolutionary process combining both random inputs and predetermined filtering, as one type of adaptive search method.

The difficult question in free will is the one little discussed, which is what difference does it make whether you have it? Or as Dennett says, why is it worth wanting? Surely being random doesn't make it so, but exactly what does do so remains to be fully elaborated. It appears to at least involve adaptivity, goal-direction; if we want to change a condition in the past, or solve a problem, we can do so. However, we can't do so predictably, perhaps because of the complexity of the problems we solve. It's like a chess playing computer that works by learning, instead of preprogrammed strategies. You have to be free to learn from mistakes. A combination of both short term failures and successes is involved in long-term success.

And then,

From: Keyser Soze <keysersozekill@yahoo.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Determinism/adaptation

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:33:15 -0800 (PST)

Gayle, Gayle's friend, and anyone else who is interested,

My nit-pickerishness comes from hearing too many scientists confuse many of the issues involved in such discussions. In general usage, "chaos" means utter confusion or disorder. But it also refers to complex mathematical theories and systems which are used to predict or explain seemingly unpredictable - chaotic - events. Chaos is this sense would have the opposite meaning of its use in the first sense (shouldn't it be called Anti-Chaos Theory?). Unfortunately, I have heard many people speak as if the two meanings are interchangeable.

In this regard there is a further tendency to view the limits of our ability to measure accurately as evidence of randomness in existence. Philosophically imprecise theoreticians seem to confuse attempted explanations of reality with reality itself. The terms "chance," "random," "uncertainty," "disorder," and "unpredictable" are often implied to be metaphysical attributes of the entities being described rather than evaluations of our current epistemological (or scientific) limitations. Objects do not "possess unpredictability." The inability to predict strictly refers to our state of observation and knowledge.

Disorder means that something didn't behave in the way we expected it to, in which case there are two possible conclusions: the behavior contradicts reality, or we had imprecise expectations. I think a good example of bad philosophy is the oft cited wave/particle "duality" of light. There's nothing wrong with identifying both aspects of a photon's behavior, but to come to the conclusion that a photon exists in contradictory states is bad science based on bad philosophy. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, which may or may not be valid, is at least an original, rational approach to the problem. Rather than believing that a photon's behavior reveals metaphysical uncertainty (by traveling two different courses at the same time), Little's science starts from the assumption that the contradiction reveals an error in our understanding.

One liter of alcohol added to one liter of water does not equal two liters of combined substance. A bad philosophy of science would lead to the conclusion that one plus one does not equal two. A rational view would be that we did not first determine a molecular standard of value for the experiment, and that if we were to do so, the correct conclusion would be an understanding of how displacement was involved in the experiment. So I'm more apt to agree with Gayle's friend's statement that, "The past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe," but I have yet to be convinced that, "The past contains an inherent disorder in what the future will be, some random dispersions of events -- the fact this is all contained in the past doesn't change its consequences. There is a mixture of order and chaos to things."

Determinism is Fatalism.

The Soze

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, You are lumping me into the same category as other "subjectivists" as slander.

My point is simple: One cannot have a should in a conclusion unless there is a should in one of the premises. Doing so is a blatant logical error. Its not a contradiction... simply invalid. Like saying "The picture sounds green." Green is not a sound (air pressure wave), its an electromagnetic wave with a particular frequency.

If you are sui generis say so--arcaneness is neither a defense nor justification for complaining by the arcaner. Imputation of slander means the other subjectivists can't carry your water they be so bad--and likely stink.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

The problem is that the brain is not literally able to "categorize it and re-categorize [evidence] in countless ways," at least not in finite time. Within any finite time frame, the brain is only able to categorize and re-categorize data in a finite number of ways.

I realize that you may not have intended the word "countless" to be taken literally. You probably intended for the word to be taken to mean a very large number of ways. Dean made a similar argument above. The problem is that even if the number of ways in which the brain can categorize evidence or combine it into new configurations is a large number, it is not infinite, and in this context, the distinction is important . . .

. . . Now, one could argue that reality is actually infinitely complex at any point in time, but I think that leads to other philosophical problems. The only alternative that I see left is to argue that the evolution of states must have an element of randomness to it.

Darrell

"Countless" simply means "too many to be counted; very many," but not necessarily an infinite number. In other words, in the space and time I have been allotted, there are more than I can name.

Now regarding the randomness issue: if our thoughts and actions are merely the product of accidental, aimless and arbitrary forces, then there can be no pilot at the helm, i.e. no control, no free will.

[anthony]

Quite conversely, randomness -human unpredictability- is evidence of free will. For each individual there are "countless" numbers of aspects of reality to potentially focus upon - so - many possible courses of action. He doesn't 'have' to follow his knowledge and convictions, for instance. He may select some lesser priorities to concentrate on. He may act on subjective whim. Or by many combinations of both. Or he doesn't do anything. The inconsistencies and errors of men validate the existence of their free will.

The guy from a rich family who goes to Yale to study Law, drops out and finds a job crewing yachts; the girl from an orphanage becomes CEO of her own company.

Also, for any number of interacting individuals, the possibilities of outcome become exponentially greater.

Determinism seems dependent on a linearity: one continuous line running from past to present to future.

A 'free-willer' instead, I think, sees a 'terminus' at every point, with a vast number of lines which could emanate from each terminus - although only one does, leading to yet another terminus.

While the first looks back, views only that single line, and remarks: It had to happen as it did; the other who has a sense of the complexity of potential outcomes, says: It did happen, it is what it is - but it might have been otherwise, and that's the wonder of it.

"Logic" versus reason...

Determinism contains a psycho-epistemological fallacy as much as a metaphysical-epistemological one, I think.

[Jules Troy]

J.K. Rowlings is a good example of that. No one foresaw Harry Potter taking the world by storm.

[Peter]

Francisco wrote:

Now regarding the randomness issue: if our thoughts and actions are merely the product of accidental, aimless and arbitrary forces, then there can be no pilot at the helm, i.e. no control, no free will.

end quote

On the DL thread and elsewhere, and even in the thinking of big “O” Objectivists there is a consensus that many factors are involved in human consciousness: programming at conception (DNA), changes in the womb, and CHANGES AFTER BIRTH which would result from the totality of existence. And human consciousness and *volition* should NOT be thought of as, “the ghost in the machine.” However, as an illustrative metaphor “the ghost in the machine” is just peachy.

As Dan Lewis said on another thread:

On the idea of cadavers and genomes, I think that human life and consciousness is more than this, yes. I think the patterns of chemical and electrical stimuli produced through or directed by genomes and in different regions of the body and brain, and within our systems and brains as wholes, probably hold many secrets to the science behind human-specific knowledge and consciousness. But I also think it is important how those patterns compare to chemical and electrical patterns of the stimuli reacting off of external objects—I think there has to be some self-similar physical thread that allows us to define traits of objects and construct percepts inductively. Deductively, I think axiomatic structure may be a key to how synergies between things can be unwound and understood more clearly, and also how we could more easily in creative processes, understand how to put together knowledge to have it actually work or be of significance.

end quote

Ayn Rand might mutter under her breath, “Son you speak like a ‘fully integrated’ entity / college professor.” and he might answer, "Yes, Ayn, I am saying human consciousness constantly evolves, and will you please put that cigarette out?"

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

A 'free-willer' rather sees a terminus at every point, with a vast number of lines which could emanate from each terminus - although only one does, leading to yet another terminus.

end quote

That was a great synopsis, Tony. The only quibble I have is your phrase only one terminus leads to another terminus.

Is your point:

Point one: human actions are deterministically pre-programmed, or;

Point two: that the universe is NOT fatalistically determined from the instant of existence and not just from *randomness* but due to *volition,* or;

Point three: . . . are you saying that when a sentient being reaches terminus ‘X’ there are multiple, but not infinite, rays or directions available for the sentient being, however once a particular road is embarked upon it leads to terminus ‘Y?’ or something else, which reminds me of bronco riding.

[Peter]

Jules Troy wrote:

J.K. Rowlings is a good example of that. No one foresaw Harry Potter taking the world by storm.

end quote

“JT?” “JK?” Hmmm? There must be a connection. Is JT a muggle? “Harry Potter” is a good example of ethnicity directing volitional fiction. One needs to “suspend one’s disbelief,” as E.A. Poe said, to appreciate a work of fiction. The “Harry Potter” books and movies seem to not only induce a “belief in the possibility of” but instead they sweep you into another universe. Is our enthusiasm to be entertained and swept up, part of our human composition? I think so. A good fiction focuses the human mind to the level achieved by a toddler who is so intent on one aspect of existence, that he or she easily ignores other potential stimuli. I remember the story about Albert Einstein deep in thought, walking around the Princeton campus. He stops a passing student and asks, “Do you know where I am supposed to be at 2pm?”

[anthony]

Correct, I was ambivalent there, Peter. Shows you, metaphors are rhetorical devices and may fall apart with incisive thought. I am trying to put across (in flowery manner), the "self-generating, self-directing"- yet, fallible - defining identity of a man. One who can and does correct his direction continuously, even to his detriment.

Necessity and contingency. Man made and metaphysically-given facts. Confusing these is the root of the error of determinism I think.

---

"Because man has free will, no human choice--and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice--is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man ~has~ chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so; he could have chosen otherwise.[...]

Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."

[LP, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy]

---

Leonard Peikoff put it accurately and well, I think.

[Peter]

Tony quoted:

"Because man has free will, no human choice--and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice--is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man ~has~ chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so; he could have chosen otherwise.[...] Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."

[LP, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy]

And then Tony responded:

Leonard Peikoff put it accurately and well, I think.

end quote

I have always been confused over Doctor Peikoff’s phrasing, “Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation,” because it seems circular: nothing caused existence, yet the resulting (A=A reality) causes an entity (a human) and the human causes an un-programmed thought. I can’t help thinking (pardon the pun) that there is a more precise if longer way of stating his extended axiom.

One problem is, that IF the phrasing he or Ayn Rand uses about Epistemology seems obvious to the “student” it is not questioned, but used as a starting point for a chain of thought and living. Yet, that logical chain, coupled with experience, is what leads to rationality, progress, and living the best life possible.

Perhaps, my confusion is a part of “the fitness” of my DNA preprogramming, and it increases my chances of survival and passing on my genes. There may be a way to fix that so I will ponder on it some more while I nap.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Quite conversely, randomness -human unpredictability- is evidence of free will. For each individual there are "countless" numbers of aspects of reality to potentially focus upon - so - many possible courses of action. He doesn't 'have' to follow his knowledge and convictions, for instance. He may select some lesser priorities to concentrate on. He may act on subjective whim. Or by many combinations of both. Or he doesn't do anything. The inconsistencies and errors of men validate the existence of their free will.

The guy from a rich family who goes to Yale to study Law, drops out and finds a job crewing yachts; the girl from an orphanage becomes CEO of her own company.

Also, for any number of interacting individuals, the possibilities of outcome become exponentially greater.

Determinism seems dependent on a linearity: one continuous line running from past to present to future.

A 'free-willer' instead, I think, sees a 'terminus' at every point, with a vast number of lines which could emanate from each terminus - although only one does, leading to yet another terminus.

While the first looks back, views only that single line, and remarks: It had to happen as it did; the other who has a sense of the complexity of potential outcomes, says: It did happen, it is what it is - but it might have been otherwise, and that's the wonder of it.

"Logic" versus reason...

Determinism contains a psycho-epistemological fallacy as much as a metaphysical-epistemological one, I think.

If you like collecting fallacies, here's one: randomness proves free will.

If thought and action are truly random, occurring without any cause at all, how can we say they are caused by human will?

If all human choices are just random, why should I go hunting with my best friend? True randomness in behavior means he's just as likely to shoot me as he would a deer.

Why do corporations do background checks if all behavior is random? A person with no criminal past would be just as likely to become a murderer as a someone with a history of violence.

[anthony]

Francisco,

In a 'perfectly determined' -"logical"- world, B would always follow A, and so on. No choice in the matter, no mistakes and no randomness.

But isn't this placing epistemology ahead of identity? "Primacy of consciousness", if you like.

But all behavior is certainly not random: it's usually goal-directed, albeit goals which are not always rational and seldom "perfectly" carried out. ("Many a slip..."etc.)

You wouldn't go hunting with your friend simply because his record of predestined behavior indicates he has never shot a buddy before, and so is incapable of it - you go because you've learned to respect and trust his good judgment, morality and rationality. Characteristics of a volitional consciousness, as are yours for choosing to befriend him.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your proof for free will is the existence of randomness. Randomness is the opposite of control. No control means there is no force able to will something to happen. QED, no free will.

I go hunting with my friend because I know that human behavior is not a roll of the dice. It is predictable to a very large degree in particular individuals because of certain consistent causal factors.

[anthony]

Your proof for free will is the existence of randomness. Randomness is the opposite of control. No control means there is no force able to will something to happen. QED, no free will.

I go hunting with my friend because I know that human behavior is not a roll of the dice. It is predictable to a very large degree in particular individuals because of certain consistent causal factors.

"Certain consistent causal factors" in a man are what others would call personal integrity.

(But I'm forgetting- by you, man is a being of pre-programmed soul...;))

My "proof" of free will is randomness? I have barely even mentioned it until my recent post. Certainly I don't think free will is invalidated by randomness. Further, where would free will be without the option to NOT initiate it? 'Forced will'?

Not taking "control" by no means indicates the incapability to take control. It indicates the refusal to take control (Rand's "evasion"), since reasoned thinking is not automatic, but effortful.

Men can think - or may merely subsist with a buzzing of stimuli (external and internal) through their brains.

Like the ball bouncing around a roulette wheel which stops at some random number, arbitrarily paying out or losing - some 'thought' pops up without direction or purpose; such is random thought and consequent random action.

"Choice however, is not chance".

Free will means also one is "free" to choose not to focus -- or, to find the "will" to focus: on what, how much and when.