Science proves choice is noise

[Wolf DeVoon]

Unteleprompted choice

 

[BaalChatzaf]

Which will he choose. The Red Pill or the Blue Pill?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How you can honestly call yourself an objectivist with your de facto rejection of reason in favor of epistemological relativism is beyond me.

Naomi,

To my knowledge, Greg does not call himself an Objectivist. From what I have seen, he has been very, very clear about that in multiple posts--that he is not an Objectivist, but instead a religious man who agrees with many of Rand's ideas.

One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

I didn't realize you have a physical condition, so I might start going easier on you. Or I might not.

At any rate, physical condition or otherwise, there is no excuse for identifying Greg as an Objectivist or claiming he does not speak with certainty. Greg not certain? Dayaamm! Certainty is the predominant tone he uses in practically all his communications. And I see no indication that this is an act. He believes what he says. His certainty is one of the things that irritate those who disagree with him, especially when what he says doesn't make sense to them.

(Kinda like the way people respond to you. Re certainty about things that don't make sense, you're his soul-sister, so to speak. )

Emotional tin ear. OK. I'm cool with that and I can adjust my messages accordingly.

But identification that sloppy? Nah... I don't believe being clueless about simple obvious facts falls under alexithymia.

That falls under being clueless or being dishonest. So far, I don't believe you are dishonest, but I don't rule it out, either.

If you want to disagree with others and have people take you seriously, then get your factual act together.

Right now it's ragged as all hell.

We'll deal with the emotional handicap by making room for it.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Learn something new every day.

...all infants are born unable to identify, organize, and speak about their emotional experiences (the word infans is from the Latin "not speaking"), and are by reason of their immaturity inevitably alexithymic. Based on this fact McDougall proposed in 1985 that the alexithymic part of an adult personality could be "an extremely arrested and infantile psychic structure" [Wikipedia]

[moralist]

Your modus operandi is nothing more than argument from intimidation...

It's interesting to note in our exchange that since the initial statements of your view of choice being an illusion and there being nothing else other than physical chemical processes, you've not said much more about it in terms of clarification, and have instead chosen to describe how you feel about the discussion itself.

Someone who cannot be intimidated wouldn't even mention intimidation. So that you brought it up is revealing. But even more revealing is when you brought it up. It was your response to the comment that neither you nor I will change our view, and that both you and I will live and die with the just and deserved consequences of what we each chose.

We each well know the circumstances of how our own lives have unfolded as the results of our own actions. While I love the truth of that statement, you regard it as intimidation. These two antithetical responses to the same statement further reveal the nature of each of our two different views.

I don't know what kind of people you're used to dealing with that would lead you to think that these underhanded tactics would work on me. The lack of any rational substance in your "you have your opinion and I have mine" arguments is painfully obvious (and kind of sad, really), and if you think that I am fooled, you've only succeeded in fooling yourself.

What an odd response to the comment that neither of us can be convinced by the other... that you actually feel that it is an attempt to fool you.

How you can honestly call yourself an objectivist with your de facto rejection of reason in favor of epistemological relativism is beyond me.

You failed to notice my screen name.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

There's a problem, robot, you assume these are "weaknesses," but how could you possibly know or that it's in turn not a weakness of yours? One thing yet to be explained is what you are doing here? What's your intent? What's your business? It can't be to learn anything. It can't be to simply repeat yourself. All you are teaching is what it's like to talk to a sort of well-programmed computer that spits out canned responses from its data bank. I got tired of Greg for the same reason and put him on my "ignore" list and I'm pretty sure you'll join him later on today. Greg does have the virtue of many valuable how-to-live insights--you understandably have none--but after hundreds of posts, he was enough here for me. (Ironically, I could do business with him, having reason to trust his ability and integrity.)

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

There's a problem, robot, you assume these are "weaknesses," but how could you possibly know or that it's in turn not a weakness of yours?

Because people often succeed despite their shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt and never because of them.

One thing yet to be explained is what you are doing here? What's your intent? What's your business? It can't be to learn anything. It can't be to simply repeat yourself. All you are teaching is what it's like to talk to a sort of well-programmed computer that spits out canned responses from its data bank. I got tired of Greg for the same reason and put him on my "ignore" list and I'm pretty sure you'll join him later on today. Greg does have the virtue of many valuable how to live insights, but after hundreds of posts, it's enough for me.

--Brant

My intent is to learn. And I've learned quite a lot.

You're not gonna ignore me though. Let's face it, we both know that I am far too interesting to stay on anyone's ignore list for very long.

[dldelancey]

What have you learned, Naomi? I'm interested.

[Brant Gaede]

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

There's a problem, robot, you assume these are "weaknesses," but how could you possibly know or that it's in turn not a weakness of yours?

Because people often succeed despite their shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt and never because of them.

. . . . . .

You're not gonna ignore me though. Let's face it, we both know that I am far too interesting to stay on anyone's ignore list for very long.

Despite? Not because? Haven't you heard of hormensis? Just where in the world did you get the "never because" from? Because of the way you're put together you cannot introspect your way to your conclusion. You might as well be a psychologist from Mars.

Okay. I'll put you on my "ignore" list and read you anyway to my "shame" to see how that works out.

--Brant

my yard is full of interesting rocks

[BaalChatzaf]

On 7/1/2014 at 1:02 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know what "the argument" is (it sounds oddly like "the Messiah" in this context ) and where you get the idea that "we know every physical process that can be known." That not only sounds like an unwarranted conceit, it is.

But let's make it simple without all the gobbledygook.

Are you saying that choice is not a physical process?

Or it is a physical process?

Michael

Choice requires thought. Thought requires the passage of ions through a nerve fiber.  That makes it a physical process.  In the real cosmos only physical events happen and only physical changes occur.  Nothing is at rest. Everything thing is in change and motion.  Entropy increases. Think of reality as a heat engine.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Choice requires thought. Thought requires the passage of ions through a nerve fiber.  That makes it a physical process.  In the real cosmos only physical events happen and only physical changes occur.  Nothing is at rest. Everything thing is in change and motion.  Entropy increases. Think of reality as a heat engine.

Bob,

You sound like a politician answering a simple question.

What's worse, that question is from a couple of years ago, so you've had time to think about it...

   

Michael

[PDS]

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

You sound like a politician answering a simple question.

What's worse, that question is from a couple of years ago, so you've had time to think about it...

   

Michael

Bob doesn't even sound like he believes what he is saying.    He is trying to convince himself of something and failing, right before our eyes...

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Choice requires thought. Thought requires the passage of ions through a nerve fiber.  That makes it a physical process.  In the real cosmos only physical events happen and only physical changes occur.

"Choice" could be defined as the outcome of a mental action: My 'choice' was to post a reply.  "Choice" could also be defined as a kind of thought, but that does not make it a physical process.  If I say, "I was so busy choosing which words to use that I didn't hear the doorbell," that sentence has to do with my focus and for someone to refuse to see anything there but movement of ions is to make themselves blind to a reality.  You can NOT grasp the meaning from my passage of ions in nerve fibers.  Yet you understand what I mean.  If thought is mediated by the passage of ions through a nerve fiber that doesn't mean it IS the passage of the ions.

In some cultures, men were expected, as a sign of respect, to hold the door open for a woman.  That does not make "respect" a physical process.  We don't just layer meaning on physical acts, we understand physical acts only through meaning.  And those who would say that the physical act is the meaning or that there is no such thing as meaning, are just being blind.

When you write about "the real cosmos" you are working with ideas that might or might not reflect what actually exists - that is because there is such a thing as meaning.  Meaning is conveyed in language, for those who attempt to find it in the words and sentences sent to them.  This is all much more than just physics.  Hard determinism is foolish for choosing to use meaning to explain why there is no neither meaning nor choice.

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

You sound like a politician answering a simple question.

What's worse, that question is from a couple of years ago, so you've had time to think about it...

   

Michael

I am giving you the best answer based on physics.  I have simplified it (of course)  for non-specialists.  If you do not like what the physics is telling us, then ignore the physics (at your peril). 

[KorbenDallas]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am giving you the best answer based on physics.  I have simplified it (of course)  for non-specialists.  If you do not like what the physics is telling us, then ignore the physics (at your peril). 

Ba'al, can you perceive physics?  Just wondering..

[BaalChatzaf]

17 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Ba'al, can you perceive physics?  Just wondering..

I perceive certain physical process by my senses just as you do.   I think in physical-conceptual  terms.  The world is physical from top to bottom and thinking in physical terms and concepts is (for me) the best way for me to understand the world.  Do you have an alternative?  

Moral Judgment is Opinion (not fact).  It is a form of guess work.  I prefer facts, if I have facts to consider. 

[KorbenDallas]

35 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I perceive certain physical process by my senses just as you do.   I think in physical-conceptual  terms.  The world is physical from top to bottom and thinking in physical terms and concepts is (for me) the best way for me to understand the world.  Do you have an alternative?  

Yup, Objectivism!

Perceiving something physical doesn't imply physics--you don't have a sensory apparatus to perceive physics, you have sensory apparatus to perceive objects.  You can know an object's material cause through science, but that is an inductive/deductive process, you perceive an object's form first.

This goes for your mind as well, it has a material cause that we know through science: matter, chemicals, etc.--but you can't perceive those things, yet you do have thought and are aware of them.

[KorbenDallas]

48 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral Judgment is Opinion (not fact).  It is a form of guess work.  I prefer facts, if I have facts to consider.

Moral judgment can be a lot of guess work, but you can make a strong logical estimate, then substantiate that through induction (enough repetitions), to then form a conclusion that is fact..

[BaalChatzaf]

13 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Yup, Objectivism!

Perceiving something physical doesn't imply physics--you don't have a sensory apparatus to perceive physics, you have sensory apparatus to perceive objects.  You can know an object's material cause through science, but that is an inductive/deductive process, you perceive an object's form first.

This goes for your mind as well, it has a material cause that we know through science: matter, chemicals, etc.--but you can't perceive those things, yet you do have thought and are aware of them.

It suffices that the physical apparatus of my brain has been scanned by sophisticated instruments.

As for objectivism,  like any other philosophical system it is empirically ill founded.  I subscribe to the metaphysics of Reality Lite  to wit -there is an Out There out there and humans can comprehend enough of it to survive and even flourish.  I assume the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to physical reality.  More than that I prefer not to assume.  As for Morality,  it appears to me to be Opinion and does does follow logically from the physical laws of nature.  

I go by conventional (basically Jewish) morality.  What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.  I respect life and property.  That is the way I was brought up.

Objectivism as a thorough overall system does not appeal to me.  Very little of it comes from physical laws  of nature.  I have no objection to it,  but I would not take as an overall operating system.  I am more pragmatic and empirical.  I prefer facts to principles.  

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Moral judgment can be a lot of guess work, but you can make a strong logical estimate, then substantiate that through induction (enough repetitions), to then form a conclusion that is fact.  Moral judgment can be opinion at times, but with induction you can form a lot of facts.

Induction starts with observed facts.  It does not form them.  Induction goes from a finite set of facts to a provisionally held general statement.  One never gets facts from philosophizing.   Once reaches conclusions which may be plausible and perhaps even true. 

[Brant Gaede]

13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Induction starts with observed facts.  It does not form them.  Induction goes from a finite set of facts to a provisionally held general statement.  One never gets facts from philosophizing.   Once reaches conclusions which may be plausible and perhaps even true. 

This explains how Einstein came up with Relativity?

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Induction starts with observed facts.  It does not form them.  Induction goes from a finite set of facts to a provisionally held general statement.  One never gets facts from philosophizing.   Once reaches conclusions which may be plausible and perhaps even true. 

I was implying that someone can make a general statement first from observing reality, what is a common element in the things they are seeing (identity or causality)--which is an induction to come up with that statement.  An inductive method of agreement can then be used to substantiate the statement, with enough repetitions, to reach a conclusion, and establish fact.  (Not saying agreement is the only method, it's a method used here by example.)  Using a scientific method on people, on their behavior, can be done.  I do it all the time

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, Brant Gaede said:

This explains how Einstein came up with Relativity?

--Brant

Einstein made it plain that all theories are creations of the mind. 

Here is an Einstein Quote from Wikiquotes:

Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work and makes life easier bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not yet learned to make sensible use of it. In war it serves that we may poison and mutilate each other. In peace it has made our lives hurried and uncertain. Instead of freeing us in great measure from spiritually exhausting labor, it has made men into slaves of machinery, who for the most part complete their monotonous long day's work with disgust and must continually tremble for their poor rations. … It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for the man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours; concern for the great unsolved problems of the organization of labor and the distribution of goods in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Choice requires thought. Thought requires the passage of ions through a nerve fiber.  That makes it a physical process.  In the real cosmos only physical events happen and only physical changes occur.  Nothing is at rest. Everything thing is in change and motion.  Entropy increases. Think of reality as a heat engine.

The idea of everything running down can't explain how everything ran up in the first place. The inevitability of entropy is the inevitability of next to nothing--forever.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

I was implying that someone can make a general statement first from observing reality, what is a common element in the things they are seeing (identity or causality)--which is an induction to come up with that statement.  An inductive method of agreement can then be used to substantiate the statement, with enough repetitions, to reach a conclusion, and establish fact.  (Not saying agreement is the only method, it's a method used here by example.)  Using a scientific method on people, on their behavior, can be done.  I do it all the time

A finite set of corroborations will never -prove- that a general statement arrived at inductively is true.  Think of the black swan and the albino crow.  The only thing that can be -proved- empirically is the falsification of a general statement with a counter example. 

That is why scientific theories are never proven to be true