Robert Tracinski's article "What Went Right"

[Dragonfly]

So, what is the difference between applied physics and engineering? I know of no significant difference. Even in academia, people in the physics department and people in the school of engineering are often doing very similar research. Well, of course, because it is all about physics.

That there are overlapping areas between two different fields does not imply that the fields are therefore synonymous. Examples: physical chemistry and chemical physics are closely related, but still in general a physicist is not a chemist and vice versa. Similar for molecular biology and biochemistry: a biologist is a different animal than a chemist even if they can form hybrids. The theoretical study of fundamental processes of QM, elementary particles and gravitation is something quite different from the building of machines, designing electrical and electronic circuits etc. I'm most definitely not an engineer, and I think that the same is true for Ellen's Larry. Science is not the same as technology, even if they are closely related and in some cases may overlap.

[Mikee]

There are probably no perfect catagories that people can be pigeonholed into. My understanding is that even among "pure" physicists there are at least three types depending on the personality of the physicist: 1. Theoretical 2. Experimental 3. Integrator.

I would imagine the experimental physicist would have a lot in common with engineers. I remember two outstanding electronics engineers, both analog circuit specialists. They solved problems completely differently. One was very mathematical, everything was an equation, the other was very intuitive and visualized everything. They didn't get along because they didn't understand each other very well. But they did the same thing! The mathematical guy would be more like a physicist and indeed his master's degree was in applied physics. The intuitive guy's masters was in electronics engineering.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm most definitely not an engineer, and I think that the same is true for Ellen's Larry.

You think correctly. Larry's Ph.D. was in mathematical physics -- a complicated formalism he developed, the details of which I couldn't claim to understand well to this present day. It pertained to the use of integro-differential equations in nonlocal contexts. He has an abiding deep interest in foundational issues of relativity and QM. His special love, a kind of "avocation," is symmetry as a cross-disciplinary unifying theme. For a number of years he taught a course for non-science majors on symmetry in the arts and sciences. He has a book project in the works developing from that course, but meanwhile he's being rather distracted by the pressing concern of trying to fight the idea of "consensus" science in re the global-warming debate. He's become a minor expert in climatalogical issues, though the subject of climatology is a detour from his basic interests.

Ellen

___

[Charles R. Anderson]

I am definitely not a cosmologist. That does not mean that I am not a materials physicist.

Of course, some scientists are highly specialized, especially those in academia. Others are more problem-solving oriented generalists who learn whatever they must to solve the kind of problems they are interested in. I function pretty much the same way whether I am doing materials physics, chemistry, or materials science and engineering or various combinations of all three. Of course, since my interest is in applications of materials, there will be some physicists who will claim I am simply a technologist. Fine, but I think that is simply an effort to pat themselves on the back as a kind of aristocracy when they are usually working in fields that have yet to prove of sufficient usefulness that mankind is willing to invest much in those fields.

This is not to say that I do not find these fields interesting or that I object to the money that does go into them. It only means that the idea of certain physicists looking down their noses at people using physics to perform applied physics, or simply in areas different than their own, is offensive.

One of the greatest problems in physics, or science if you must, is the terrible tendency to compartmentalize it. We have far too few cross-disciplinary physicists. We lack the integrators who are needed. When we have had people who specialized in one area move into another area, we have often seen great contributions made in the new area. Watson and Crick in biology are one good example.

Logically odd that Dragonfly, who thinks that all brain functions are the result of classical physics, should object to the idea that biology is a field of physics. Nonetheless, I was quite sure he would react as he did.

[Dragonfly]

One of the greatest problems in physics, or science if you must, is the terrible tendency to compartmentalize it.

That is not true. The field is just so extremely big that you have to specialize to keep up with developments, just as doctors have to specialize as cardiologists, dermatologists, opthamologists etc. etc. But that doesn't mean that there is no interaction with other specializations. I've seen for example how closely the particle theorists have collaborated with the experimentalists, they needed each other, but that doesn't mean that their disciplines are not definitely different.

Logically odd that Dragonfly, who thinks that all brain functions are the result of classical physics, should object to the idea that biology is a field of physics. Nonetheless, I was quite sure he would react as he did.

Strange. Some people blame me for reducing all sciences to physics and you blame for NOT reducing all sciences to physics. But perhaps not so strange after all, your behavior is the most predictable of all. Since the start of this forum for some reasons of your own you have been making snide remarks against me instead of engaging in a rational discussion. Please vent your frustrations elsewhere.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Of course specialization is good. So is integration and application.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dragonfly,

Apparently it is socially graceful to tell others that they are a program lacking volition. It is fine to say to me that you know my mind better than I do and that my belief that I am volitional is a delusion.

I view this as incredibly presumptuous, just as it would be presumptuous of me to claim that I know your mind better than you do. So, I grant that you know your mind better than I do and therefore that you are a complex program lacking volition as you insist. However, I retain my conviction that I am volitional. This viewpoint is one that your program calls snide.

As for rational discussion, we had a long and drawn out discussion in July 2006 during which you made many assertions without any backing and quite a few snide remarks. One assertion was that you knew so much about the human brain, both yours and mine and everyone else's, that we were all complex programs lacking volition. You also maintained that all functions of the brain were described adequately by classical physics, which is a hugely unfounded assertion given how little we know as yet about the operations of the brain. I found your approach, which fails to distinguish what is known from what is not, to be irrational. I see no reason in light of your arguments for believing that my volitional acts are delusions.

Apparently, we are different life forms. But whatever kind of life form you are, now that it is established that your program triggers feelings of hurt when you are distinguished from volitional human beings, I will try to be kind. I always did think it disgusting when boys pulled the wings off of dragonflies. Other life forms should be given a measure of respect.

[Chris Grieb]

I have just listening to Robert Tracinski's ARI lecture course on Writing Letters to the Editor. The course is very well done. Mr. Tracinski deal with many of pitfalls Objectivist in writing letters to persuade others on issues we find important. I don't know how much longer the course will be available from ARI Bookstore. I hope Mr Tracinski will be able to sell it through the Intellectual Activist.

[Dragonfly]

Apparently it is socially graceful to tell others that they are a program lacking volition. It is fine to say to me that you know my mind better than I do and that my belief that I am volitional is a delusion.

This is completely ridiculous. Discussing certain ideas about the human brain is verboten while you see them as a personal affront?! And that is what you call a rational discussion?

I view this as incredibly presumptuous, just as it would be presumptuous of me to claim that I know your mind better than you do. So, I grant that you know your mind better than I do and therefore that you are a complex program lacking volition as you insist. However, I retain my conviction that I am volitional. This viewpoint is one that your program calls snide.

This kind of smart-ass remarks is the best you can offer?

As for rational discussion, we had a long and drawn out discussion in July 2006 during which you made many assertions without any backing and quite a few snide remarks.

That is a lie. I've saved my contributions to the discussion and I've just reread them. I can only conclude that in those posts I've patiently and rationally explained my viewpoint, always to the point and not personal. I challenge you to quote those "quite a few snide remarks". "Without any backing" is also a lie, in contrast to you, I did give references from the scientific literature.

One assertion was that you knew so much about the human brain, both yours and mine and everyone else's, that we were all complex programs lacking volition. You also maintained that all functions of the brain were described adequately by classical physics, which is a hugely unfounded assertion given how little we know as yet about the operations of the brain. I found your approach, which fails to distinguish what is known from what is not, to be irrational. I see no reason in light of your arguments for believing that my volitional acts are delusions.

This is a serious distortion of what I really wrote, I'll quote from my own posts at the time:

Nowhere I've claimed "certainty" that the mind is deterministic, I've only argued that the available evidence points in that direction.

and

You have also asserted that every mind is determined. How do you know this? Nothing in the links answers these questions.

That is a rather misleading representation of what I've written. I've tried to show (1) that there is no fundamental discrepancy between the notion that we have "free will" and the notion that our brain is in essence a deterministic system, and (2) that there is good physical evidence that our brain is functionally a classical and thereby deterministic system. If that is the case, than it is of course true for all human beings, as it is a fundamental mechanism which must be shared by all of us.

So your portraying me as someone "who knows it all" is patently false. What I *did* argue is that the categorical statement that "free will" is incompatible with a deterministic system, which you defend as an absolute without giving any real evidence (except that you "know it"), is not correct.

Apparently, we are different life forms. But whatever kind of life form you are, now that it is established that your program triggers feelings of hurt when you are distinguished from volitional human beings, I will try to be kind. I always did think it disgusting when boys pulled the wings off of dragonflies. Other life forms should be given a measure of respect.

Yeah, sure. This is the kind of Fred Weiss reply: if you have no real argument you can always resort to condescending sarcasm.

[studiodekadent]

Reading about Leonard's DIM scheme as a 'theory of everything.'

Sounds to me like he is comitting the logical fallacy of false precision.

Also, Mr Engle added that there is partial integration. DIM would call that M (error). Its integration based on an incorrect premise. Like any rationalist, LP is saying that one tiny error fucks up the whole chain regardless of how correct any of the other principles are.

Yet more evidence that LP is a rationalist.

Lets remember that Rand loved the economic conclusions of Ludwig von Mises. Mises was a rationalist Neo-Kantian and a utilitarian to boot! BUT Rand did not throw out the conclusions. Leonard, by his rejection of partial integration, would. Reminds me how some early Objectivists shamefully attacked the Austrian business cycle theory as "Marxist."

However, I should add that Mises' essential economics does not require rationalism: see "Methodology of the Austrian School Economists" (e-published at mises.org), Mises was the only fully-fleged rationalist in the bunch (Rothbard however comes close despite his philosophical closeness to Objectivism). But Leonard, since ARI 'Objectivists' loathe every economist but Mises, would probably ignore these and reject much of Mises on the grounds of misintegration. This of course would be a disastrous fallacy.

LP might, however, endorse Carl Menger, an openly-Aristotelian. But to endorse Menger and kick out Mises.... along with Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Weiser and Rothbard. Its shameful how badly, in the name of Ayn Rand, the rationalists claiming to be Objectivists over at DIMwit central might treat the greatest politifcal economists.

DIM is not original (its a restatement of the IOS trichotomy, with I=M, O=I, S=D), its rationalistic and it is probably just going to be another weapon in ARI's witch hunt against doctrinal unorthodoxy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Oy! No need to speculate. It's depressing. The reality is bad enough.

Michael

[Charles R. Anderson]

QUOTE(Charles R. Anderson @ Feb 20 2007, 03:09 AM) *

Apparently it is socially graceful to tell others that they are a program lacking volition. It is fine to say to me that you know my mind better than I do and that my belief that I am volitional is a delusion.

This is completely ridiculous. Discussing certain ideas about the human brain is verboten while you see them as a personal affront?! And that is what you call a rational discussion?

Being a volitional agent has always been highly valued by men. The idea that we are volitional has often been used as one of the important distinctions between man and the other animals. At the root of our pride in being productive and moral men, is the idea that we have worked and chosen over and over again to make ourselves the kind of man we are. Now, if the evidence actually exists that man is a determined system whose mind simply responds to external triggers and he cannot really initiate a choice such as to focus his mind on a problem or sensation or not, then, yes, we must accept that this is the case. But why, in the face of one's having clear knowledge of initiating mental actions, one would choose to assume that the mind is totally determined without such conclusive evidence, I cannot imagine a healthy reason. It also remains immensely presumptuous for one man to assert certainty that another man's mind is deterministic and cannot initiate mental action. There are many ideas about the brain that need badly to be discussed, but they need not be done with such arrogant presumption as you are inclined to.

This kind of smart-ass remarks is the best you can offer?

I certainly found a way to satisfy the condition that sends your program into an anger loop here. When someone else thinks in very different ways than I do, it can take a while to figure out how and if it is worthwhile to try to discuss ideas with them. It is particularly tough to interact with a complex program I have found.

QUOTE

As for rational discussion, we had a long and drawn out discussion in July 2006 during which you made many assertions without any backing and quite a few snide remarks.

That is a lie. I've saved my contributions to the discussion and I've just reread them. I can only conclude that in those posts I've patiently and rationally explained my viewpoint, always to the point and not personal. I challenge you to quote those "quite a few snide remarks". "Without any backing" is also a lie, in contrast to you, I did give references from the scientific literature.

A lie? Well, unfortunately I was on vacation at the time and using a borrowed laptop, so I do not have the discussion. I just have a clear recall of how hard I had to work to get you to move beyond all sorts of wild assertions that many of the things I said were wrong while you were unwilling to state what you thought was right. The reference you gave to the scientific literature was a Physical Review article which can not possibly have yet provided the necessary evidence that all brain functions are deterministic and adequately described by classical physics. Our knowledge of the brain is not anywhere near adequate to making that assertion at this time. I accept that some mechanisms of the brain have been studied and that they must almost always or maybe even always function in a deterministic way. As I said in the discussion then, of course most of the brain's functions must be deterministic. When we set the mind to the task of adding 2 to 2 we really want the result to always be 4. This is true of almost all of our brain's functions. The question is whether it is true of every action that occurs in the brain that may focus upon an action or not. In fact, there are structures in the brain small enough that quantum effects may be important within them. Now, I do not maintain that there is an actual clear path from quantum effects to volition. Maybe there is not. But, your assertion that all brain activity is deterministic and described adequately by classical physics is not now supportable.

The first time that you flat out claimed that the mind was a deterministic, classical physics system after a few previous statements that hedged your bets, was a landmark in our discussions from my viewpoint. I remember it clearly and it was repeated later.

I've tried to show (1) that there is no fundamental discrepancy between the notion that we have "free will" and the notion that our brain is in essence a deterministic system

Your argument does not make sense to me. It simply does not succeed. Unless, the key word here is in essence. Of course, the brain must be mostly a deterministic system as I have noted above and back in July 2006 in the lost thread, but the question is whether it is completely and only deterministic. I doubt that it is, but we have have probably a good couple of hundred years of research to do before we will fully understand brain operations, optimistically estimated! Of course, quantum mechanical operations may be documented much sooner.

(2) that there is good physical evidence that our brain is functionally a classical and thereby deterministic system. If that is the case, than it is of course true for all human beings, as it is a fundamental mechanism which must be shared by all of us.

If "our brain" means all human beings, then it is a function shared by all of us. But, at this time only some activities and functions of some brains have been examined and we clearly do not understand how brains work very well. Because humans differ substantially in genetic make-up and their biochemistry, it is reasonable to expect variations in how brains function. We do know that some brains have IQs of 60 and some of 160, so there are some differences. We know that the densities of certain structures in brains differ. We know that some people are more creative and some other are better at rapidly and accurately carrying out simple tasks. Again brains differ. The degree to which brains may exercise volition may differ. Possibly some brains do not have the necessary chemical to turn on the mechanism that provides volitional control. At this time, we do not know. I do not know and you do not know.

Yeah, sure. This is the kind of Fred Weiss reply: if you have no real argument you can always resort to condescending sarcasm.

I do not know Fred Weiss well, so I have no comment on him. Condescending sarcasm? Well, what can I do in the face of your assertion that you are a complex program which is completely determined and classical? I cannot say I know your mind better than you do. I do not. If you are not aware of volitional acts of your own, as I am in my case, then I must accept the difference between us. Heck, I thought you were secure in thinking that you were the superior life form. No, this is not sarcasm. It is a reluctant acknowledgment that our minds must be very different.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Charles,

I've been feeling astonished at the direction the exchange between you and Dragonfly has taken. I don't understand why you would take his view that as best we know scientifically today the brain is a classical system as if it were a personal affront. Myself, I think he's right: as best we know scientifically today, the brain is a classical system. Nor would its being a QM system help with volition; this would just produce randomness. My own view is that the best we know scientifically today needs improving. But I don't understand your sense of personal umbrage at a thesis directed to where, in fact, scientific thought today resides.

Ellen

___

[Charles R. Anderson]

Ellen,

With so little known about how the brain functions, scientific knowledge today only covers a small portion of the ground that would be needed to support the conclusion that the brain is entirely a classical physics and deterministic system. If one operation in one billion is not, then room might be established for a true act of volition. Of course, the vast majority of brain operations will be deterministic, but Dragonfly made two assertions in our July discussions that the brain was deterministic where he meant in the context of our discussion that all actions of the brain were deterministic.

How do random notions or associations popping up lead to volition or to some capability to focus or not? I do not know. Maybe they don't. But, I do know that it is unlikely given the scale of some components of the brain that quantum effects will not occur and it is perhaps possible that this is important. To proclaim that science now says they do not is wrong. If a particular paper has made that claim in as broad a context as Dragonfly has implied, then the referees were very lax.

Of course, as more is learned about the physics of the brain, we may come to a better understanding of whether we really might be volitional as most people perceive themselves to be or that we are deceived and simply complex classical physics programs as Dragonfly asserts. If the latter, there is yet a long way to go before that conclusion is scientifically justified. In the meantime my introspective knowledge of volitional acts is too strong to ignore in favor of some studies of a very few aspects of brain mechanisms, which have proven, as one would expect, to be of a deterministic nature.

[Dragonfly]

There are many ideas about the brain that need badly to be discussed, but they need not be done with such arrogant presumption as you are inclined to.

Again resorting to personal attacks, instead of using rational arguments.

I certainly found a way to satisfy the condition that sends your program into an anger loop here.

You mean, you've figured out how you can piss off someone? That's quite an achievement.

A lie? Well, unfortunately I was on vacation at the time and using a borrowed laptop, so I do not have the discussion.

How convenient. Of course I'd expected this answer, because I knew that you couldn't come up with an example as they exist only in your imagination.

I just have a clear recall of how hard I had to work to get you to move beyond all sorts of wild assertions that many of the things I said were wrong while you were unwilling to state what you thought was right. The reference you gave to the scientific literature was a Physical Review article which can not possibly have yet provided the necessary evidence that all brain functions are deterministic and adequately described by classical physics. Our knowledge of the brain is not anywhere near adequate to making that assertion at this time.

There is no need for a detailed knowledge of all the brain processes for the argument in the article, as it uses general physical principles that apply to the brain structure regardless of the detailed organization. Just as the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics tell us that a perpetuum mobile is not possible, without having to look at a specific scheme for such a perpetuum mobile.

The first time that you flat out claimed that the mind was a deterministic, classical physics system after a few previous statements that hedged your bets, was a landmark in our discussions from my viewpoint. I remember it clearly and it was repeated later.

And we've seen what your "remembering clearly" is worth.

The degree to which brains may exercise volition may differ. Possibly some brains do not have the necessary chemical to turn on the mechanism that provides volitional control. At this time, we do not know. I do not know and you do not know.

The idea that what you call "volitional control" is only used once in a blue moon or only by some people is absurd, and thereby the notion that just an occasional quantum effect enables volitional control. It is something we use nearly every minute when we're conscious. I never claimed that there wasn't something like volition, only that it isn't incompatible with the brain being a deterministic system, that was what the discussion was about. Apparently you remember it differently, but I can backup this statement with my original posts.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Dragonfly

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly: Are you saying that the brain as a deterministic system is not the same as how it functions in terms of reasoning? If so, that seems pretty simple and obvious to me.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly: Are you saying that the brain as a deterministic system is not the same as how it functions in terms of reasoning? If so, that seems pretty simple and obvious to me.

If I understand your question correctly, yes. The determinism would be in the underlying machinery that generates our thoughts. This functional level is not accessible by introspection, with which can only see the highest level, that of the thoughts themselves, not how they are generated.

[Charles R. Anderson]

We are not going to achieve anything with this discussion. We see things in much too different ways.

The number of operations performed in the brain is huge, so one operation out of half a billion does not imply an interval of once in a blue moon. Whether volitional acts occur somewhat more frequently, I do not know.

Have a good day, if you wish.

[Bidinotto]

Errr...and the initial topic of this thread was....?

[Philip Coates]

It was supposed to be about Tracinski's article. If participants can't discipline themselves to create a new thread when they want to flame each other or talk about physics and induction (or both), at some point checking in on a website becomes a non-value.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In a perfect world, I guess this wouldn't happen.

For the record, Dragonfly is my friend and I stand by him. Charles is my friend and I stand by him.

They are both highly intelligent men of good will. They are both high-end achievers in their respective fields. I have no doubt at all they will work it out like all productive men do. Add to that the fact that they both have good hearts the size of our planet. That's why I haven't even said anything.

I have noticed that at times the Dutch way of being comes off as a bit snobbish and presumptuous to Americans and the American way of being comes off as shallow and arrogant to Europeans. Add to this the abrasiveness of the Objectivist Internet culture over the years (which I am trying to avoid on OL) and this could be one cause of the friction. But neither Dragonfly nor Charles really fit those stereotypes. Neither does OL.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

A brief comment on Tracinski and Peikoff. I thought Robert Jones opening sentence in first post about Wagner "I don't care what Lenny Peikoff says" should be put on samplers and throw pillows. It's the best way of looking at the issue. I hope Tarcinski will look at some of his former associates and be more critical of them on other issues. In his course on writing letters to the newspaper he seemed always be making nasty comments about Libertarians.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Charles R. Anderson]

For the record, there was nothing convenient for me in the loss of the July thread. I have acted on the assumption that Dragonfly is simply mistaken in his belief that he has the entire record of his contributions to that thread, rather than concluding that he has lied about it.

[9thdoctor]

Tracinski’s “What Went Right?” series has concluded.

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1242

I haven’t had the time to read this carefully yet, but so far it looks like a pathbreaking piece.

[anthony]

Tracinski’s “What Went Right?” series has concluded.

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1242

I haven’t had the time to read this carefully yet, but so far it looks like a pathbreaking piece.

ND,

By my lights, this is a 'must' read.

It gave me that instant recognition of self-evident truths.

Thanks.