Proactive Behaviour and Causality

[BaalChatzaf]

Just because the material/energy for those actions comes from outside them, does that mean that they do not themselves ~cause~ those actions? That is what I take "generate" to mean. Self-generated = self=caused, in the sense of efficient causation. The living system is the nexus and proximate source of its actions. A living system is the efficient cause of its actions, and matter and energy is the material cause of its actions.

But that is equally true for computerized machines, robots and even for a simple thermostat.

Arrghhh! Smarrrt as paint, ye arrre!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

Paul,

What you just described is self-generated action, one of the cornerstones of the Objectivist definition of life.

The Objectivist defintion of life as completely at odds with the best grounded part of physics, thermodynamics. Relativity may yet be falsified and so might quantum theory. If thermodynamics goes, physics is done for. The Objectivist definition of life is formulated in ignorance of biological science (not surprising!).

Now you know why I tear at my hair and rend my garments when I read CRAP like this. Squash-rot like this can only flourish in ignorance of science. How can any philosophy that is -so right- about economics and governance be -so dumb- when it comes to science? Maybe C.P.Snow was right. There are two cultures.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Remember, folks, apparently Rand herself didn't think of that "self-sustaining" and "self-generated" sentence as a definition of "life" but only as a characterization (according to a report I heard from a reliable reporter, one J. Roger Lee, who was there on an occasion when Rand castigated Leonard Peikoff for calling that a "definition"). Granted, whether she meant it as a definition or not, it's gone down in O'ist lore as such. (And it isn't even a good characterization, if that's how she meant it.)

Bob, a person's being smart in one area is no guarantee of a person's being smart in another, you know. (I confidently expect that you do know and that you're merely expressing frustration.) She hardly even read much philosophy, let alone science. And she was far too sensitive to criticism to heed any criticisms anyone might have tried to make to her. And who would have made those while she was formulating her ideas? She was surrounded by young accolytes during the latter years of her working on Atlas. Before that she'd mostly known persons from the political and the movie-making scenes. In short, I don't think the disparity in her areas of smartness is hard to understand. What's so unfortunate is that she didn't let her ignorance stop her from pronouncing.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

But that is equally true for computerized machines, robots and even for a simple thermostat.

Arrghhh! Smarrrt as paint, ye arrre!

Oh, at least that smart. ;-)

E-

___

[BaalChatzaf]

Remember, folks, apparently Rand herself didn't think of that "self-sustaining" and "self-generated" sentence as a definition of "life" but only as a characterization (according to a report I heard from a reliable reporter, one J. Roger Lee, who was there on an occasion when Rand castigated Leonard Peikoff for calling that a "definition"). Granted, whether she meant it as a definition or not, it's gone down in O'ist lore as such. (And it isn't even a good characterization, if that's how she meant it.)

___

That "self-sustaining and self generated" nonsense is wrong as a description or characterization also. It flies in the face of thermodynamic laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That "self-sustaining and self generated" nonsense is wrong as a description or characterization also. It flies in the face of thermodynamic laws.

Bob,

Where did I hear that before, other than the 999 previous times you posted it?

Is this argument by repetition?

Are you trying to win some contest or something?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Remember, folks, apparently Rand herself didn't think of that "self-sustaining" and "self-generated" sentence as a definition of "life" but only as a characterization (according to a report I heard from a reliable reporter, one J. Roger Lee, who was there on an occasion when Rand castigated Leonard Peikoff for calling that a "definition"). Granted, whether she meant it as a definition or not, it's gone down in O'ist lore as such. (And it isn't even a good characterization, if that's how she meant it.)

___

That "self-sustaining and self generated" nonsense is wrong as a description or characterization also. It flies in the face of thermodynamic laws.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wouldn't call it outright wrong as a description or characterization, though as I said, I don't think it's a good one. But consider the context in which she first wrote it, the speech in Atlas Shrugged. Even if she well understood thermodynamics, that context wouldn't have been the place for a digression into physics. She was trying to make a point about the conditional nature of the existence of animate entities, by contrast to inanimate ones. Expressing the point in language which doesn't raise the hackles of a physicist isn't easy. I know; I've tried in various contexts. The wording is tricky. Another quarrel I have with the wording of the passage as she wrote it is that plants don't "act" in the sense in which animals do. But on the other hand, I'm keenly aware of the difficulty of the writing assignment she faced. I'd be prepared to look past at least almost all of my objections to the speech (my strongest objections pertain to other sections) had she not later published the speech separately with the caption "This is the philosophy of Objectivism," had she instead acknowledged that there were flaws of formulating because of the literary context and the partly dramatic purpose.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

That "self-sustaining and self generated" nonsense is wrong as a description or characterization also. It flies in the face of thermodynamic laws.

Bob,

Where did I hear that before, other than the 999 previous times you posted it?

Is this argument by repetition?

Are you trying to win some contest or something?

Michael

No. I am just telling the truth. Like the Little Boy did when he told the Emperor he was bare ass naked.

The interesting thing about true statements is not how many times they may be repeated, but that the are -true-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

The two models of the world I hold in highest esteem are the model of the physical universe that has emerged from modern physics and the model of what could be called the spiritual realm that has grown through Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden's work. Both models have grown from a commitment to their own particular brand of objectivity. As a science, physics only holds as evidence and the measure of objectivity those things that can be isolated by the senses (or extensions of the senses), measured and quantitatively identified. As a philosophy, Objectivism only holds as evidence and the measure of objectivity those things that can be isolated in awareness and qualitatively identified. The difference between these two approaches is a critical ground for miscommunication and the breakdown of dialogue because Objectivism has a broader spectrum of what it classes as evidence and a different standard of objectivity than does science.

From the standpoint of science, there can be no such thing as introspective evidence. To the scientific mind "introspective evidence" is an oxymoron. To the philosophical mind introspection is a veritable playground for gods, ghosts and goblins, if there is no qualitative standard of objectivity. This is why the concepts of identity and causality are of such prime importance in Objectivism. These are the standard of objectivity in qualitative explorations of the universe, especially when exploring realms that are unmeasurable and unquantifiable such as the introspective realm of the psyche or the underlying nature of physical reality.

Any discussions between strictly scientific minded people and philosophically minded people must necessarily breakdown regardless of the level of objectivity that is maintained because each holds a different standard of objectivity. As such, both sides of an argument can be completely consistent and objective, and be completely at odds with each other.

There is no surprise that very scientific minded people like Dragonfly and Bob (I finally realized what everyone calls you around here) have no time for models of existence that include an element of the psyche which operates by processes that conflict with all known physical processes, a belief that there is a reality (from which the known physical laws have emerged) beneath the limit described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or a belief that we have any tools to explore a reality beyond this limit. From the perspective of science, there can be no evidence and no objectivity in these issues because there is nothing that can be measured and quantified. End of story!

From the perspective of philosophy, and from the perspective of Objectivism in particular, evidence and objectivity have a different meaning. Introspection is considered evidence and the concepts of identity and causality are the standard of measuring the objectivity of models that go beyond what we can observe and measure directly. As such, the philosophically minded will continue to explore well beyond where physics says there is no exploration possible. And, as a philosophically minded person, I will continue to try to tease out a picture of the universe that underlies what we can measure and quantify. I agree with Einstein: causality must go all the way down. But it is philosophy, not physics, that must connect the remaining causal dots.

Branden says somewhere that a sign of maturity is the recognition that we are more than any particular thought or feeling. I would like to expand this idea to say that a sign of maturity is to recognize that we are more than any particular way of thinking. As a way of thinking about the world, science is a powerful tool in the pursuit of an integrated worldview. However, if there is an inherent limit to what science can explore, then surely it is prudent to avail ourselves to the methods of philosophy to push the envelope and attain an integrated worldview.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

Paul,

Of course there is "introspective evidence," from any standpoint including science. But evidence is not proof. It is only something to be investigated.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

And the information you can get from introspective evidence is very limited. It's like watching a tv screen and deducing from the images that you see what is going on inside.

[BaalChatzaf]

Paul,

Of course there is "introspective evidence," from any standpoint including science. But evidence is not proof. It is only something to be investigated.

--Brant

Indeed.

How does one distinguish between introspections that are in correspondence with the external world and those which are not? How does one get sufficient data from introspections to survive? Most of what we claim TO KNOW, are assertions we have received from others and that we do not believe to be false.

How does one distinguish the "still small voice within" from pure balderdash and fantasy? The first thing I learned about my introspections is to ignore them. Most of the time they are just plain wrong. Introspection and emotion are shitty ways to find out what is going on in the world.

Introspection and $1.65 will get you a cup of coffee at the local donut shop.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

Of course there is "introspective evidence," from any standpoint including science. But evidence is not proof. It is only something to be investigated.

--Brant

From Dictionary.com: evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Where does science use introspection to prove or disprove something? That science acknowledges the phenomenon of consciousness to exist does not mean it recognizes anything isolated through introspection as evidence for the nature of this existence. Which science is involved in the process of differentiating the elements and dynamics of our introspective world? Which science explores the nature and dynamics of the psyche?

If a scientist engages in a process of differentiating the elements and dynamics of our introspective world and exploring the nature of the psyche, he is engaging in the practice of something other than science. If he does so with no standard of objectivity, he is engaged in fantasy. If he applies principles of identity and causality induced from observations of the measurable universe and connects his models causally to measurable evidence, he is engaged in disciplined philosophical investigation with a standard of objectivity. Of course, the quality of his principles of identity and causality are still open to philosophical scrutiny.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

That is exactly correct. The thing I find most perplexing about the "science invalidates philosophy" argument (which is the premise underlying a lot of recent discussion) is the constant attempt to use consciousness to eliminate it from knowledge. I don't know if there is something the polar opposite to circular reasoning, but this looks like it is a good candidate.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Paul,

Of course there is "introspective evidence," from any standpoint including science. But evidence is not proof. It is only something to be investigated.

--Brant

From Dictionary.com: evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Where does science use introspection to prove or disprove something? That science acknowledges the phenomenon of consciousness to exist does not mean it recognizes anything isolated through introspection as evidence for the nature of this existence. Which science is involved in the process of differentiating the elements and dynamics of our introspective world? Which science explores the nature and dynamics of the psyche?

If a scientist engages in a process of differentiating the elements and dynamics of our introspective world and exploring the nature of the psyche, he is engaging in the practice of something other than science. If he does so with no standard of objectivity, he is engaged in fantasy. If he applies principles of identity and causality induced from observations of the measurable universe and connects his models causally to measurable evidence, he is engaged in disciplined philosophical investigation with a standard of objectivity. Of course, the quality of his principles of identity and causality are still open to philosophical scrutiny.

Paul

You're mixing up a lot of things here. The dictionary is literally wrong for it is not evidence that does it but people evaluating the evidence. Science doesn't use introspection, scientists do. Introspection doesn't prove anything. It's food for thought. Einstein did a lot of introspection, for instance, apropos Relativity. You are also mixing up hard science with "soft" science (psychology).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Paul,

That is exactly correct. The thing I find most perplexing about the "science invalidates philosophy" argument (which is the premise underlying a lot of recent discussion) is the constant attempt to use consciousness to eliminate it from knowledge. I don't know if there is something the polar opposite to circular reasoning, but this looks like it is a good candidate.

Michael

This argument uses philosophy as a stolen concept, because it is the philosophy of non-philosophy.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I consider it to be not throwing the agent out with the invalid knowledge bathwater.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

That is exactly correct. The thing I find most perplexing about the "science invalidates philosophy" argument (which is the premise underlying a lot of recent discussion) is the constant attempt to use consciousness to eliminate it from knowledge.

Who is eliminating consciousness from knowledge?

[Paul Mawdsley]

You're mixing up a lot of things here. The dictionary is literally wrong for it is not evidence that does it but people evaluating the evidence. Science doesn't use introspection, scientists do. Introspection doesn't prove anything. It's food for thought. Einstein did a lot of introspection, for instance, apropos Relativity. You are also mixing up hard science with "soft" science (psychology).

--Brant

Brant,

You might want to reevaluate who is mixed up about what. People evaluate evidence using the methods of science. Scientists use the methods of science but not for processing introspective information. Einstein may have done a lot of introspection but not about the nature of introspective processes as far as I know. Relativity came from a combination of measurable evidence, thought experiments, a healthy dose of intuition and mathematical skill. Einstein didn't discover relativity by exploring his psyche.

Psychology is a soft science because it has elements that apply scientific methods and elements that are better considered to be part of the arts. Guess which explorations come under the purview of the arts.

[Brant Gaede]

You're mixing up a lot of things here. The dictionary is literally wrong for it is not evidence that does it but people evaluating the evidence. Science doesn't use introspection, scientists do. Introspection doesn't prove anything. It's food for thought. Einstein did a lot of introspection, for instance, apropos Relativity. You are also mixing up hard science with "soft" science (psychology).

--Brant

Brant,

You might want to reevaluate who is mixed up about what. People evaluate evidence using the methods of science. Scientists use the methods of science but not for processing introspective information. Einstein may have done a lot of introspection but not about the nature of introspective processes as far as I know. Relativity came from a combination of measurable evidence, thought experiments, a healthy dose of intuition and mathematical skill. Einstein didn't discover relativity by exploring his psyche.

Psychology is a soft science because it has elements that apply scientific methods and elements that are better considered to be part of the arts. Guess which explorations come under the purview of the arts.

Introspection doesn't have to involve exploring your psyche.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Introspection doesn't have to involve exploring your psyche.

--Brant

Introspection--observation or examination of one's own mental and emotional state, mental processes, etc.; the act of looking within oneself.

How did this lead Einstein to develop relativity theory?

[Brant Gaede]

Introspection doesn't have to involve exploring your psyche.

--Brant

Introspection--observation or examination of one's own mental and emotional state, mental processes, etc.; the act of looking within oneself.

How did this lead Einstein to develop relativity theory?

Looks like you got me, Paul. That's twice today I've been shot down.

Tentatively, I'd substitute "imagination" for introspection.

I guess that leaves me with semantical arguments only. We probably don't disagree substantially.

--Brant

Edited September 23, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Paul Mawdsley]

Tentatively, I'd substitute "imagination" for introspection.

I guess that leaves me with semantical arguments only. We probably don't disagree substantially.

--Brant

I'm all for the idea that Einstein used his imagination to develop relativity theory.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

And the information you can get from introspective evidence is very limited. It's like watching a tv screen and deducing from the images that you see what is going on inside.

Dragonfly,

My experience of introspection is a little different. It's a play in which I am not merely a player but am also the director.

How does one distinguish between introspections that are in correspondence with the external world and those which are not? How does one get sufficient data from introspections to survive? Most of what we claim TO KNOW, are assertions we have received from others and that we do not believe to be false.

How does one distinguish the "still small voice within" from pure balderdash and fantasy? The first thing I learned about my introspections is to ignore them. Most of the time they are just plain wrong. Introspection and emotion are shitty ways to find out what is going on in the world.

Introspection and $1.65 will get you a cup of coffee at the local donut shop.

Bob,

When understanding the nature of reality is the purpose of introspection, we are not looking inward to discover the nature of external existence. We are looking inward to discover the nature of our consciousness. Yes, "introspection and emotion are shitty ways to find out what is going on in the world," but introspection is a great way to explore the nature and dynamics of your inner landscape.

------------------------------------

To explore the inner components and dynamics of our consciousness we need the ability to focus our attention on specific elements of our introspective field and differentiate them from the background information just as we do when we explore the external world. We need to be able to isolate and set these elements aside in our imagination for the purpose of constructing a model of the dynamics. We need a view of identity (our generalized concept of what things are) and causality (our generalized concept of why things behave as they do) to guide the construction of our models. And we need to compare our models with the evidence we have and the mapping we have done on the physiological functions of the brain.

One of the key requirements to successfully modeling the components and dynamics of consciousness is the ability to focus our attention on specific elements in our introspective field. If some parts of the cerebrum are engaged in processing sensory information, other parts of the cerebrum are engaged in generating actions (including some of the actions of consciousness such as imaginings), and the limbic system is engaged in the processing and expression of emotion, then what part of the brain is engaged in the process of focusing attention on these specific elements of our introspective field. My point is that we need to differentiate a core of consciousness from the field of which it is conscious. One of the activities of this core is to focus awareness toward information found in higher brain processes.

Just as we can focus our awareness on a point in the periphery of our visual field (rather than on the centre as we would normally) and we can focus on particular elements of our auditory or other senses, we can focus on particular non-sensory, or introspective, brain processes. Everyone's had the experience of driving along the highway, paying attention to some thought, memory or imagining, and looked up to realize 10 minutes of the trip has passed with no recollection of passing certain landmarks that must have been passed. While our brains were automatically processing all the complex activities of driving a car, we were somehow only paying focused attention to one particular introspective element of our introspective/perceptual field. If we are to assume that the neural processes in the cerebral hemispheres are all that we must understand to grasp the dynamics of consciousness, then what is it that accounts for this ability to focus attention on particular processes in the cerebral hemispheres. Don't we need something else to be doing the focusing?

So I am suggesting the components of consciousness consist of multiple parts that can be primarily divided into a core– which is aware and can actively focus attention on specific information– and all that it can be aware of– including emotions, sensations, thoughts, imaginings, memories, etc. Ideally, we want to be able to correlate this with physiological functions such as a reticular formation that is responsible for levels of awareness, sleep/wake cycles, the changes in consciousness from psychotropic drugs, and is broadly and diffusely connected to the many areas of the brain from which it receives information. Our experience of consciousness is produced through the integration of this core of awareness with the other areas of the brain into a holistic system. While the core of awareness can be localized, the location of consciousness cannot be isolated to any single place in the brain.

When I disagree with the idea that the consciousness can be completely modeled by the analogy of computer hardware and software, it is the existence and nature of this core of awareness that is the stumbling block. It is here that we find the capacity for qualitative awareness, the capacity to initiate action, the capacity to initiate a resistance to react, the capacity to initiate processes that lead to new understanding. If the core of awareness is separate from the neural processes of the cerebrum (the processes of the cerebrum being only one of the things we are aware of), what is the nature of awareness and how does the capacity to initiate actions arise in a universe governed by inertia and deterministic causation?

Paul

[BaalChatzaf]

When I disagree with the idea that the consciousness can be completely modeled by the analogy of computer hardware and software, it is the existence and nature of this core of awareness that is the stumbling block. It is here that we find the capacity for qualitative awareness, the capacity to initiate action, the capacity to initiate a resistance to react, the capacity to initiate processes that lead to new understanding. If the core of awareness is separate from the neural processes of the cerebrum (the processes of the cerebrum being only one of the things we are aware of), what is the nature of awareness and how does the capacity to initiate actions arise in a universe governed by inertia and deterministic causation?

Paul

You and Roger Penrose should sit down together sometime and have tea and talk. He is opposed to the computational model as well.

I take an instrumentalist stand on such matters. If something other than a reductionist or computational scheme will yield both testable and correct answers to questions we raise, then I am a happy camper. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it works, keep using it till it breaks. And if it smiles at you, smile right back. I am not so wed to a philosophical cause that I will ignore a working scheme. I have been "philosophically incorrect" for so long that I have no intention of changing my approach.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

You and Roger Penrose should sit down together sometime and have tea and talk. He is opposed to the computational model as well.

I take an instrumentalist stand on such matters. If something other than a reductionist or computational scheme will yield both testable and correct answers to questions we raise, then I am a happy camper. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it works, keep using it till it breaks. And if it smiles at you, smile right back. I am not so wed to a philosophical cause that I will ignore a working scheme. I have been "philosophically incorrect" for so long that I have no intention of changing my approach.

I found The Emperor's New Mind to be a comfortable head-space to get into. I got the sense his thinking was pushing in similar directions, with a similar spirit, to my own. I was pleasantly surprised to find him also referring to the possible connections between consciousness and the reticular formation. I haven't read his more recent books but I have learned that he was considering some sort of connection between willed action and quantum potentials that are conducted via some kind of tubules in neurons. Obviously, my info is sketchy but the principle sounds interesting.

As for "if it ain't broke don't fix it," I guess my introspections have led me to the conclusion that it's broke. The actions of the core of my consciousness do not fit with the deterministic causation that has shaped our physical models of the world. This has led me to reevaluate the nature of identity and causality. This has led me to reevaluate the underlying nature of existence. This has led me to reinterpret the worldview according to modern physics. And this has lead me to consider observed physical phenomena as emergent, even inertia. I know I appear to be one step closer to the loony bin every time I say such things.

Truth is, causality is at the centre of many a controversy from the Einstein/Bohr debates to the age old debate about the existence of free will. It's about time we questioned the nature of causality. The standard view of deterministic causality is found in the billiard ball model. When one ball interacts with another the energy and direction of motion of one ball is transfered to the other. Why do things behave as they do? Primarily because energy from its environment is processed via a things identity which causes a reaction.

In such a model there is no room for a thing to initiate its own actions. Even if we allow for the concept of springs or batteries which can allow a thing to move via internal energies, this does not allow it to initiate its own actions. Some outside force, either through current action or prior programming, must initiate the action to release the energy from the battery or the spring.

If a thing is to initiate its own actions, causality must be different. If there is an element of consciousness that can initiate the actions of consciousness, then this thing must have the principle of motion within. How would causality be different if we were to place the principle of motion within?

This is where the idea of proactive causation comes from. Why do things behave as they do? Because the balance and expression of the energy that is intrinsic to a thing is changed through its interaction with its environment. The energy that is intrinsic to the elementary particles of the billiard ball is in balance when in uniform motion, is placed out of balance during interaction, and achieves balance again through a change in its motion. (This makes more sense if one thinks of the expression of intrinsic energy in terms of things in circular motion acting to maintain this shape against outside influences.) No energy is exchanged between balls. It could be said that each ball simply limits the degrees of freedom available to the expression of energy of the other. Inertia can be considered a special case of the principle of motion being within. Now we no longer have a problem, in principle, with causation and free will.

As for the Einstein/Bohr debates, with a new view of causation we might just find a way to trace causation all the way down. How would proactive causation manifest itself at the foundations of existence?

Paul

(Special relativity can be modeled by considering particles that have the specific intrinsic property of moving at the speed of light and traveling in an essentially circular path (the same shaped path that gives rise to inertia). Any translational motion of the circular path as a whole must be taken from the motion of the particles themselves. This would slow down the internal clock of the circular path. It would also reduce the energy available to react to outside forces which would be measured as an increase in mass. And the circle would be compressed in the direction of motion reaching a theoretically infinite compression at the speed of light.)

Edited October 2, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley