Errors of Analysis and Explanation

[Harrison Danneskjold]

*Disclaimer: my own, personal thoughts, only*

Causality is concerned with necessity. Much like deduction, for X to cause Y means that given X (no matter how large or complex X may be) Y cannot fail to happen.

Now every physical object we know of behaves deterministically; I.e. its future actions necessarily follow from its past conditions, while people may choose to focus on anything they wish, correct?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If I told you that my attire is black and simultaneously white, and that both are completely true, what would your immediate question be?

Now we know that causality is a cognitive imperative and that people may focus on whatever they want, and that both are true.

The detail we need to reapply is not THAT something is caused, but WHAT causes it.

---

P: all actions are metaphysically necessary

p: human actions do not necessarily follow from external conditions

C: human action is internally necessary; caused by human thought

P: human thought necessarily follows from the direction of human attention

C: all self-determination stems from the choice to focus

P: human beings may focus on whatever they want

C: the choice to focus is caused by each person's values (hopes, fears, aspirations)

P: human values are caused by human thought

C: self-determination is circular causation

Ta-da!

Edited November 6, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Example: In a debate with a mystic, the accusation of "evasion" won't necessarily cause any single reaction, in particular.

But when debating an Objectivist, the same accusation won't necessarily end the debate, but you can be damn sure that you've gotten their attention.

That's a clear-cut case of the choice to focus being caused, specifically by one's values (which are caused by previous choices to focus).

And that's why I compare it to the many body problem in physics.

[StrictlyLogical]

Chet Fleming wrote a book entitled "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive..."

Through a process of hooking machines up to replace the functions of vital organs, when you are left with a brain in a vat, so to speak, are you just beginning to do your isolation of the "choosy causal agent"?

 

It may have been Harry Binswanger's peice on "Perception" making a case of using electrical probes applied to different areas of the brain, the perceptions generated are still causal.

 

Even for you to "conclude" that choice . . . must either simply not exist, or... rests on the axiomatic status of choice in order to perform the conclusion or decision making process. Every conclusion we draw is subject to "correct" or "incorrect", "right" or "wrong". The recognition of alternatives is the recognition of choices.

 

Consciousness entails life, though life need not always be conscious (plants for example.)

Choice entails conceptual conscious, though a conceptual consciousness need not recognise choice in the matter.

 

To approach it in accordance with Objectivism, would have to be to identify it "Choice: What is it? What, by the nature of what it is, does it do?", recognising that even to do this requires choice.

 

The "fallacy" was offered not to show what I actually think but as an exercise... i.e. identify the errors! 

 

 

More generally, the purpose is not to validate choice, in fact I assume its existence, I merely am exploring the errors that can crop up in the exercise of setting limits on formulating an explanation of choice given the nature of reality and what makes up the thing which has the ability to choose.

[StrictlyLogical]

HD:

 

I hate to admit it but sometimes I just don't get what you are saying or trying to say or implying... being more direct and/or explicit may be helpful for me.

 

In any case I will try to read your posts later and respond.

 

 

I think the main error (but there may be more) in the reasoning is the requirement/assumption of a functionally atomic unit which is itself choosy(BTW by functionally atomic I mean its function is atomic, i.e. no sub functions make it up.)  In other words the error is setting out to explain something but require that it rely on an instance of itself as part of that explanation.

[dream_weaver]

Try relating it to the understanding of trying to "prove" existence via non-existence, or consciousness via non-consciousness. Trying to "prove" choice is trying to put the cart before the horse, or "proof" presupposes choice.

 

Explainations to others may assist in providing clarity to those seeking it, validation, on the other hand, is something each individual must perform for themselves.

 

While the word "you" was used earlier, the broader application of the term still holds. Thanks for pointing out the subtilty.

Edited November 7, 2013 by dream_weaver

[StrictlyLogical]

Try relating it to the understanding of trying to "prove" existence via non-existence, or consciousness via non-consciousness. Trying to "prove" choice is trying to put the cart before the horse, or "proof" presupposes choice.

 

Explainations to others may assist in providing clarity to those seeking it, validation, on the other hand, is something each individual must perform for themselves.

 

While the word "you" was used earlier, the broader application of the term still holds. Thanks for pointing out the subtilty.

 

I will repeat... I am not trying to prove choice.. I assume its existence.

 

 

Explanation is the "why" and the "how" not the what... I know the sun exists, and the fact that water boils and freezes, explaining why the sun shines and how water turns to ice or steam is explanation.

 

 

To a hammer everything is a nail... I should like to ask you to look closer and see that we do not have such a nail here sir.

[StrictlyLogical]

HD:

 

WRT to your conclusion "self-determination is circular causation", I think there is a good deal of insight to one of the important factors in the freeness of free will and how individuals evolve as personalities.  This, however, can only be part of the story, because it does not escape determinism.

 

Your conclusions about physics (not metaphysics) is that objective probability according QM is not possible.  I dispute the logical necessity of arriving at such a conclusion from the law of causality according to Objectivism because (as pointed out by Plasmatic) it (may?) is not restricted to single valued causation, but in any case, the result is that any and all functional ingredients for choice are thus determined, so free will is not possible in a world of your strict determinism no manner how convoluted, complex, or circular looping the system.  Even chaos theory confirms no matter how nonequilibrium a chaotic pseudorandom process is, it is, if based on deterministic processes, deterministic, albeit ergodic and/or pseudorandom.

 

Choice according to your physics is thus deterministic as is the entire of existence start to finish.

 

I do not believe that the many body problem (which really is about analytic solutions) implies that an actual many body system (classical versus QM) could evolve differently given the exact same starting conditions, configuration and environment.

 

Not quite Tada, but an interesting observation.

[StrictlyLogical]

Have you read Dr. Peikoffs article on the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy? Given correspondence between subject and object, a false statement, ignorance or not, fails to correspond/contradicts reality. This shows up in the way we use language.

 

It's on my reading list.   It is SO SAD that someone like Dr. Peikoff has to waste his time dealing with such insane nonsense as the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy...  but some people make careers of such work... and alas I need to live in a world where Dr. Peikoff exists (is that a brute fact?...)

 

Necessary and contingent facts??  Oh the universe just "happens" to be this way, it "could" have been different??  Conceivable? Such insanity.  Was this originated by Hume or one of his predecessors?

Edited November 7, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[dream_weaver]

I will repeat... I am not trying to prove choice.. I assume its existence.

 

 

Explanation is the "why" and the "how" not the what... I know the sun exists, and the fact that water boils and freezes, explaining why the sun shines and how water turns to ice or steam is explanation.

 

 

To a hammer everything is a nail... I should like to ask you to look closer and see that we do not have such a nail here sir.

Very well, sir. Perhaps not such a "nail' as to be "hammered", rather an acceptance that every question reduces to a "what".

From Chapter 4 of OPAR: 

Every type of question reduces to: "What is it?" For example, "Why did a certain event occur?" means: "What is the nature of the cause? .... How?" means "What is the process? .... Where?" means "What is the place?" Consciousness is a faculty of discovering identity.

 

[StrictlyLogical]

Very well, sir. Perhaps not such a "nail' as to be "hammered", rather an acceptance that every question reduces to a "what".

From Chapter 4 of OPAR: 

Every type of question reduces to: "What is it?" For example, "Why did a certain event occur?" means: "What is the nature of the cause? .... How?" means "What is the process? .... Where?" means "What is the place?" Consciousness is a faculty of discovering identity.

 

I realize now that wording the fallacy in the first person was a mistake... and our exchanges have gotten off on the wrong foot... and perhaps a few more feet. 

 

I agree with OPAR here completely.

 

My choice of words was not perfect, I was trying to emphasize that explanation is identifying the nature of something as opposed to merely confirming its existence. 

 

 

Ignoring our misunderstanding, (and my resulting snarkiness...) do you have any opinions about the possible fallacies/errors in the above post?   

Edited November 7, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[dream_weaver]

How about trying to relate "choice" being the action  or result of an action of an entity other than the entity which gave rise to it in the first place.

Would it be the fallacy of division, where is the choice among the parts, or the fallacy of composition, how do all these deterministic atoms go together to make a grade-'A' choice maker?

[StrictlyLogical]

How about trying to relate "choice" being the action  or result of an action of an entity other than the entity which gave rise to it in the first place.

Would it be the fallacy of division, where is the choice among the parts, or the fallacy of composition, how do all these deterministic atoms go together to make a grade-'A' choice maker?

 

I think the fallacy is one of division.  To look for choice among the parts begs the question.  If the goal is an explanation of choice, explanation must be applied to the root choice which is made of no parts which are choosy.

[absols]

error is each time free means are not out of absolute positive truth

 

philosophy usually is a will to exist through what every being does, but the philosopher would mean to do it abstractly, the confusion between his own existence and everything existence for the sake of being free through the deals with everything, instead of being free really so independant out of everything else

 

truth so objective reality is suppositely to know for freedom to be real

 

when you admit this, then you can see more clearly how errors are of the same concept always being

 

if you mean your true freedom out of everything, then you have no problem in admitting that truth is always positive

 

what is true is exclusively objective positive end constancy so absolutely positive thing always

 

that is how philosophy knows logical fallacy from knowing that truth is positive fact, in absolute objective demonstration which i would add, being existing really

 

the will to take advantage from everything as a way of being free, is what explain how the will has to unconsciously justify everything being negative too since the will is meaning to be constantly by substracting things

[dream_weaver]

Living organisms are the only class that face the fundamental alternative (again choice) of existence vs. non-existence.

Living organisms are comprised of inanimate matter that performs a fundamental process identified as life.

With the exception of man, all other living organisms are born with an innate capacity to perform other processes that sustain the fundamental process.

It is only man that has the capacity to recognize this fundamental alternative explicitly.

[tadmjones]

Living organisms are the only class that face the fundamental alternative (again choice) of existence vs. non-existence.

Living organisms are comprised of inanimate matter that performs a fundamental process identified as life.

With the exception of man, all other living organisms are born with an innate capacity to perform other processes that sustain the fundamental process.

It is only man that has the capacity to recognize this fundamental alternative explicitly.

Edited November 10, 2013 by tadmjones

[tadmjones]

Living organisms face an alternative, though I'm confused how/why it is considered also a choice. I see choice as a term that is tied to self awareness.

What or where is the inanimate matter of a living organism?

Man also has innate capacities, respiration/digestion are not learned or discovered processes

Man is the only conceptually aware entity, so far identified

[StrictlyLogical]

Living organisms face an alternative, though I'm confused how/why it is considered also a choice. I see choice as a term that is tied to self awareness.

What or where is the inanimate matter of a living organism?

Man also has innate capacities, respiration/digestion are not learned or discovered processes

Man is the only conceptually aware entity, so far identified

 

1.  Exactly, matter is matter, the living organism by virtue of the arrangement and functioning of the matter is animate.  The organism as "living" can thus cease if the matter no longer has that arrangement and functioning. In all cases the matter is the same.

 

2.  True.  Sometimes I think too much hay is made over the hardware versus software of a functioning human system.  The real issue with things like "intrinsic" or "innate" knowledge is the bald assertion and dark plunge into supernaturalism and mysticism it leads to.  We need not be so worried about hardware/software issues, and we should embrace whatever reality has to tell us about what evolution has hardwired, simply as a fact of reality.

 

3.  True.  Someday he will hopefully have enough knowledge of reality to create another (perhaps silicon based but by no means "artificial") conceptually aware entity

[dream_weaver]

Choice was directed toward on the fundamental alternative. Where no alternatives exist, no choice is possible.

Living organism are comprised of matter. The difference between animate vs inanimate matter has kept man amused for centuries, although what was being indicated was that most living organism possess an automatic pursuit of survival.

 

Yes, on the list provided, that (conceptual awareness) would be what is present where choice is present, and what is not where choice is not.

[absols]

i dont see the choice... if we stop eating we suffer so we dont have a choice to exist

and if we want to be we cant avoid death and also being killed, which confirm the absence of choice

[dream_weaver]

The choice to eat or not is done in the context of the fundamental alternative of existence or non-existence.

 

As to someone trying to kill you, that gives rise to the notion of self-defense. Having the choice to defend yourself does not guarantee success. The question of choice is not one of succeeding or not, but selecting from the alternatives available to you at any given time.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Absols: the fact that you cannot have your cake and eat it too doesn't negate your choice between the two.

I have no idea what the rest was about.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

SL: Eliminative determinism (man as merely stimuli-response) is false because it contradicts the human mind.

If altered to specifically incorporate consciousness as self-determinism, on what grounds should it be rejected?

---

You had the choice, when reading my posts, to pay attention to them or not and to reply one way or another or not at all. You've made those choices.

Did you make them randomly, or on the basis of countless accumulative judgments you'd already made (ideas and values)?

Further: if your decisions are truly uncaused then eventually you'll accept my explanation anyway, statistically speaking. :-P

---

Honestly, why can't self-determinism be the whole truth?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Objectivist causality isn't my basis for rejecting Copenhagen QM; the Supremacy of Reason is.

To know that people will either choose X or Y, and nothing further, is like knowing that an electron will do X or Y; it will either rain tomorrow or it will not, and having no evidence for or against either. And I have nothing against such knowledge, as such; everyone has to start somewhere. What's unacceptable is to declare that the stopping point of knowledge.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

P: Randomness is nonidentity

p: Consciousness is identification

C: Identitylessness is inconcievable (and what has a "flexible" identity is partially incomprehensible)

P: The human mind is capable of understanding anything in the universe

C: Nothing in the universe may act arbitrarily

To accept the Copenhagen interpretation is to reject the Supremacy of Reason.

Yes, this is incompatible with truly random "choice" and, if you accept that people actually think and act randomly, then you can't consistently hold the S of R. I don't see any issue here.