Free will and intelligence

[Severinian]

Your analogy is not an epistemic standard, and if that's your point, fine. But you should really try to explain your point in a more broken-down and empathetic way, because every time I think I understand your point, you say that I don't, and judging by your writing style, you seem to imply that I'm dumb, but you might want to consider the possibility that you're not good at explaining things, or understanding other people's point of view. Not just judging from our interaction, but those of the whole thread. 

Edited January 3, 2015 by Severinian

[New Buddha]

My frustration with you is because you either ask the same question over and over, or you make a statement like this:  "Your analogy is not an epistemic standard, and if that's your point, fine."  And yet you make no attempt to explain yourself.

 

Can you elaborate on why my examples are not epistemic standards?

[Severinian]

Well, the reason I'm asking the same question over and over is that you do not give any adequate answers. You don't really explain things well. Alternatively, if there's anything wrong with my understanding, maybe someone else can rephrase it in another way. 

[dream_weaver]

Four entries from a lexicon:

Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe—including every thought, feeling, and action of man—is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did, and everything in the future is already pre-set and inevitable. Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory.

 

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

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

 

To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.

 

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

 

QM, is a branch of physics which studies inanimate matter. Philosophy studies man and man's relationship to existence. Existence is considered as metaphysical, and ontology is considered to be a branch thereof. Knowledge is an epistemic phenomenon. Whether an explanation is considered to be adequate or not, sometimes depends on the scope of understanding possessed by the questioner.

[New Buddha]

QM, is a branch of physics which studies inanimate matter. Philosophy studies man and man's relationship to existence.

There is no field of study from which philosophy is excluded.  The foundation of physics is philosophy - just as philosophy informs the foundations of art, politics, math, economics, engineering, astronomy, etc.  Whether or not an electron/photon is from a living organism or a rock is irrelevant to QM.

 

QM is a model of what is occurring at the atomic level.  Period.  And, from a purely epistemological context, a QM model is no different from an economist's model, a structural engineer's model, a developmental psychologist's model, a forestry management engineer's model, an evolutionary biologist's model or a philosopher's model of concept formation (such as ITOE).

 

The physical creation of models is determined by the perceptual mechanics of the senses and the somatic/motor control of our hands.  Models exist as equations and/or words on paper.  They are not ethereal or disembodied creations.  Models are not interchangeable, on a one-for-one basis, with that which they are modeling.  Models are not reality.  Models are tools which allow us to systematically break down very large problems into smaller, more manageable, problems which can be perceived by the senses.  Rand's "crow's epistemology" is an example of this.  This is know as Subitizing.  Rand also very astutely understood that concepts are given perceptual form as words - either written or spoken.  Concepts are not disembodied.  They have material form (either written or spoken).

 

Models are not ends within themselves.  Models are tools.  All models have limitations.  No models is omniscient or all encompassing of the totality of existence.  Models break down some sub-set of existence into manageable, perceptible chunks.

 

QM does differ, however, because what it is modeling can only be done so mathematically.  No one has ever "seen" a photon, electron, neutron or proton.  No one has ever "seen" gravity or the weak, strong and/or electromagnetic forces.  No one has ever "seen" a quark.  We can only infer that they exist from observations made at the "Classical" level.  The most accurate way to describe them is mathematically on paper.  Words or orthographic drawings, such as Bohr's model of the atom, do serve a purpose, but they can be very misleading.

 

QM has achieved an almost religious status among the public.  This has largely been propagated by it's informed (and uninformed) practitioners.

 

And it certainly helps to secure tenure and keeps the government grants flowing it's way....

Edited January 4, 2015 by New Buddha

[Severinian]

I'm familiar with all the concepts and definitions in these two posts, but again, I would ask for another explanation of why the word "Prediction" should vanish from the vocabulary of any rational person, or what New Buddha's actual metaphysical views are. I thought he meant that it was an irrelevant question to ask whether the universe was determined or not, because we can't know, but no, that was supposedly not his point. If you understand his points Dream Weaver, could you rephrase them? 

 

I would also like people's interpretations of the double slit experiment. I'm familiar with Bohmian Mechanics and the "everyday interpretation", about apparent randomness or alternate universes, etc. Another interesting theory is that everything in the universe has a form of consciousness, sometimes made up of several proto conciousnesses, and if they all have a tiny element of free will, that would explain why the predictability dissappears on the subatomic level. Unless that's just a result of our model and it's completely backwards, but that's kind of what Bohmian Mechanics is saying too. But if Bohmian Mechanics are correct, there is no indication of free will.

 

I'll also paste my earlier question:

 

 

Now, as we know from quantum physics, there is unpredictability in the universe, which is what one should expect from a universe with free will, so it's likely that we do have it.  

 

But what if that wasn't the case? I mean, many Objectivists, including Nathaniel Branden and Stefan Molyneux, claim that it's *logically* impossible to prove determinism, because they say that you use your free will in order to judge whether something is true or false. That argument never made sense to me. Isn't free will simply the ability to choose your focus? So you can choose to focus on the rational FACULTY in your mind/brain or not, you can choose to focus on a work impulse or the more tempting video game impulse, etc. But surely it's not the consciousness itself that does the calculations, proving or disproving things? Do you see what I mean? A fish has consciousness too, but surely it can't reason? So in theory, determinism could be proven, if someone had super-advanced knowledge of a brain and could predict the person's choices during temptations, etc? 

 

Branden says that if determinism is right, one couldn't say that a theory is highly probable (including determinism), or that your reason is more valid than that of a raving lunatic. But just to play the devil's advocate here, couldn't you say that all knowledge is in some way connected in your mind, and you could see the results of reason applied to reality, therefore it is highly probable that you are guided by true reason, and a lunatic isn't? Maybe there's a fundamental flaw in my thinking of how the mind works, but I just can't completely get this. 

[dream_weaver]

There is no field of study from which philosophy is excluded.  The foundation of physics is philosophy - just as philosophy informs the foundations of art, politics, math, economics, engineering, astronomy, etc.  Whether or not an electron/photon is from a living organism or a rock is irrelevant to QM.

I did not mean to imply that. Philosophy, indeed, has interdisciplinary application. Part of the issue here seem to be taking a QM model and trying to apply it to areas that it is not applicable.

[dream_weaver]

 

I'm familiar with all the concepts and definitions in these two posts, but again, I would ask for another explanation of why the word "Prediction" should vanish from the vocabulary of any rational person, or what New Buddha's actual metaphysical views are. I thought he meant that it was an irrelevant question to ask whether the universe was determined or not, because we can't know, but no, that was supposedly not his point. If you understand his points Dream Weaver, could you rephrase them? 

 

I would also like people's interpretations of the double slit experiment. I'm familiar with Bohmian Mechanics and the "everyday interpretation", about apparent randomness or alternate universes, etc. Another interesting theory is that everything in the universe has a form of consciousness, sometimes made up of several proto conciousnesses, and if they all have a tiny element of free will, that would explain why the predictability dissappears on the subatomic level. Unless that's just a result of our model and it's completely backwards, but that's kind of what Bohmian Mechanics is saying too. But if Bohmian Mechanics are correct, there is no indication of free will.

 

I'll also paste my earlier question:

 

 

Now, as we know from quantum physics, there is unpredictability in the universe, which is what one should expect from a universe with free will, so it's likely that we do have it.  

 

But what if that wasn't the case? I mean, many Objectivists, including Nathaniel Branden and Stefan Molyneux, claim that it's *logically* impossible to prove determinism, because they say that you use your free will in order to judge whether something is true or false. That argument never made sense to me. Isn't free will simply the ability to choose your focus? So you can choose to focus on the rational FACULTY in your mind/brain or not, you can choose to focus on a work impulse or the more tempting video game impulse, etc. But surely it's not the consciousness itself that does the calculations, proving or disproving things? Do you see what I mean? A fish has consciousness too, but surely it can't reason? So in theory, determinism could be proven, if someone had super-advanced knowledge of a brain and could predict the person's choices during temptations, etc? 

 

Branden says that if determinism is right, one couldn't say that a theory is highly probable (including determinism), or that your reason is more valid than that of a raving lunatic. But just to play the devil's advocate here, couldn't you say that all knowledge is in some way connected in your mind, and you could see the results of reason applied to reality, therefore it is highly probable that you are guided by true reason, and a lunatic isn't? Maybe there's a fundamental flaw in my thinking of how the mind works, but I just can't completely get this. 

 

(added) The double slit experiment has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.

(added) The notion that the universe has a form of consciousness can be found on here too using the search function.

 

You ask if free will isn't simply the ability to choose your focus. It is certainly the primary choice. While other animals are conscious, conceptual consciousness is also referred to as volitional consciousness. Epistemologically, free will is a prerequisite to knowledge. In this sense, free will is logically antecedent to knowledge. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise, implicitly counts on it.

Edited January 4, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Severinian]

I've heard that argument often, but I don't completely understand it. I mean, you can imagine a sophisticated robot that integrates its impressions in a hard drive as knowledge and concepts, and acts according to them, and so on. Right? 

You could say that if we don't have free will, we can't know if our self-correctors are set incorrectly, as Branden puts it, but that would just be outside of the realm of knowledge, just like a hypothetical God or alternative reality. Right? We could still have knowledge that made sense to us within our means of understanding, even if, in the absolute true reality, the knowledge was wrong. 

Edited January 4, 2015 by Severinian

[dream_weaver]

Actually, I can't imagine a sophisticated robot that integrates its impressions on a hard drive as knowledge and concepts.

 

When you start delving into the concepts and knowledge involved to build such a sophisticated device, they are only concepts and knowledge as they relate to a conceptual, i.e., volitional consciousness.

Edited January 4, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Severinian]

I still don't understand why a very sophisticated robot couldn't do that. Is this elaborated upon in Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology? (I haven't read it yet)

[dream_weaver]

The ITOE immortal robot was used to examine values. (OO.search on immortal robot)

 

In Harry Binswanger's book, How We Know, he briefly outlines conscious thought as it relates to computers, in a paragraph on page 40 cited here.

[CriticalThinker2000]

 

Another interesting theory is that everything in the universe has a form of consciousness, sometimes made up of several proto conciousnesses, and if they all have a tiny element of free will, that would explain why the predictability dissappears on the subatomic level.

 

 

Wouldn't those be unconscious consciousnesses?

[Eiuol]

I still don't understand why a very sophisticated robot couldn't do that. Is this elaborated upon in Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology? (I haven't read it yet)

A robot can do that, insofar as a robot is just man-made. I'm not aware of Rand making any argument that it is impossible to create a conscious entity with free will. Binswanger might, but presumably you're asking about Rand.

[dream_weaver]

This seems to beg the question: Would a conscious entity with free will be a life-form, or a machine? I know we differ on our esteem of Binswanger's work, but this is the initial question that forms in my mind.

Edited January 8, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Eiuol]

It could be either. I said man-made specifically to be open about if it's carbon-based or works at all like any other man-made machines.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

With regards to develop a higher IQ that isn't possible you either have it or you don't.

That's false on so many levels that it's really sort of impressive, in a weird way.

How much does free will affect intelligence, according to this view?

What do you mean by "intelligence"?

If you mean the scope and accuracy of your knowledge (probably picturing a professor) then - that's the point of asking a question, isn't it? If you mean your IQ (probably picturing a Chess champion) then that's also completely within your own control.

Your IQ is basically a measurement of how fast you can think; it's a little bit messier than that but that's the general idea. The idea that you'll always think at a constant rate, which is set in stone and beyond your own control- ...

Firstly, your IQ fluctuates measurably throughout any given day. When you're tired and your brain's full of drowsy chemicals, you think slower. When you're awake and energized, you think faster. When you're driving and someone cuts in front of you without signalling your brain floods itself with adrenaline and your IQ goes through the roof for a few minutes.

Secondly, your IQ fluctuates throughout your lifetime for similar reasons. When you're old and those damn kids call you senile, they'll be referring to how fast you can think - which won't be much, unless you're taking the proper precautions right now.

Thirdly, your IQ fluctuates according to what you're thinking about. When you think about things you already understand pretty well you think about them faster and more accurately than someone who's just a beginner.

Finally, it's a silly measurement anyway because regardless of whether it takes you a few minutes more or less than someone else to solve a problem, you can still solve it. A low IQ doesn't prevent you from understanding rocket science any more than a high IQ would let you automatically understand it, without effort; the former just means it'll take longer.

In short, regardless of what sense you mean "intelligence" in, it's something that's completely open to your own control.

Is any of Ayn Rand's theories contradicted by modern neuroscience?

Not at all, if you take the time to interpret them properly. A lot of the time you'll see flashy headlines which make sweeping scientific declarations like "science disproves free will" or "quantum mechanics proves that we're living in a simulation" with the actual data in very modest lettering, beneath.

Don't ever take the headlines at face value; read the gory details if you intend to read it at all.

I haven't seen any scientific data yet that contradicts Objectivism. As a matter of fact, there have been several studies in the past few years which indicate that children "learn how to learn" when they're young, and that the methods of learning which they learn become a massive factor in their lifelong success (and their IQ). I wonder if the scientists involved have read the Comprachios...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

This, incidentally, is what I think "free will" refers to:

Not that you don't have any built-in reflexes or handicaps but that you do have the power to change them; to change your self.

A rat has the IQ that it has, at any given moment, and can't change it; only a man can rally his attention.

We even know, neuroscientifically, that the choice to focus takes place just behind the frontal lobe, which is the center of long-term/strategic reasoning, in the prefrontal cortex; a chunk of tissue that's connected to key locations, across the rest of the brain, which modulate (enhance or suppress, but not directly control) all of the synapses firing around them. When we use fMRI's to observe people's brains as they figure stuff out, we can see the prefrontal cortex dampening out everything that isn't important to the task at hand; blocking out sensory information and preventing the activation of irrelevant memories, as it also stimulates the important activity.

We can SEE the choice to focus in real time!

So whenever someone denies their control over their own mind, in any way, just ask if they have a prefrontal cortex.

(Tangent-from-a-tangent: back when it was OK to lobotomize people, they destroyed that during the operation; meaning that you can personally look up what life was like for people who truly didn't have prefrontal cortexes).

Edited July 30, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Spiral Architect]

Free will is what allows us to build advance concepts.  This becomes clearer when you consider abstractions.  

 

Animals can differentiate between facts presented to them but humans can integrate those facts which allows them to build more complex knowledge.  My can knows that the wife and I are different from him, and that my wife and I are different from each other, or who is likely to feed him.  He cannot learn that we are both mammals, and that with the birds he watches we are all animals, and when combined with the catnip plant that we are living organisms.  

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Sort of.

Free will is what allows us to build advance concepts.

In particular, concept-formation requires that we:

1: Look at several *things*

2: Find *something* which they have in common with each other, but not with something else

3: Omit any particular *somethings* about that something which aren't identical to every member and commit whatever remains to memory

I'm not sure if it's differentiation exactly but animals seem perfectly capable of reaching #1; it just takes a human's prefrontal cortex to progress any further, because the next step IS a choice to focus.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold