BrentRolfe Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 stephen, I do not have the time to sort the content from the condescension in your posts, so I will stop reading them. Thank you for your attempts to help. Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I do not have the time to sort the content from the condescension in your posts, so I will stop reading them. I completely understand. Facts can sometimes stand in the way. Better to continue to blame Peikoff for his poor examples, or me for my condescension, rather than actually understand. Thank you for your attempts to help. Oh, you're welcome. Pity it turned out to be a waste of my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippie Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Sorry I’ve been away for so long—I’m sure you’ve all been waiting in baited breath. Since I am a very busy man, I will try to make this as streamline as possible and only address Mr. Speicher. Most everything that could be said has been. I’ve had other Objectivists argue that volition is an axiom, but I deny that (see previous post to see how I explain consciousness and human action). I accept other axioms because they are fundamentally self-evident, such as existence, consciousness, causality, and life. Yet volition neither appears to me as self-evident nor possible in light of the other axioms (again, to see why, see my previous posts about causality). When I said, “I know that is not what you or Ayn Rand intend to say,” I was referring to the idea that existence causes perception, causes consciousness, causes action in a perfectly deterministic way—which I am sure you are not arguing. At some point, in some way, you are arguing that there is a prime mover. An agent that is not caused, but causes other things. Most theists say god gives it to us and Objectivists say it is in our identity. But either way, the argument is that a man creates his decisions, and they are not created by anything else (else they would not be his decisions and it would not be a case of free will). Some understand this to be that, at any given moment, we choose one particular action or another whereas the Objectivist claims that it is primarily and constantly a choice of to think/focus or to abandon thought/unfocus. Still, even in the Objectivist case, the point is made that man creates something from nothing. His choice is not determined by antecedent causes. It may be confined to the realm of physically possible events and by means of the identity of man, but whether a man goes left or right—whether he focuses or unfocuses—is derived solely from “himself”. “Himself” not being just the material being, but some mystical entity that injects a cause into the real world, and yet nothing caused the injection. That, I cannot understand. That a something comes from nothing is beyond me. As I said before, I think it most productive that we agree to disagree. I doubt we'll get anywhere. “I am not sure how much you even agree with yourself.” I am. Good day, Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 The major problem with your experiment is that your making a scenario outside of realistic context. When you can reverse time, this experiment will have some meaning. Until then, it has no meaning. Would you say that Ayn Rand's suggestion of an indestructable robot having no values was meaningless, because there are no indestructable robots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 But that act of choosing itself, what we choose, is entirely volitional. We can choose to focus, or not. What characterises the nature of volition? In other words, what distinguishes it from determinism? What makes 'free will' free? Free to choose? That simply says that we are not inhibited from choosing. Or does it denote a freedom from causality? That still leaves me with the question - if choice is not causal, what is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 "I accept other axioms because they are fundamentally self-evident, such as existence, consciousness,..." Actually you contradict this statement later in the same post. You say: ""Himself” not being just the material being, but some mystical entity that injects a cause into the real world, and yet nothing caused the injection." You have identified consciousness here as a non-material thing, which is not part of the "real" (read MATERIAL) world. You reject consciousness on the basis that it is mystical and thus could not 'affect' any material element in existence. So much for you being conscious, or you accepting consciousness as self-evident. -- "“I am not sure how much you even agree with yourself.” I am." The above contradiction indicates otherwise. -- Not to mention that the term ACCEPT means to CHOOSE. Thus, by using it, you invalidate any argument AGAINST volition - against choosing - via contradiction. In other words, by merely uttering the phrase "I do not accept volition" you affirm it completely. You say "I am FREE to CHOOSE to accept this idea or reject it. And I CHOOSE to reject it." So thank you for agreeing with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Yet volition neither appears to me as self-evident nor possible ... As I said before, I think it most productive that we agree to disagree. I doubt we'll get anywhere. Okay. We'll agree to disagree, as you choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Hippie: how can you not think there is volition? do you believe in punishment of crime? Without volition we have no right to punish those who commit crimes. Because they were forced to do it. Do you think that you must type to me on the computer? I think you are confusing determinism with the fact that you cant change the past. Just because what is done cant be changed, doesnt mean that you cant act differently in the future. I think you are letting that confuse you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Without volition we have no right to punish those who commit crimes. Not to mention that, in the absence of volition, the concept "right" would be meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 I would appreciate an honest answer from either Stephen or someone else who is able, to the question I asked earlier. What characterises the nature of volition? In other words, what distinguishes it from determinism? What makes 'free will' free? Free to choose? That simply says that we are not inhibited from choosing. Or does it denote a freedom from causality? That still leaves me with the question - if choice is not causal, what is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 I would appreciate an honest answer from either Stephen or someone else who is able, to the question I asked earlier. What characterises the nature of volition? In other words, what distinguishes it from determinism? What makes 'free will' free? Free to choose? That simply says that we are not inhibited from choosing. Or does it denote a freedom from causality? That still leaves me with the question - if choice is not causal, what is it? iouswuoibev, I answered this in a dozen or so previous posts. Just do a search on "volition" with my name. Or, even better, read Chapter 2 of Peikoff's OPAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 I think a typical and easily understood formulation of what makes free will free is: a free choice could have been otherwise. Man cannot escape causality. It is in his nature to choose and he must choose. But what he chooses is up to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 What characterises the nature of volition? In other words, what distinguishes it from determinism? Determinists assert that everything a man does is determined by outside factors. The man's actions are automatic reactions to inputs from his environment: nature controls man, and man does not control anything. A determinist doesn't recognize the notion of man having his actions under his conscious control. In essence, determinism is the denial of the fact that men think before they act. The idea of free will, in contrast, is just good ole' fashioned sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted July 3, 2004 Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 ...Yet volition neither appears to me as self-evident nor possible... Hippie is determined not to believe in free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted July 3, 2004 Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 Hippie is determined not to believe in free will. I am now more inclined to accept your previous assessment of hippie. His failure to address the substance of the points that I made, is somewhat convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Oh, I wasn't trying to say "I told you so"--just to make a pun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Oh, I wasn't trying to say "I told you so"--just to make a pun. Yes, I got it. I just used the opportunity to let you know that, unfortunately, you were probably right. You were very definite in your warning, so I wanted to acknowledge that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippie Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Wait a second. What substantial issue have I not addressed? I ended the conversation because I do not believe it has anything more to offer and would merely degrade to repeating previously said points (as it has already, to a slight degree). From your very own position, free will is an axiom. If I cannot sense it as a self-evident truth, then no further analysis is warranted. I do not sense it as a self-evident truth, though I given an honest consideration of that line of thinking. I simply do not accept it. If you say it is an axiom and I do not, what more is there to discuss? Quite frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that you should imply I'm intentionally ignoring anything. I had more respect for you than to expect this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Weiss Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 From your very own position, free will is an axiom. If I cannot sense it as a self-evident truth, then no further analysis is warranted. I do not sense it as a self-evident truth, ... You really mean to say that you cannot "sense" that you were not forced to say what you just said? And if you were, it is meaningless and carries no weight - and therefore is utterly self-defeating. That's what makes free will axiomatic - you cannot deny it without presupposing it. It's really that simple. Fred Weiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Free will is so self-evident, and the denial of it so self-contradictory, that I find it very difficult to believe that any honest individual can hold a determinist position after seriously considering the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Wait a second. What substantial issue have I not addressed? Go back and read my response to you at http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=44039 You ignored just about every argument I made. I ended the conversation because I do not believe it has anything more to offer and would merely degrade to repeating previously said pointsWhich goes to AshRyan's point. If you end the discussion with the idea that you have actually addressed the issues, when in fact you have not, then I am not surprised at AshRyan's comment about you. From your very own position, free will is an axiom. If I cannot sense it as a self-evident truth, then no further analysis is warranted. I do not sense it as a self-evident truth, though I given an honest consideration of that line of thinking. I simply do not accept it. If you say it is an axiom and I do not, what more is there to discuss? If I were to take what you say here to be literally true then indeed there would be no reason to discuss anything with you, since there would really be no you to talk with. But, the fact is that you have not acted as if you had no volition so I am willing to overlook that silly notion as hyperbole. And, the fact is that you made a series of statements about your own position and your understanding of the Objectivist position, so I responded to that. If instead of having a rational discussion when the going gets rough, i.e., when you have to think and try to justify what you have said, you instead want to fall back on your supposed rejection of volition, then I will now take you at your word. I agree, then, that there is no point in talking to a person who acts as if he does not accept volition, even if he does so volitionally. Quite frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that you should imply I'm intentionally ignoring anything. I had more respect for you than to expect this. You are right. It is silly for me to think that you are "intentionally ignoring anything." Clearly you are just determined to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 I should qualify my last post to say that I think honest individuals can be honestly confused about the issue--they can think that determinist arguments sound right, and not know how to justify free will philosophically. But, for the reasons I mentioned above, I do not think that they can honestly deny it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Firstly, free will has been proven by science, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle to be exact. Secondly, even though the brain is characterized by biological limitations, you can make your own decisions which is the essence of free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 According to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, free will exists. But the principle violates the law of causality and that nothing in the present and future can be determined with infinite precision. But without such a principle, free will couldn't exist. Then wasn't Ayn Rand wrong in her firm belief in both causality and free will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 According to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, free will exists. It does not say that. There are a number of places online where you could read about it, like in Wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.