Is The Mind Deterministic?

[DrBaltar]

*** Moderator's note: This is a debate thread, between DrBaltar and EC ***

*** Please (other members) do not post within this thread while the debate is in progress ***

I was participating in a discussion in "On the question of free-will vs. determinism" when it was decided that a debate would be a better forum for this discussion. I recently started dabbling in philosophy, and found that Objectivism seemed to be a pretty close match to my personal beliefs. I have not read Ayn Rand's books, but I intend to. The discussion in free-will vs. determinism brought up one misunderstanding I had about Objectivism. I am a rational minded person. I arrive at my conclusions based on what I determine to be reasonable arguments along with observations gleaned through my senses of the real world (the Objectivist epistemology). I have a masters in physics. I am also an atheist - and therefore reject any supernatural explaination of phenomenon. Based on my reasoning I concluded that the human mind is deterministic. Since we are not aware of every concievable factor influencing our brains, and since the brain cannot sense itself like we can sense our bodies, we have the impression of free-will.

However, this quote from the Ayn Rand Institute website clearly states her position:

Human Nature

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

I believe though that since we do at least have the impression of free-will, that I would still agree with much of what Objectivism says.

EC argued the Objectivist position in the thread, and has agreed to be my opponent in this debate. To try and narrow down exactly what is being debated I will include some quotes from EC on this subject:

One more time, determinism that is a fact in the physics of how the brain functions does NOT in any way imply nor negate the fact that the mind IS a volitional facaulty. Why do you people make that absurd "connection" over and over again. The brain is the "hardware" the mind is the "software".

The ability to bring one's mind into focus is the "bridge" between determinism and free will. It is like a switch and once that switch is flipped on "you" are in control of your mind to the degree that "you" choose to focus. The only thing that may be "determined" is the initial "flipping of the focus switch". Because how can one choose to focus if the mind is still completely out of focus.

Computer software so far is written, such that, it incorporates an algorithm that can only follow deterministic rules and output a certain set of answers. Volition howeve, not only allows the user to program his own mind towards any task he might wish, it also allows him to decide not to program it to do nothing if he so chooses. He can sit and "vegetate". In other words, he can use his volition to follow any course of action or choose no course of action.

Here's my "order of idea's"

1) The universe behaves in a natural cause & effect way

2) God is not required to explain phenomenon observed on earth or in the universe

3) The metaphysical is everything that is physical, i.e., all that exists.

4) The universe is deterministic (seen after several physics classes)

5) 3 implies that the brain is also physical

6) 4 does not imply that the brain is also deterministic because it would contradict the self-evident fact of volition.

Explaining how volition works, i.e. its physical mechanism, does NOT wipe it out of existence. Explaining how the eye intercepts a photon and changes it into an electrochemical impulse that is then interpreted by the mind does NOT wipe out the fact of the faculty of vision.

I agree with you on 1-5. The first quote I posted from you seems to contradict number 6.

Do you mean that the brain is deterministic, but the mind is not? If so, then I would like to focus our debate on that. If that is not what you meant, please clarify.

The following ground rules were more or less agreed to via PMs:

- use a statement-response-statement format

- I think the maximum number of posts per side should be 5, with an option for more if agreed by both of us.

- the response time will be 72 hrs.

- the scientific method should be respected. It is unlikely that either of us will be doing any experiments but the results of other peer-reviewed experiments should be accepted unless another experiment can be found which refutes it, or unless one of us can point out where the experimenters failed to use the scientific method. We cannot assume that the experimenters failed to use the scientific method, the burden is on us to show this since they are peer-reviewed.

- after the debate is completed, other members are invited to comment.

For clarity, our working definitions of terms are:

free-will - (Webster version) Freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

volition - same as definition of free-will

mind - the interaction of all interconnected networks within the brain which form a collective conciousness (I suspect we may have differences on this)

determinism - all events occur as a result of events which preceeded them, and as in the case of quantum mechanics, as a result of entangled events

spacetime - three spatial dimensions with an axis of time forming a single four dimensional construct. Depending on which modern theory is used, this is either how the universe really is, or a subset of the total number of dimensions in the universe.

If my opponent has modifications to the ground rules and/or definitions, please state what they are. Otherwise, if everything is fine, as agreed through PMs I will go first.

[DrBaltar]

It is my position that although we have the impression or illusion of free will, the mind is deterministic. I will show this in three ways: computational, physical, and biological.

Computational Argument

Comparing the brain, as my opponent has, to a computer and the mind to software, I will use the Turing Machine model. To quote Wikipedia: "Turing machines are extremely basic symbol-manipulating devices which — despite their simplicity — can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer that could possibly be constructed." There are deterministic Turing Machines (DTM) and non-deterministic Turing Machines (NTM).

All existing computers are DTMs. A DTM has a single computation path, whereas a NTM has a computational tree because at each computation the computer branches into many copies. Quantum computers are NOT NTMs because the power of polynomial time quantum computers is incomparable to that of polynomial time NTMs. A NTM would be able to solve NP (non-deterministic polynomial time) problems, and since (because of computational theory) anything capable of solving one NP problem can solve all NP problems, we know that the brain is not NTM because it cannot solve any known NP problems. The NTM computer is purely theoretical.

In addition, in "Turing and Cognitive Architecture", by A.J. Wells p 281 in Cognitive Science vol 22, it describes a phrase called supervenience of states of mind on states of the brain (Kim 1993). "Very roughly, if states of mind supervene on states of the brain then two states of mind qi and qj cannot be distinct unless there are distinct brain states to which the states of mind stand in an appropriate relation. Another way to put this is to say that there cannot be more functional states of mind than there are distinct information bearing states of the brain. Since there can only be a finite number of distinct information bearing brain states there can also be only a finite number of functional states of mind superveing on them." Therefore the mind has finite states, which are tied to the finite states of the brain, which my opponent admits is deterministic. As Turing says, if the action table has at most one entry (mind state) for each combination of symbol and state (brain state) then the machine is a DTM. Turing has already shown that non-deterministic software must run on deterministic hardware.

Physical Argument

My argument based on physics are based on the physical nature of the universe. Modern physicists deal with physical theories which are our best approximations of the true physical laws in which the universe operates by. The two leading theories of physics are General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). GR is deterministic in that the state of the universe at time t leads to the state of the universe at time t+1. According to GR, physical laws run just as well forward in time as they would backwards in time. In the GR description of the universe it is 4 dimensional and time does not flow. Rather it is simply the 4th (imaginary in mathematical terms) axis in a static structure known as spacetime.

QM is a mixture as far as being deterministic. QM predicts with absolute certainty what probability waves will result from a particular state of the universe. That much is deterministic. However it does not predict with certainty what the next state at t+1 will be. With sub-atomic particles the effects of this are significant. However at larger scales (even in molecular and microscopic ranges) it becomes much more deterministic since the probabilities of something not predicted by classical physics begins to aproach 1 in 10^80 or more. QM also has less of a leg to stand on than GR does since it is based on observational evidence. It is a theory designed to fit observation. With GR, Einstein developed a set of assumptions of how the universe worked and extrapolated them into a theory which has passed very accurate tests. New theories such as string theory are not verified experimentally but do begin to make QM look more deterministic. It is my view that the true physical laws of the universe are deterministic. Since the only non-deterministic effects that would apply to the brain are from QM, and are highly improbable, the brain can be considered to act deterministically.

Another physical reason to believe that the mind is deterministic is that time does not flow. As stated above, GR states that physical processes happen the same forward in time as they do in reverse. So why do we percieve time as flowing towards the future? Because of entropy. The universe began in a highly structured state, and because of entropy will move to a more chaotic state as time goes on. The effects of this mean that memory (both computer, and biological) only work in one direction in time. Yes organizing events into memories is highly structured, but the processes used to create those memories increase overall entropy. Since it's impossible to remember the future, and can only remember the past, time appears to be flowing towards the future. We are in a static universe of at least 4 (likely at least 11) dimensions of which time is one axis. Since the universe is static, all future events (including future thought processes) are already in place. We just don't 'remember' them yet.

Biological Argument

My biological reasoning uses the accepted premise that all life evolved from earlier life. And that primordial life resulted from a chain of chemical processes that eventually lead to what can be considered life. Chemical processes are based on physical laws and therefore are deterministic (except for the odd 1 in 10^80 QM event). As my opponent agrees, the body and brain are deterministic. You have many many generations of life before humans operating deterministically. They do not act like mindless robots as my opponent would have you believe a deterministic organism must act. They exhibit increasingly more complex behavior as they become more evolved. At some point during the evolution of man, does something freaky happen that endows humanity with a non-deterministic mind? I don't see how. By definition, deterministic processes do not produce non-deterministic results. Maybe a freak improbable QM event happened that was not just sub-atomic in nature. That would be very improbable. And not only did this QM event happen, but it happened in such a way that one humanoid was endowed with a non-determistic mind, intelligence, and free-will. I think we're beyond 1 in a googol here. And not only that but this new feature can be codified by DNA and passed down to the lucky hominids ancestors. Wow... This sounds like pure mysticism to me, and intelligent design-like. The theory of evolution sufficiently explains how the brain evolved using natural cause and effect processes.

So how do we get this illusion of free-will? Because we are not concious of all that happens for a choice to be made. Our brains are very complex, and receive incredible amounts of input from the environment and other organism around us. It's the complexity of our brains and the large number of variables that produce complex behavior. And although it is complex, there is nothing to suggest that it is not deterministic.

Think of a lottery machine. Surely everyone would agree that is operating according to physical laws with the balls in the machine bouncing around through the turbulent air blowing through, confined within the glass walls of the machine. Are the resulting 6 numbers a foregone conclusion? Well if you could precicely model the lottory machine, and the balls, and the dynamics of the balls and could know exactly how the air was being blown through, and modeled the fluid dynamics of all that, with all the necessary precision, then yes it's a foregone conclusion. But we don't. That doesn't mean the machine isn't deterministic, and the same goes for our minds.

*** Moderator's note: This is a debate thread, between DrBaltar and EC ***

*** Please (other members) do not post within this thread while the debate is in progress ***

Edited January 19, 2006 by softwareNerd

[EC]

First I would like to accept your resignation in this "debate".

It seems that DrBaltar is willing to take you up on that. Would the two of you like to give it a shot?

That is fine with me. If EC agrees then we will discuss the ground-rules via PMs.

I originally wanted a debate to sharpen my skills in defending free will from irrational attacks. But I have since realized something. First any debate, discussion, conversation, etc. presupposes the existence of free will. It's not that I didn't know this before, but I thought I might be able to become better at countering all the attack's. The thing is I now realize that that is NOT needed because by the attacker engaging in the attack, debate, etc., he is already implicitly accepting the existence of his own free will.

Any argument that I then make afterwords then is just an explicitation of the self-evident fact of free will that he is just choosing to evade reality because he has chosen to rationalize his ideas starting from floating abstraction based premises.

By choosing to debate or not, DrBaltar has made a choice. Whether he choose's to evade that fact or not I can not change.

So I will close the debate with a few quotes from Dr. Peikoff from OPAR.

The similarity between the physical and mental realms is clear. In action as in thought, each step a man takes has a cause, which explains it. The indeterminist notion that freedom means a blind, senseless lurch—a so-called "Epicurean swerve"—is without justification. But this does not imply determinism. In regard to action, also, man is a sovereign entity, a self-mover. His inviolable freedom lies in the issue: what kind of cause moves him—long-range purpose or out-of-context promptings? Once again, what underlies such an alternative is a single root choice: to be conscious or not.

There is one further question to consider before we turn to the validation of volition. How does the law of causality apply to the primary choice itself? Since one cannot ask for the cause of a man's choice to focus, does it follow that, on this level, there is a conflict between freedom and causality?

Even in regard to the primary choice, Ayn Rand replies, the law of causality operates without breach. The form of its operation in this context, however, is in certain respects unique.

The law of causality affirms a necessary connection between entities and their actions. It does not, however, specify any particular kind of entity or of action. The law does not say that only mechanistic relationships can occur, the kind that apply when one billiard ball strikes another; this is one common form of causation, but it does not preempt the field. Similarly, the law does not say that only choices governed by ideas and values are possible; this, too, is merely a form of causation; it is common but not universal within the realm of consciousness. The law of causality does not inventory the universe; it does not tell us what kinds of entities or actions are possible. It tells us only that whatever entities there are, they act in accordance with their nature, and whatever actions there are, they are performed and determined by the entity which acts.

The law of causality by itself, therefore, does not affirm or deny the reality of an irreducible choice. It says only this <opar_69> much: if such a choice does exist, then it, too, as a form of action, is performed and necessitated by an entity of a specific nature.

The content of one's choice could always have gone in the opposite direction; the choice to focus could have been the choice not to focus, and vice versa. But the action itself, the fact of choosing as such, in one direction or the other, is unavoidable. Since man is an entity of a certain kind, since his brain and consciousness possess a certain identity, he must act in a certain way. He must continuously choose between focus and nonfocus. Given a certain kind of cause, in other words, a certain kind of effect must follow. This is not a violation of the law of causality, but an instance of it.

On the primary level, to sum up, man chooses to activate his consciousness or not; this is the first cause in a lengthy chain—and the inescapability of such choice expresses his essential nature. Then, on this basis, he forms the mental content and selects the reasons that will govern all his other choices. Nothing in the law of causality casts doubt on such a description.

If man does have free will, his actions are free and caused—even, properly understood, on the primary level itself.

The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves. It is a primary—a starting point of conceptual cognition and of the subject of epistemology; to direct one's consciousness, one must be free and one must know, at least implicitly, that one is. It is a fundamental: every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. It is self-evident. And it is inescapable. Even its enemies have to accept <opar_71> and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let us see why.

When the determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all man's ideas also, including his own advocacy of determinism. Given the factors operating on him, he believes, he had to become a determinist, just as his opponents had no alternative but to oppose him. How then can he know that his viewpoint is true? Are the factors that shape his brain infallible? Does he automatically follow reason and logic? Clearly not; if he did, error would be impossible to him.

The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves. It is a primary—a starting point of conceptual cognition and of the subject of epistemology; to direct one's consciousness, one must be free and one must know, at least implicitly, that one is. It is a fundamental: every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. It is self-evident. And it is inescapable. Even its enemies have to accept <opar_71> and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let us see why.

When the determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all man's ideas also, including his own advocacy of determinism. Given the factors operating on him, he believes, he had to become a determinist, just as his opponents had no alternative but to oppose him. How then can he know that his viewpoint is true? Are the factors that shape his brain infallible? Does he automatically follow reason and logic? Clearly not; if he did, error would be impossible to him.

Volition, accordingly, is not an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Not every consciousness has the faculty of volition. Every fallible, conceptual consciousness, however, does have it.

If a determinist tried to assess his viewpoint as knowledge, <opar_72> he would have to say, in effect: "I am in control of my mind. I do have the power to decide to focus on reality. I do not merely submit spinelessly to whatever distortions happen to be decreed by some chain of forces stretching back to infinity. I am free, free to be objective, free to conclude—that I am not free."

Like any rejection of a philosophic axiom, determinism is self-refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it. A philosophic axiom cannot be proved, because it is one of the bases of proof. But for the same reason it cannot be escaped, either. By its nature, it is impregnable.

Most of the traditional opponents of determinism have regarded free will as mystical, as an attribute of an otherworldly soul that is antithetical to science and to man's this-worldly reason. The classic expression of this viewpoint is the disastrous Kantian slogan, "God, freedom, and immortality," which has had the effect of making "freedom" laughable by equating it with two bromides of supernaturalism. What reputable thinker cares to uphold volition if it is offered under the banner, "ghosts, choice, and the Pearly Gates"?

By identifying the locus of man's will as his conceptual faculty, Ayn Rand aborts such mysticism at the root. Will, in her view, is not something opposed or even added to reason. The faculty of reason is the faculty of volition. This theory makes it possible for the first time to validate the principle of volition objectively. It removes the principle once and for all from the clutches of religion.

After Ayn Rand, the fact of choice can no longer serve as ammunition for irrationalists. It becomes instead a testament to the power and the glory of man's mind.

Man's senses are valid. His mind is free. Now how should he use his mind?

At last we can leave the anteroom of epistemology and enter the great hall of its mansion.

The three axioms I have been discussing have a built-in protection against all attacks: they must be used and accepted by everyone, including those who attack them and those who attack the concept of the self-evident. Let me illustrate this point by considering a typical charge leveled by opponents of philosophic axioms.

"People disagree about axioms," we often hear. "What is self-evident to one may not be self-evident to another. How then can a man know that his axioms are objectively true? How can he ever be sure he is right?"

This argument starts by accepting the concept of "disagreement," which it uses to challenge the objectivity of any axioms, including existence, consciousness, and identity. The following condensed dialogue suggests one strategy by which to reveal the argument's contradictions. The strategy begins with A, the defender of axioms, purporting to reject outright the concept of "disagreement."

A. "Your objection to the self-evident has no validity. <opar_10> There is no such thing as disagreement. People agree about everything."

B. "That's absurd. People disagree constantly, about all kinds of things."

A. "How can they? There's nothing to disagree about, no subject matter. After all, nothing exists."

B. "Nonsense. All kinds of things exist. You know that as well as I do."

A. "That's one. You must accept the existence axiom even to utter the term 'disagreement.' But, to continue, I still claim that disagreement is unreal. How can people disagree, since they are unconscious beings who are unable to hold ideas at all?"

B. "Of course people hold ideas. They are conscious beings—you know that."

A. "There's another axiom. But even so, why is disagreement about ideas a problem? Why should it suggest that one or more of the parties is mistaken? Perhaps all of the people who disagree about the very same point are equally, objectively right."

B. "That's impossible. If two ideas contradict each other, they can't both be right. Contradictions can't exist in reality. After all, things are what they are. A is A."

Existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts, such as "ghost" or "analytic" truth.) In the act of voicing his objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable.

The opponents of these axioms pose as defenders of truth, but it is only a pose. Their attack on the self-evident amounts to the charge: "Your belief in an idea doesn't necessarily make it true; you must prove it, because facts are what they are independent of your beliefs." Every element of this charge relies on the very axioms that these people are questioning and supposedly setting aside. I quote Ayn Rand:

"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof pre-supposes <opar_11> existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.

When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn't choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one's mouth, expound no theories and die.

An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.(10)

The foregoing is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is a proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable. This proof itself, however, relies on the axioms. Even in showing that no opponent can escape them, Ayn Rand too has to make use of them. All argument presupposes these axioms, including the argument that all argument presupposes them.

If so, one might ask, how does one answer an opponent who says: "You've demonstrated that I must accept your axioms if I am to be consistent. But that demonstration rests on your axioms, which I don't choose to accept. Tell me why I should. Why can't I contradict myself?"

There is only one answer to this: stop the discussion. Axioms are self-evident; no argument can coerce a person who chooses to evade them. You can show a man that identity is <opar_12> inescapable, but only by first accepting the fact that A is A. You can show that existence is inescapable, but only by accepting and referring to existence. You can show that consciousness is inescapable, but only by accepting and using your consciousness. Relying on these three axioms, you can establish their position as the foundation of all knowledge. But you cannot convince another person of this or anything until he accepts the axioms himself, on the basis of his own perception of reality. If he denies them, it is a mistake to argue about or even discuss the issue with him.

No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self-evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further.

Bold Mine.

I thought it would be better to post these quotes then create a long "debate" attempting to restate what is eloquently argued by Peikoff in OPAR.

Case closed. QED.

[DrBaltar]

I address this to the Speaker of the Forum. I have not resigned. I move that Inspector's premature comments be stricken from the debate, and that order be restored. As the ground rules state each side will be given 5 rounds to make their response, and then statement, following my initial statement. I request that the Speaker of the Forum remind EC of this structure since he has given no response to my points.

First I would like to accept your resignation in this "debate".

It looks like EC is going to take the lawyer approach. A request that the case be dismissed right at the beginning. It's always worth a shot I suppose, but it's usually a futile attempt, as it is here. It is obvious EC hasn't read my statement since NONE of my points were addressed, and apparently he has made the assumption that there is a resignation in there somewhere. I have not resigned. The format of this debate is statement-response-statement. That is where I make a statement, then EC responds to the points I make and then he make his statement.

First any debate, discussion, conversation, etc. presupposes the existence of free will. It's not that I didn't know this before, but I thought I might be able to become better at countering all the attack's. The thing is I now realize that that is NOT needed because by the attacker engaging in the attack, debate, etc., he is already implicitly accepting the existence of his own free will.

...

By choosing to debate or not, DrBaltar has made a choice. Whether he choose's to evade that fact or not I can not change.

Apparently EC has't read my statement about the ground rules, the definitions (including free-will), or even the title and subject of the debate! I have already acknowledged that there is an impression of free will, and if EC actually read my first statement of the debate he will see my explaination for this impression. EC indicated that I made a choice to enter the debate. However EC has failed to show that this is a free choice - i.e. that my choice was not determined by prior causes. EC did accept the definition of free-will as stated in the ground rules.

Then EC basically turns the rest of his argument over to Dr. Peikoff.

The law of causality by itself, therefore, does not affirm or deny the reality of an irreducible choice. It says only this <opar_69> much: if such a choice does exist, then it, too, as a form of action, is performed and necessitated by an entity of a specific nature.

The content of one's choice could always have gone in the opposite direction; the choice to focus could have been the choice not to focus, and vice versa. But the action itself, the fact of choosing as such, in one direction or the other, is unavoidable. Since man is an entity of a certain kind, since his brain and consciousness possess a certain identity, he must act in a certain way. He must continuously choose between focus and nonfocus. Given a certain kind of cause, in other words, a certain kind of effect must follow. This is not a violation of the law of causality, but an instance of it.

Apparently EC does not read his own quotes either. I don't feel so bad now. Dr. Peikoff says "Given a certain kind of cause, in other words, a certain kind of effect must follow."

Now look at the definition of determinism that EC has accepted in the ground rules:

determinism - all events occur as a result of events which preceeded them, and as in the case of quantum mechanics, as a result of entangled events

Dr. Peikoff seems to believe as I do that, yes choices must be made, but they are the result of a cause, and as a result of the chooser's specific nature. He also states that one "must act in a certain way". This is a description of a deterministic mind.

If a determinist tried to assess his viewpoint as knowledge, <opar_72> he would have to say, in effect: "I am in control of my mind. I do have the power to decide to focus on reality. I do not merely submit spinelessly to whatever distortions happen to be decreed by some chain of forces stretching back to infinity. I am free, free to be objective, free to conclude—that I am not free."

Is a viewpoint knowledge? Or is it the way a particular brain uses stored information? I see no freedom here. If a brain develops a certain way because of genetics and/or upbringing, it will process information in a particular way and form a "viewpoint".

Like any rejection of a philosophic axiom, determinism is self-refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it. A philosophic axiom cannot be proved, because it is one of the bases of proof. But for the same reason it cannot be escaped, either. By its nature, it is impregnable.

How is the leap made from denying existence/conciousness implies existence/conciousness to denying volition implies volition? You can ask an 8-ball if it has volition. It will answer positively, negatively, or request more time to ponder this. Again it has not been shown that the choice was made independent of prior causes.

Then EC goes on to quote a ridiculous hypothetical argument about disagreements. Again, and I hope EC addresses this next time, I do not refute the fact that people make choices. To argue that the mind is not deterministic, EC will have to show that these choices are NOT a result of prior causes.

By not reading the ground rules, and relying almost exclusively on passeges from OPAR which are not directly relavent to the debate except where Dr. Peikoff actually does reinforce my statement on determinism by saying "Given a certain cause...a certain kind of effect must follow", EC has basically wasted one of his 5 turns. I do not wish to debate a parrot who simply regugitates what others have said for the majority of his argument without any discussion on his part of what the quote means or how it is relavent to the debate.

I would ask the Speaker of the Forum to request that EC read the ground rules, and the subject of the debate, and reply with a response to my points next time. And that if he cannot do that, that he step aside and let someone else who is willing and able to debate me on the points I have made.

[edited to add:] Since none of my points in my first statement have been refuted, I offer again my computational, physical, and biological arguments as stated above.

[EC]

So are you asking me to choose to continue a pointless "debate" with you, and you want me to choose to respond to your rationalistic assertions which have no basis in reality? You want me to make a choice to debate while pretending to let you pretend that you have not made a choice to debate me and want me to pretend that I am only debating you because I am determined to. But not just that I am determined to, but that I am determined to "debate" using your ground rules which you are then going to evade that you actually created because you are pretending that you were determined to create them.

No I don't think that I will. I will not engage myself in a futile attempt to apply reason to counter an irrational argument. Nor will I be a pawn in allowing someone else to evade reality using my sanction.

I wasted nothing. My responce is the only rational responce that can be offered to your nonsense. You can cry to the moderator's all you want, but it won't change reality.

By the way, I am a parrot to no one, even Dr. Peikoff. I explained why I quoted that material and it was that he said the things I would say much more eloquently then I could say them because I am not a professional writer and have no aspirations to become one.

Now, You can pretend all you want that by agreeing to debate that you didn't concede the "debate" to me, and you can use all the rationalizations you can think of to try and stay that free will is just some sort of "illusion", but don't expect me to be a party to your insane game anymore.

I have better things to do then play "whack-a-troll-whoops-I-mean-mole" with you.

Maybe you can choose to play your evasion game with a willing victim, but you won't get that sanction from me.

Eric Clayton

*** Moderator's note: This is a debate thread, between DrBaltar and EC ***

*** Please, please, please... (other members) do not post within this thread while the debate is in progress ***

Edited January 22, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DrBaltar]

The statement-response-statement format is a format suggested by this forum. I think it is a good format because it ensures the debaters points are heard and if necessary, refuted. If the arguments are not addressed then it must be assumed that they are accepted.

EC had an opportunity to negotiate the ground rules via PM:

Yeah, that's fine.

I would still like to hear an Objectivist's counter-argument to my original arguments. If someone else would like to continue this debate then I would welcome the opportunity. As with EC I will negotiate the ground rules with them. And as with EC, if you accept whatever ground-rules we agree upon, I will hold you to them.

[Inspector]

DrBaltar and I have taken this debate to PM's between us; initially because I did not know if a debate was possible. I have concluded, tentatively, that it looks like there is enough common ground on which to proceed.

He has agreed to let me transcribe the PM's and post them here. As it is not yet concluded, I presume we will then continue the debate.

[DrBaltar]

Unfortunately the debate is off between Inspector and I, mainly due to his unwillingness to debate the topic in this thread "Is the Mind Deterministic?" As I told Inspector at the beginning, this is not another free-will vs. determinism debate. It is "Is the Mind Deterministic?" And I mean in the physical sense. I'm talking about a more fundamental level than free-will and the act of choosing. I'm talking about how the mind or conciousness operates. Inspector is determined to have the "free-will vs. determinism" debate. (that last sentence is ironic isn't it?) However, this is not the thread for it.

Part of the mix up I think is that for Objectivists, "deterministic" means something different than what it means outside of philosophy. This is why I posted what I meant by deterministic on the opening post of this debate thread. EC didn't read it. And Inspector and I have traded over 50 emails discussing determinism and related axioms while I explicitly stated "physically deterministic" every time I used the term when that is what I meant. Inspector only caught on to this when I restated the definition in one of my last emails to him.

Again for anyone who has read this far into this posting (and I sincerely thank anyone who has) here it is again:

Physical determinism - all events occur as a result of events which preceeded them, and as in the case of quantum mechanics, as a result of entangled events.

The philosophical term that matches this closest, I believe is "causal".

As for the text of our discussions, I have no problem with making that available, as long as they are either all made available, or fairly summarized so that both sides are represented. Inspector has problems with this though, since much of what I say is, not suprisingly, related to "Is the Mind Deterministic".

This debate is still open to who ever would like to debate me on this topic.

[Inspector]

I didn't fail to "catch on" to anything. I proposed to debate DrBaltar's statement "We have only the illusion of free will." If that debate had proceeded, then it would invalidate his position on this "Is the mind deterministic" issue. I am not interested in discussing the ins and outs of the mechanics of the mind. I only am interested in the fact that free will is an axiom, which must be true, and therefore it cannot be "proven" false.

This attempt to have a debate about "Is the mind deterministic?" is a way to try and "prove" that free will does not exist. As such, I reject even the attempt and will not debate this topic. Before that question can properly be asked, we must first answer "Is free will an axiom?" Any attempt to proceed before answering the question of free will is putting the cart before the horse and I will have none of it.

DrBaltar, if you are willing to debate "Is free will an axiom?" then I will debate that topic and afterward we can see if your initial question still has validity.

(As for our conversation, I tried to create an edited version that would summarize the points that led into our discussion (since it was very, very long and often off-topic). Since DrBaltar did not accept my essentialization as including everything he wanted, then I will not post it, as the terms of our agreement were that we must both agree to any essentialized version.

In kind, I do not agree to any essentialization of his own. The only thing either of us should post, then, is a literal and complete quotation without any alteration or editing whatsoever.)

[EC]

What Dr.Baltar is actually trying to "debate" is that determinism in physics which is a direct result of the law of causality implies that the mind is also deterministic. While there is no question of physics being deterministic (he should also drop the "entagled wave" part, since a rational QM theory is available where particles are particles and waves are waves, and neither are ever "entangled") what he needs to understand is that the question of "Is the Mind Deterministic?" is not about to "debate" because it implies a contradiction. But this doesn't matter because Dr.Baltar already excepts contradictions as possible by accepting the false premise that particles can *somehow* exist in entangled states.

[AisA]

This debate is still open to who ever would like to debate me on this topic.

DrBaltar, I'd like to make sure I understand your position. You have stated that you are quite certain that volition is merely an illusion created by our inability to see all of the vast array of forces that actually cause us to choose one alternative over another. When we choose A over B, we may think we are making a free choice, we may think we are evaluating facts X, Y and Z, reaching a conclusion and making a choice freely, but in reality the "choice" is the outcome of an unimaginably vast set of factors -- gazillions and gazillions of subatomic particles interacting with one another and with force fields and who knows what else, all following the purely deterministic laws of physics.

If this is true, then all of the evidence you offered in earlier posts -- the "Computational Argument", the "Physical Argument" and the "Biological Argument" -- these are not the actual cause of your "choice" to believe in determinism and reject volition, because the actual cause is outside your perception. The actual cause that made you "choose" to believe in determinism is that unimaginably vast set of factors I just mentioned.

Granted, you look at the "Computational, Physical and Biological Argument" and you think it supports your belief in determinism. But that evaluation is also determined by the vast set of factors I mentioned, correct? In other words, you had no choice but to believe these facts support determinism; that “choice” was the inevitable outcome of all of those particles and fields. Likewise, I, who have read the arguments and remain convinced that volition is real, am similarly pre-determined to evaluate them as not supporting determinism.

Is that a correct summary of your position?

[DrBaltar]

When we choose A over B, we may think we are making a free choice, we may think we are evaluating facts X, Y and Z, reaching a conclusion and making a choice freely, but in reality the "choice" is the outcome of an unimaginably vast set of factors -- gazillions and gazillions of subatomic particles interacting with one another and with force fields and who knows what else, all following the purely deterministic laws of physics.

Not quite... Sometimes the factors going into your decision is vast and uncomprehensible, and sometimes it isn't. If you are reaching a decision based on facts X, Y and Z, then your decision is determined by facts X, Y, Z, and a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (a region of the brain which can keep track of several pieces of information at once) which compares facts X, Y and Z. In that case, you actually are aware of most of what went into your decision. But also, facts X, Y and Z are also the result of states that came before, and so on... and your dorsolateral prefrontal cortex behaves physically deterministically as well. Then there are other decisions you make that you are not conscious of... Pick a color: Red or Blue. The reason for the color you picked is probably not known consciously to you and is the result of unimaginably vast set of factors -- gazillions and gazillions of subatomic particles interacting with one another and with force fields and who knows what else, all following the purely deterministic laws of physics.

Typically when logic is involved, you know the factors that go into your decision. So then, the arguments I offered in my earlier posts have been assimilated as a result of evaluating facts A, B, C, D, etc...

[AisA]

Typically when logic is involved, you know the factors that go into your decision. So then, the arguments I offered in my earlier posts have been assimilated as a result of evaluating facts A, B, C, D, etc...

So if I am being logical, my evaluation and conclusion are not determined? I am truly free to choose conclusion A over conclusion B?

[DrBaltar]

So if I am being logical, my evaluation and conclusion are not determined? I am truly free to choose conclusion A over conclusion B?

If you are reaching a decision based on facts X, Y and Z, then your decision is determined by facts X, Y, Z, and a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (a region of the brain which can keep track of several pieces of information at once) which compares facts X, Y and Z.

[Proverb]

I have to jump in. (I guess because I am predetermined to do so according to some people here)

So since the certain arrangement of particles that I understand as my body has, by some infinitely complex set of circumstances, come to perceiving this digital forum and reacting to such that has resulted in my typing of these words, which are incidentally self referencing, that suggest that I play devil's advocate; I will.

"Free will does not exist" (I'm playing devil's advocate, which I am predetermined to remind you of such, which I am predetermined to remind you of the fact that I am reminding you of the fact that I am playing devil's advocate, which ironically I am predetermined to remind you of again, which of course I have to keep doing so, until the point that you are predetermined to stop reading my reminders at which point your perception of the fraction of what you read will continue to determine an infinite amount of unrelated decisions just for the mere fact that the perception of my reminders has caused a slight change in the chemical balance of your brain, which consequently, on an atomic level may continue to affect the outcomes of circumstances until the predetermined day that your body stops functioning. )

Notice I say 'pre-' determined, because if we could assess every piece of information that affects the outcome of any situation, which theoretically is finite, we would be able to accurately predict the outcome of the universe which, consequently would include having predicted our eventual knowledge of the outcome of the universe. Which brings us to the contradiction. How would we 'know' that we would 'know' the outcome of the universe provided that we knew all the theoretically finite factors that resulted in us knowing that we knew the outcome of the universe? We wouldn't.

You can only know something that you perceive. If we were able to perceive the act of someone perceiving something and integrating it into useful knowledge in accordance with reality in a way such that we understood why he did integrate it, we would understand what it was that is allowing us to understand that we are now understanding this new piece of knowledge, the fact that we could have CHOSEN not to understand.

It is the nature of the mind, because it cannot be any other way. Which admittedly we do not know, at this point in time, the physical progenerator of such fact.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Proverb

[AisA]

If you are reaching a decision based on facts X, Y and Z, then your decision is determined by facts X, Y, Z, and a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (a region of the brain which can keep track of several pieces of information at once) which compares facts X, Y and Z.

I perceive, by a process of introspection while making a decision, that I have the continuous choice to think or not to think and everything this implies: the choice to be ruthlessly logical or allow logical fallacies to go unchecked; the choice to check the validity of my decision against all my other knowledge or to leave it un-integrated and floating; the choice to consider only reason or to indulge emotions and whims, etc. I assume that your introspection of your consciousness reveals the same perception of choices.

However, you have declared this perception to be an illusion. According to you, whatever "choices" we make are really the outcome of those vast deterministic forces; we are not free to choose the rational over the irrational or the logical over the illogical; any such “choice” that is made is predetermined and outside our control.

Thus, you have impeached your own power of perception. You have declared it susceptible to illusions that are created in your mind, against your will and outside your control.

All of man's knowledge rests on the validity of perception. If you cannot trust your perception of what is going on in your consciousness, then you literally do not know what is going on in your consciousness. Perception is the only means of knowing it. There are no grounds for declaring that some of your perceptions about your consciousness are valid while others are not; either you are perceiving reality or you are not. If your perception of your volition is an illusion, then your perception that you are being logical might also be an illusion. Your perception that you are conscious might be an illusion. How could you tell the difference? If you can be fooled about one, then you can be fooled about the other.

Such is the contradiction of your position: it is a claim to knowledge based on an attack on perception, the very thing that makes knowledge possible. It is an attempt to have your perception and eat it, too.

[DrBaltar]

Let's give an example of determinism. I'll even tell you at least part of the reason you are pre-determined to discuss this topic with me.

- Fact A: A few years ago Joshua Green (a post doctoral researcher) was using an MRI to watch how the brain solves ethics problems.

- Fact B: Because of A, The subject of his research and the results that followed matched the subjects that Discover magazine typically publishes, so they were inclined to publish it in 2004.

- Fact C: Discover magazine typically discusses subjects that I am interested in, so I read the magazine, including the article.

- Fact D: In a separate timeline, members of this forum read Ayn Rand's works, and other books on Objectivism which included discussions on free-will and determinism.

- Fact E: Fast forward to a month ago... I was reading the "On the question of free-will vs. determinism" thread and because of C, found the article I read in 2004 to be relavent - so I paraphrased it there.

- Fact F: Because of D and E, members of this forum who had their own preconceived notions on free-will, coupled with Objectivist writings read my post.

- Fact G: The controversy that generated is all there for anyone to read. Each post resulted in the next post, and so on until this debate thread was created. Any article since written by myself or by other members would be out of context without the preceeding articles.

- Fact H: This debate thread was created as a result of F and G.

- Fact I: EC joined this debate thread also as a result of F and G.

- Fact J: EC had other pre-conceived notions about what the debate thread was about (because of D) so that part of the debate ended.

- Fact K: Because of D and I, Inspector and I traded several PMs about determinism and free-will, but it was decided that since the topic he wanted to debate (because of D) was not the topic of this debate, the debate would end.

- Fact L: Because of K, the debate was re-opened.

AisA, if any fact from A-L did not occur, would you have posted this post from yesterday? If any of the facts A-G did not occur, this debate thread would not exist. If any of the facts I-L did not occur, you probably wouldn't have any reason to write that post yesterday.

As much fun as it would be to informally debate a multitude of people advocating free-will as a result of facts A-L, I have other things to do. It may surprise you but this subject is not what interests me most about objectivism. The illusion of free-will seems real enough to me that I don't care if it's an illusion or not, and I accept Ayn Rand's philosophy based on the assumption of free-will. Why do I persist in this subject then? Because after each post I write there's someone who misunderstands the previous posts I write or misunderstands my point of view.

The basis of my argument is posted as the second post of this debate. If anyone wishes to debate me based on those arguments, or can show why certain axioms render my arguments mute, then I will debate them.

I am not debating free-will or why free-will appears to be real rather than illusionary at this point, because that would require me to refresh my memories about neuroscience that I briefely studied 20 years ago. I still know generally how consciousness works, and that (along with physics) is why I have the views I have. But to get into the specifics of brain anatomy, and catch up on the last 20 years of research which would be required to competently debate that would take up too much of my time. I believe in all my posts I have pretty much explained my view point. If you're so interest in free-will, why don't you guys pick up a good book on neuroscience. I know it won't be a book by Ayn Rand, or Dr. Peikoff, but it will do you good to get out once in a while and look around.

If someone wants to debate me on "Is the Mind Deterministic?" then I will debate you one at a time.

[Proverb]

If anyone wishes to debate me based on those arguments, or can show why certain axioms render my arguments mute, then I will debate them.

It would be nice if everyone played by your rules or if you could bend reality to fit your errors.

Voilition is Axiomatic.

There's no question that the reasons you mentioned, in as much as the causes you posted here, can be and are most likely true. The whole point is that it could have been different, that you could have chosen a different value set and that you could have never heard of this forum.

Voilition is Axiomatic.

[Inspector]

Voilition is Axiomatic.

Precisely. DrBaltar, you seem to think that you can get out of this by debating the questions as you have phrased them, or referencing "20 years of neuroscience."

I don't care if it's 100 years of study of neuroscience. If that study claims to prove that free will does not exist, then the study is wrong. I don't have to even READ the study to tell you that because volition is the fourth axiom. All subsequent knowledge rests on its truth. It cannot be proven wrong. Studies or data that claim otherwise should be dismissed out of hand.

That is why I refuse to debate you on your topic. Because I dismiss your topic at its root as false.

This is why I presented my terms of debate. Because the only valid debate here is, "is free will axiomatic?" You can debate that. You cannot and should not attempt to debate your terms until that issue is settled.

In other words, if free will is axiomatic, then the mind cannot be deterministic. No evidence that you present has any relevance because if volition is axiomatic, then your evidence must be false. It would be foolhardy of anyone to attempt to "debate" you on the anti-conceptual terms that you put forth.

You. Are. Wrong.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Inspector

[DrBaltar]

Inspector, I said if you could show that my arguments were false at their root you could blow them off. You were on your way to getting to your point that free-will is axiomatic in our PMs. Then before the last one (if there are 4 axioms to your argument) you suddenly stopped and decided we were ready for the debate. You still haven't shown that my arguments are false at their root.

I have no idea where you would come up with an evaluation like that, other than ignorance of what’s really going on.

Now let's see... how could I possibly get that idea....

I don't care if it's 100 years of study of neuroscience. If that study claims to prove that free will does not exist, then the study is wrong. I don't have to even READ the study to tell you that because volition is the fourth axiom. All subsequent knowledge rests on its truth. It cannot be proven wrong. Studies or data that claim otherwise should be dismissed out of hand.

I don't know why I bother... you guys are pre-determined to argue your position and are unable to choose differently

[Inspector]

I said "except ignorance of what's going on." Clearly, you remain ignorant of what an axiom is, or else you wouldn't call the statement I quoted "unscientific."

As for why I "stopped," it was because as far as I am concerned, proving your arguments wrong at the root was the debate. I guess you're saying I was okay to prove you wrong at the root in our PM's, but not in this debate thread? Anyway, AisA has done so quite nicely, but it looks like you've completely passed over what he said.

I have to ask, then, do you need additional clarification on how an axiom operates, or do you not understand how AisA's statments showed free will to be an axiom?

[DrBaltar]

I said "except ignorance of what's going on." Clearly, you remain ignorant of what an axiom is, or else you wouldn't call the statement I quoted "unscientific."

We already discussed in our PMs how axioms are true by definition. It is the specific definition of the terms in the axiom that determines whether the axiom applies to reality or not. So far in our PMs you were doing fine.

As for why I "stopped," it was because as far as I am concerned, proving your arguments wrong at the root was the debate. I guess you're saying I was okay to prove you wrong at the root in our PM's, but not in this debate thread? Anyway, AisA has done so quite nicely, but it looks like you've completely passed over what he said.

It's fine if you want to, and can, prove my arguments wrong at their root. But that is not what you said, which is:

I will debate that your statement "We have the illusion of free will" is false. That is all that I will debate. Nothing less and nothing more.

You also said

But right now, I am telling you that I intend to prove the falsehood of that statement. (“We have only the illusion of free will”) That is the topic of the debate.

If you can show that my arguments are false at their root, I don't care how you do it, as long as it eventually applies to the subject of this debate. You are not going to change the topic of this debate. No one is stopping you from creating your own debate thread.

You also may not tell me my definitions in the ground rules are irrelavent to the discussion. If I use them in my argument they are relavent. You may add your own definitions to terms you plan on using if you like. If there are definitions we both plan on using you may negotiate their meanings with me, otherwise we will be debating 2 different things.

I have to ask, then, do you need additional clarification on how an axiom operates, or do you not understand how AisA's statments showed free will to be an axiom?

I have answered AisA's post directly following his post.

[EC]

In other words, if free will is axiomatic, then the mind cannot be deterministic. No evidence that you present has any relevance because if volition is axiomatic, then your evidence must be false. It would be foolhardy of anyone to attempt to "debate" you on the anti-conceptual terms that you put forth.

This was my point exactly, when I was involved in the "debate".

[StarBuck]

What ought I trust, the Axiom or my lying eyes?

[Inspector]

You also may not tell me my definitions in the ground rules are irrelavent to the discussion.

To the contrary: I can and I will. If your argument is to be dismissed at its root, then the specifics of your argument are irrelevant. By continuing to present this argument, you are wasting everyone's time. If free will is axiomatic, then your argument for determinism is to be ignored as necessarily false.

What part of the axiom of free will don’t you understand? If all human knowledge depends on the existence of free will to exist, then how can you see that your claims to determinism are not moot? Why must we re-read your second post in this thread? Why is knowledge of neuroscience necessary? It must be true.

Which part of that do you dispute?