Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. My paper Existence, We which I worked on from 2014 to 2019 is now published.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Thanks. Of course, Peikoff undercut that later during the Q&A when he said he didn't know whether or not nonhuman animals make any choices or have any volition and that some animals appear to make some choices, at least regarding their attention. His saying that volition doesn't become manifest to a human child until well after birth and after becoming aware of its own consciousness suggests to me the following question. An animal or human making a choice and being self-aware that it is making a choice are different things. So couldn't an animal make a choice w/o it being self-awar
  5. What are you talking about? You just used it in your previous post with your supposed correction.
  6. Used it a few times. And from a quote by Rand found a precise substitute which I then acknowledged. Since, I have dropped it.
  7. "Volitional" just doesn't cut it for the animal kingdom. Not by the dictionary definition (presupposing a "will"), not by observed and (at least partially) understood animal nature and activity, nor in the absolute significance of "volitional" in the Objectivist corpus. You need another word, I think (assuming self-initiated motion isn't accurate enough for you). I'm a fanatic about man's volitional consciousness, I freely admit. Whatever may or does dilute that identity, by casual allocation of volition to animals for example, will get me going. Correction already made ab
  8. Even your clarification says that self initiated motion is volitional... If physical volition is supposed to be metaphorical, then say so.
  9. Well spotted, and I stand by statements 1 - 7. The oversight in 8 should have read (and the context shows) - "ANY goal-directed action is *physically* volitional" - which I soon after admitted was roughly put, to be replaced with "self-initiated motion". Then the rest of that is coherent: ""Physical volition" [i.e. self-initiated motion] = goal-directed. Unconscious, involuntary, semi-conscious...etc." Thanks for the close attention.
  10. 34:50. He basically says that volition is always conceptual. But it isn't a big deal, spoken lectures are not necessarily built for the same precision as writing. His clarification in the Q&A smooths out the problems I saw in his assertion.
  11. Great explanation and thanks for the book-reference(I'll read it asap)! Could you please explain further what you mean by this reasoning: "Second, the claim "that you can't trust that there are reliable casual relationships in the world" is a claim that reasoning as such is impossible. As Peikoff puts it, "reason cannot be neutral in regard to such a claim." So that claim should be dismissed." Peter will say that you "necrovore" can't know things that you have not seen. He will also claim that he and the 10 other people can testify under oath in court(risking perjury) that what
  12. At what time in the video does Peikoff deny that animals have volition? Starting at about 46:00 he says that volition doesn't become manifest to a human child until well after birth (after it becomes aware of its own consciousness). Starting at about 1:42 he says he doesn't know if other animals can make choices or have volition or not. A bit later he says it appears as if they do based on his observations, but doesn't know if an animal's attention is totally controlled by external forces or some element originates from within. He says nothing at all about the nature of the nervous system, wit
  13. By logic, I attribute to vertebrates the some powers of choice - especially selective attention and self-initiated motion - based on observed behavior and the nature of their nervous systems (link). Nobody here has blended human volition and animal volition equally into an amorphous mess except you. To wit: "ANY goal-directed action is volitional. And: Volition = goal-directed. Unconscious, involuntary, semi-conscious or fully conscious."
  14. The following have all been asserted by whYNOT: Page 1 "men have and need a volitional consciousness, animals don't." Page 1 "They [higher animals] are not self-conscious, nor conscious of their relation to existence, therefore are of non-volitional consciousness." Page 3 "Only a volitional consciousness [like humans have] can select acts among a few or many options." Page 4 "Animals don't *need* to "choose" and cannot." Page 5 "An animal lacks volition so doesn't learn." Page 7 "I think you might have found that no argument for 'animal volition' is tenable" Page 8 'Physical' vo
  15. Last week
  16. Here is something Peikoff says about animal choice. Earlier he denies that animals have volition, but also here explicitly says that he doesn't know if animals can choose and treats it as a scientific question. If he wants to reserve volition as a term for conceptual consciousness, then I agree with him. However, he seems willing to use the term volition and thinks it is a nonarbitrary possibility that animals have some degree of volition. But it's important to remember that if animals can choose in the sense talked about here, they are not operating simply mechanically or liter
  17. The dullest, most extreme concrete-bound person knows that he is 'exercising his will' (and his physicality), and knows the outcome, when he violently attacks someone, murdering them. He might not understand much, but he knows he was responsible. He has awareness of his guilt. In contrast, does the lion premeditate: "I am willing my actions to kill that other lion"? Knowing in advance his intended act and the probable effect afterwards? He simply attacks, that's his nature. The man goes to prison for premeditated murder. The lion, we accept, is only doing what comes naturally. (
  18. On Human Perception of a Starry Sky "For millennia, humans have looked to the night sky and chosen star groups to name. But why does Centaurus comprise that specific set of stars rather than some other? We hypothesize that the perception of star groups (constellations) can be explained by a simple model of eye movements taking a random walk along a network of star-to-star transition probabilities. The walk is biased by angular distances between stars, preferred angular distances of human eye movements (also known as saccades), and stars’ apparent magnitudes. To derive predicted constellat
  19. Or to think of it another way, when people refuse to think conceptually, they become concrete bound, more animal like. They don't lose their capacity to make choices, but their ability to make choices is wildly reduced and diminished.
  20. Nothing of this topic and ideas exist in isolation from other ideas. Look outside of the box.
  21. Nobody here, maybe. But who's "here" is not everybody elsewhere. Anthropomorphism is pretty rife in articulated attitudes, tales and movies, etc, and sometimes it is understandable: "Look, they do -this- just like we do!" (- Feel pain, mate for life (a few), care for their cubs, hunt for their food, etc,etc.) but is a naturalist fallacy projected onto animals from human behaviors and subjectivity. And you badly misrepresent me. I have never accused anyone of attributing a volitional consciousness onto animals. Of course, not. Just of attributing 'animal volition' onto animals, whatever th
  22. Nobody else here has claimed such nonsense. You just fabricated it on another of your irrational rants.
  23. If any reader of Rand doesn't get "goal directed action" for including lions and cats, and covering -all- the rest, and thence take all physical motions of life as metaphysically given, then yes, he is going to want every specific instance/action, one by one, of animal and human motion addressed and explained. And claim every one as - volitional. Why did the zebra cross the road? Why did the hawk fly up and not dive down? Take that, e.g. animal turning its head, as granted, given and explained by a goal-directed action according to its nature - and move on. Insist on blanket volition/free
  24. And still, "physical" volition persists (as the argument for animal volition). Which was entirely covered, when one understands her, by self-generated, self-directed action - goal directed action - self-initiated motion - by Rand. The actions to life which every life-form has and must have, by definition. So what "volition" is left to mankind, one which distinguishes his nature apart? Using volition for every act by any creature (like a Covid virus attaching itself to a host) devalues the concept of "volition" and makes it mundane. Then: 'Equality' of all living things, a
  25. I agree to the extent "anthropomorphic" means attributing human attributes to animals when based in reality. Humans perceive, pay attention selectively, locomote, and otherwise move body parts. So do other animals. Identifying the similarities and differences is pertinent. Identifying similarities is not cavalier anthropomorphism. Despite whYNOT's wild accusations, nobody here has attributed a human-like volitional conceptual consciousness to other animals. Ayn Rand claimed that man has a volitional consciousness (VoS and Galt's speech). Her saying a volitional conceptual consciousness w
  26. You should read about "the arbitrary" in OPAR. First, you write "A casual inference, relying on the claim that there are casual structures, makes it very low probability that the farmer has not produced a green bowlingball-size sallad since there has not been any rain at all and other farmers have seen their fields turn into dry deserts. There are not enough ingredients for such a phenomenon to be produced." But the evidence you provide is actually enough to justify a probability of zero, not just "very low." Second, the claim "that you can't trust that there are reliable casual rela
  27. Let me fill in some citations for portions of those last two paragraphs: “It is in very close step with Rand’s conception of logic and proof in GS, could easily pass for essential to the philosophy that is Objectivism, I expect, and was being put about in the 1960’s in Branden’s BPO (2009, 72–73, 75–76) .” “Recall that in Rand’s ITOE, she described logic as being a method (36; also, Peikoff 1967, 112–13). That conception of logic was also in GS and was carried into BPO (75), into PO (Lecture 3), and into OPAR.”
  28. The most insightful article on QAnon dealt with game theory, of the stones on the floor that many gamers considered an arrow. Many gamers spent time seeking to understand what that programmer had never intended as a clue. Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity outline James Valliant's and Warren Fahy's quest for the origins of a religion that has had an incontrovertible had influence on the course of history. L. Ron Hubbard is the author and instigator of Dianetics and Scientology. Thanks to some investigative reporting, Ron Watkins has been traced as an orig
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...