Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

I've been working in the art business for over twenty years and have run a few galleries in the last fifteen years, and I have loved some of Steve Hank's work for all of that time. I lost track of him for a few years, because it seemed like once he got a family he focused on essentially family portraits, which are not as much to my liking. His nudes have always impressed me due to their sensuality, but the ones shown at the beginning of this thread are spectacular! I think he has improved his style, which is a rare thing for artists who have been well known for twenty or more years. Artists, like other people, can fall into a rut and stick with what has sold, rather than making artistic improvements in their art-- but Steve Hanks didn't do that, and for this I congratulate him.

I finally got my computer at home back up and running again, as well as two computers at work (which makes my boss really happy). He had an old IBM ThinkPad which has the operating system in Korean, and I have to tell you it was an adventure getting that thing up and running with me not understanding Korean and him not understanding geek. At one point, I wanted to put a short cut onto the desk top, so I asked him what the options presented meant in English. However, none of the options said "short cut." He did eventually get across to me that one of the options meant "straight path" and that is how "create a short cut" translated to from the Korean operating system. While I have to agree that understanding some people's motives can be difficult, especially if they are scoundrels and hiding their evil intents from oneself, I mention my boss because he and I have a significant language barrier, a significant philosophy barrier, a significant psycho-epistemological barrier, etc. However, I have no difficulty understanding his motives to run a profitable business. I think one has to be careful in applying the idea of metaphysical possibility when assessing someone's character. It is metaphysically possible for Hillary Clinton to become a really good President, since she is a human being and it is possible for her to become a staunch supporter of Individual Rights -- it would require her doing a lot of intellectual work, but it is not impossible. However, given her character, there is no evidence that she would make such a turn-around. Likewise, it is metaphysically possible for Dr. Peikoff to become a raving Kantian, say if he got tired of spending years of work presenting Objectivism without getting rich because of it, and so decided that it would be more profitable changing his ways so as to become wealthy by presenting the status quo. However, given his character, there is no evidence that he would make such a turn-around. The same idea applies to assessing someone's virtue. Yes, it is metaphysically possible for someone who is virtuous to become a skank. He has free will and can chose to change his ways. But metaphysical possibility in and of itself is no grounds for having any doubt about someone's virtue. If one takes the attitude that an honest man (given the evidence) could become a cheat, and therefore one has to assess his honesty as only probable because of this metaphysical possibility, then one is cheating him of his virtue of remaining honest. If one has evidence that he is honest, and none to the contrary, then one has to assess his character as being virtuous -- without any doubt. To say, in effect, I'm going to withhold my moral evaluation on the positive side until I discover he has done something dishonest (for how long? A year, twenty years, a thousand years?) is to belittle his accomplishment. If you have evidence that he was dishonest, then, OK, you can call him a skank; but if the only evidence you have is that he is honest, then one's assessment, based on the facts, must be that he is virtuous.

You (and implicitly some others) are trying to say that human consciousness is unfathomable; that no matter how much we know about a person, we can never know why he did what he did. I think what one understands about one's own consciousness applies to others, as in an inductive motivation that one can know about another. In some cases one may well be bewildered, as in, "I don't know what the heck that guy was trying to do;" but for the most part, I just don't think it is that difficult to understand why someone did something. When evil is done to oneself for no apparent reason, one can be outraged, in some sense, simply because it is so difficult to understand evil motivations for a rational man in the sense of not having experienced that particular motivation -- i.e nihilism for the sake of nihilism. However, one can understand it intellectually, which is how we have the term "nihilism." I don't know for sure, I'm not certain, but I would say one may not be that introspective and knowing one's own motivations explicitly if one finds it extremely difficult to figure out the motivations of others. I certainly don't go around doubting other people's motivations once I get to know them better. Strangers may be more difficult, but one can tell if they are being direct or evasive regarding the facts that one is talking with them about. People don't always have the same premises we do, so when they do something one might have the attitude that one doesn't have a clue as to what they are up to; however, if one gets to know their premises, it all falls together. Comparing man to rocks and asking oneself to predict the actions of a man in the same way one tries to predict how a rock will fall when tossed is simply not taking into account that the man is a man and not a rock; which might be the root of your doubt. Why are you trying to predict what someone is going to be doing with that sort of innanimate matter trajectory?

I'm having some problems with my computer at home, since I keep getting a "can't write to disk" error message, a bunch of noise, then it locks up and crashes; so I'm probably not going to be able to say a lot on this topic until I get a new hard drive and reformat it and so on...to top it off, I tied to log onto oo.net and got an IPS data error message. At any rate, I don't think that alieviating doubt is the goal of knowledge. Knowledge is understanding existence, which fundamentally means organizing one's observations according to similarities. The problem with the idea that one has two theories and one or the other must be right is that neither one may be right. A given theory may be used as a guide to some investigations, but organizing one's observations (induction versus deduction) according to the facts one knows is the better approach. Alieviating doubt comes across as Descarte's method, and saying it must be one or the other when it comes to competing theories comes across as Plato's method -- i.e. they both come across as rationalism, at least as stated. Also, saying that one has enough information (and needs no further information) once one reaches the standard of proof comes across as, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." Obtaining more relevant facts is how one continuously assesses whether or not one was correct. That is why it is possible to be contextually absolutely right, but still be wrong (in light of new evidence). I think part of the problem in this thread and one reason everyone seems to be talking past one another is that what is being talked about isn't being brought down to simple examples. A lot of people are talking in terms of broad abstractions, and others think they know what is being talked about, but then the original poster says no that isn't what I am talking about. And so it goes. And I think we need to keep in mind that Objectivism is a new philosophy, and that sometimes this means that we cannot fall back on colloquial usages of terms (such as what "certainty" means in a court of law). I'll try to reply to some specific posts, but that may have to wait until I get my computer at home back up and running.

Yes, I think that is a good summation that as one's knowledge grows, so does one's certainty about a given subject. It does not mean that one's certainty after reaching the standard of proof is less than full certainty -- one is fully certain of the conclusion. And any more information about that subject further confirms and re-instates that conclusion. In the case of the meteor hitting the earth 65 million years ago, some scientists were absolutely convinced of that occurrence by analyzing the soil samples and finding that isotope that can only come from meteors. Once the other information was obtained, the floods and the crater, their position would have been: Well, of course, because a meteor hit the earth 65 million years ago. But they aren't going to disregard that further information just because they were already convinced that a meteor hit the earth 65 million years ago. When it comes to judging someone's character, I do think innocent until proven guilty is a good guide, but it is insufficient in demonstrating that someone is, in fact, virtuous because one has to have the facts to back that up. As someone walks into the store I operate, I don't think: "Aha! Here comes another swindler!" No, I give them the benefit of the doubt (since I don't know them), and consider them to be rational. As I gather more information about them during the process of helping them frame their picture, I gather more information, not only about their character, but also about what colors they like, what frames they like, and so on. At some point in time during this process, I am certain they like what I have shown them, and that a sales is being made. They pay me, I complete the job, and they come in to pick it up and they love the final product. Now I am absolutely certain that they like my style of framing. Later, they come in with even more pictures to frame and I am even more certain that they will become good, long-term customers. In this case, the standard of proof was that a sale was made and that the customer is satisfied with the final product. When they come in for more, our profits increase and continue to increase as the customer buys more and more framing from me. And I think the idea of being more certain is similar. The profit one gets from doing integrations is increased as one gets more and even more information. Likewise for judging someone's character. They are innocent until proven guilty -- if they have been accused of doing some wrong. But if they have not been accused of anything that remotely points to them, then innocent until proven guilty doesn't really make sense. When a customer comes into my store I don't think, "Hey, that guy is innocent of the murder I just heard about until proven guilty!" Because there is no relationship in my mind between that guy, who I don't know, and the story I just heard about over the radio. Rather, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is rational ( and therefore not out to do me any harm). So, I deal with him as a civilized human being. As I gather more information, at some point I will be convinced that he is rational, and if no further information contradicts that assessment, then I become even more certain of his rationality (and therefore of his honesty and the other virtues, and therefore of his rational character). However, if one tries to deal with a person on straight terms and only gets babble in return, then one can begin to assess his character as not being too sound. And the only way to correct this is to be open and honest about the situation. In other words, the level of directness regarding a situation is a good guide as to whether or not someone is being honest about his role in it. But it is not two types of certainty: One applying to inanimate matter, and one applying to volitional beings.

I think some of the responders to my recent post are squabbling over what I meant by the term "all" when it comes to certainty. Man is not omniscient -- he is not aware of every single fact in the universe regarding a particular subject. However, this does not lead to any undermining of what is meant by the term "certain," and it doesn't leave room for doubt once one has enough information to come to a conclusion with contextually absolute certainty. I would say what I am getting at is more like the idea of the spiral theory of knowledge. In the spiral theory of knowledge, one comes to understand something based on one's context of knowledge (the facts one has that are integrated), and then continues to integrate up and down the hierarchy of knowledge as more information becomes available. For an active consciousness, one doesn't reach a conclusion that is certain, and then not take into account any more (new and relevant) information one has on the subject. One is continuously integrating. For example, let's say one has enough information to conclude that a meteor hit the earth 65 million years ago because one has the evidence, say, in the layers of earth that are spread out over a wide area that could only have come from a meteor (isotopes of a type of mineral). At this point, one is certain that a meteor has hit the earth 65 million years ago. Later, one gets even more information, but of a different nature that doesn't have anything directly to do with isotopes discovered over a wide area of the earth. Say, something along the lines of evidence for giant floods along coastlines that can't be explained in any other way. At this point, one is even more certain that it must have been a meteor, because one has integrated the new information and can't come to any other conclusion. Still later, a giant crater is discovered that wasn't known about before because it is beneath the ocean and wasn't detectable on the surface of the ocean. This new information is integrated and leads to one and only one conclusion, that a meteor struck the earth 65 million years ago, and one is even more certain of it due to the new information that one has integrated. Notice that for each step of integration, one has to conclusively arrive at one and only one conclusion with certainty, that a meteor struck the earth 65 million years ago. The discovery of the floods and the discovery of the crater do not bring one to question one's earlier certain conclusion, in fact they strengthen one's case. But for each step, all of the available information leads to one and only one conclusion. It's just that "all" has changed as one gets more and more information. One had enough evidence (at least according to some scientists) that it had to be a meteor because only meteors contain that particular isotope, and one found it over a wide area at a level of 65 million years ago. So all of that evidence pointed to one and only one conclusion. The evidence for the floods is a different type of evidence that has nothing whatsoever to do with isotopes, but rather a large disturbance of water near the coastline. And all of that evidence leads to one and only one conclusion. Similarly, once one finds the crater, that could only have been caused by a meteor (rather than say a volcano), and all of that evidence leads to one and only one conclusion. The point is that man's knowledge grows. It doesn't remain static. And as one's knowledge grows by integrating more and more information, one's certainty about a conclusion can also grow.

While acknowledging that there can be degrees of certainty, I don't think this has anything to do with two (or more) concepts of certainty; but rather it has to do with the amount of information one has on the subject (not the nature of the subject, as in volitional or non-volitional). For any given subject, one can have information that logically requires one to come to a conclusion regarding that subject, if one is upholding reason and reality as the standard. The conclusion can be either possible, probable or certain. Certainty means that all of the information one has on the subject points to one and only one logical (non-contradictory) conclusion. However, it is possible to get even more information regarding the subject that still does not invalidate the previous conclusion, and thus increases one's certainty of one's conclusion. This is what degrees of certainty means. It does not mean that one had some doubt that later information renders void; it only means that any new information strengthens one's case that one is certain about the conclusion. This can happen with either volitional or non-volitional subjects of study. For example, one can be certain that one is in love with someone after a date or two. After many new dates one becomes even more certain that one is in love with this person. It's the same conclusion but based on even more facts about the person. There was no doubt after the first couple of dates, and as one continues to go out with this person one becomes even more convinced that one is in love. So, it is not as if one was using one concept of certainty after the first few dates, and then switches to another concept of certainty after going out with the person for many, many times. It's the same concept, but has becomes strengthened by getting even more information. In this way, it is possible to become certain of one's lover's character, and even more certain after many dates. The certainty grows with each moment one spends with one's lover. So, yes, there can be degrees of certainty; but one had to be certain regarding the information one did have, and then become even more certain as more information is discovered. And as I mentioned, this doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the subject, but rather on the amount of information available regarding the subject. With more information one's certainty can grow, but that can only happen if one was certain past a certain point. If one was not certain, then becoming certain based on the information does not go from certain to certain, but rather from possible to probable to certain -- and then even more certain. I think one also has to be careful in reading things from either Miss Rand's personal journals or her extemporaneous answers to questions. These were not necessarily her final answer to an issue. To get her final answer one has to look at her published works where she had ample time to edit and to clarify. In that regard, there is also a difference between what someone might say on a message board in a quick reply to someone that may not have been scrupulously edited in the heat of a discussion (even though, in a sense, it is published -- i.e. made available to the public) versus a longer essay that one had time to edit before sending out (and maybe pre-reviewed by an editor for at least clarity). I find myself saying things at times on these message boards that makes perfect sense to me, but then I realize that I took some context for granted and that the reader may not understand what I'm saying with the clarity that I have on the topic after a more careful review. But, I think that is understood on these discussion boards. It should also be understood for things a person may write in private that was not meant for anyone else to view, such as personal journals. And even though Miss Rand was a genius and often stated what she meant even in extemporaneous answers to questions, I don't think it is proper to hold her to the same exacting standards for these types of entries.

I think knowing someone's motives goes along with knowing that he is honest, because an honest man is not going to hide his motives. There may be things that are private, and therefore that one will not reveal to others, but this is not the same thing as hiding a motive. An honest man is motivated primarily to live his life to the fullest and this requires open trade between equals. I think it is only when dealing with one's actual enemies (those who initiate force or fraud) that an honest man may hide his true motives -- in order to destroy his enemies in plain sight, so to speak. With that said, however, I think there is something like begging the question or concept stealing that is going on if one says that one cannot be certain about another because that other has volition. The concept "moral evaluation" only applies to volitional beings; so, of course one is not going to able to predict precisely what course of action a given man will take in a given circumstance. But as Ayn Rand pointed out, this isn't even necessary -- one only has to know broadly speaking if he is going to be rational or irrational. If he decides to remain rational, there are still a lot of options he has to deal with any situation. For example, in the scene where Francisco is rescuing Rearden from the mob at Rearden Metal, you would not know ahead of time if he is going to shoot the man on the left first or the man on the right; you might not even know that he is going to shoot anybody, but find some other way of dealing with the force welders. But since he is Francisco D'Anconia, one would expect him to do something to rescue such a high value; since it is part of his moral code. With that said, it is possible for any man to reach the end of his ropes, if he is pushed to the limit with torture of one sort or another; say, if he is not permitted to sleep and be alone enough to sort out his confusions brought on by such torture (psychological or physical). But a rational man will recover more quickly (first by not holding it against himself) and then seek out his tormentors for some well dissevered justice dealing. Again, one may not know exactly what course of action he will take in the particulars, but one knows that he will uphold justice in his own way. In short, moral character already includes the fact that the man being morally evaluated has volition. Otherwise, making a moral evaluation doesn't make any sense. One doesn't morally evaluate the orbit of Mercury. And it is only because of the fact that man has volition that one needs a moral evaluation of his character. So the idea that one needs to be able to super accurately predict what a man will do in the future as a prerequisite for making a moral evaluation of him flies in the face of the concept.

Well, I checked around on the official Vaio Sony site, and there is no specific control for the sensitivity of the mouse pad for this model. Seems the pad itself gets activated if I touch it, like the pad is sensitive to infrared or something, because I can barely feel myself touching the pad, and yet it gets activated as if I clicked the left mouse button. However, being a picture framer and used to dealing with reality like I am, I have come up with a solution! I cut a small piece of mat board approximately 2 3/4" by 10" to flip over the mouse pad when I am typing like mad, and it works. No more accidental left mouse activations! I taped the board to the front of the machine, so that I can filp it down to uncover the mouse pad or flip it up to cover it and I'm typing away like crazy and no more problem. Yeeeehaaaa! Picture framers rule!

I don't know why you put "certain" in quotes, since it is possible to be certain and yet be wrong, without degrading the concept of certainty. One has to make a moral judgement based on the facts that one knows, but one may not have all of the relevant facts and yet think that one has enough evidence to come to a conclusion. For example, a customer may write one a check for a purchase that doesn't clear. One tries to contact that customer repeatedly by phone but gets no reply. A little later one finds out that the customer has moved out of state. Given this evidence, one has to conclude that the customer intentionally wrote a bad check in an effort to get something for nothing, so one concludes that they are immoral -- with certainty. A few weeks go by and one gets a phone call from the customer apologizing for the bad check, and explains that what happened was that their bank had closed the account earlier than expected. The customer sends or brings in enough cash to cover the transaction plus the check bouncing fee. Then one can conclude that it was only a mistaken and neither criminal nor immoral intention. Similarly, one can have evidence that Sally was involved in a scam against oneself. One becomes certain that Sally was involved and one voices that conclusion with righteous anger. Someone overhears this outcry without knowing about the scam and concludes that you are out to harm Sally with no cause. You conclude that Sally was involved with certainty and the eaves dropper concludes that you are initiating force with certainty. Later, you scrupulously go back over all of the evidence and still conclude that Sally was involved, but you don't know how or if she was the primary perpetrator of the scam. In the mean time, you are having to fend off accusations that you threatened someone without cause. You are justifiably angry at the scammers, knowing that they are evil without a shred of doubt, and you want your vengeance. In the mean time, the eavesdropper has called the police on you, and you explain to them that you had been scammed and manipulated. You were the only consistent witness to the events, but you don't have any evidence to present to the police for your side of the claim, so now they are suspecting you for threats without cause. Later, Sally shows up out of the blue, looking all innocent like nothing had happened, but you know better. You have tried to contact her repeatedly, but she hasn't replied, so you are becoming more and more convinced that she was knowingly involved in the scam. You decide that it would be better for you not to have anything to do with Sally, since you are not getting any straight answers. She was involved, and unless she can come up with a very good explanation of her involvement, you have to conclude that she is immoral. Now, like the check story, there may be facts to the case that would change your mind about Sally's intent and actions, but until you hear otherwise from her, one has to conclude with certainty that she is immoral.

I was using a lap-top computer to try to write to the forum and where I was typing in the letters kept changing to whereever the curser was at. I thought it might have been a problem with Internet Explorer on that computer, but it turns out the left mouse button on the finger pad is very sensitive to vibrations. I tested this theory out by very lightly tapping on the finger pad, and the left mouse button was activated. I'm certain this is the problem as I tried different websites and programs, and sure enough, if I type normally on the keypad the left mouse button gets activated, leading to all sorts of confusions about "What did I do?!" for the operator. Is there a way to make the finger pad or the mouse buttons less sensitive? Thanks!

Basically, you are taking the stance that it is possible to not be certain of someone's character; and that is certainly true. I don't think it is possible to be certain about everyone's character based on scant knowledge about them. She was certain enough about his essays to include them in her periodicals (at least for a while), but she may have had some doubt about his character. It is possible for an intelligent person to be certain, only to find out later that he was mistaken. And it is possible for an intelligent person to be deceived. It is also possible for someone to be very enthusiastic about Objectivism, and others can be certain about that observation, and then later he either turns against Objectivism or just fades away from it. That's why I said that one has to make the moral judgement of someone on a continuous basis, taking all of the facts one knows about him and in the proper context to be certain. In a way, this reminds me of the people who say there are two types of causality -- that applying to matter and that applying to a volitional consciousness. One conception of causality applies to both matter and a volitional consciousness -- that it is what it is and acts accordingly. One has to be moral by choice; and it never becomes automatic. It can become automatized that one takes the facts into account in a rational manner, but even that requires a continuous effort. But the rational does not include throwing in all sorts of "possibilities" -- i.e. maybe he was color blind, maybe he was temporarily psychotic, maybe he was harassed to the point of violence, maybe they hypnotized him into doing it, maybe they confused him to the point that he could no longer tell friends from enemies, maybe he is just set-off by seeing The Emblem, maybe he forgot to put in a word that would make it all clear, etc. -- without specific evidence for those. The epistemological scale is possible, probable, and certain; and one needs evidence for each one of these, otherwise it's an arbitrary assertion. Of course, it is possible that one observer can have evidence that another observer does not have; thus leading to two different conclusions, each being rational within each observer's context. And they can both be certain of their conclusion. It is also possible that one can let one's hopes color one's expectations based on the possibilities of a potential; which can lead to errors of judgement regarding someone's character. No one is trying to say moral judgement is easy, especially if one doesn't know the individual personally. Things can be taken out of context positively or negatively; and one might not realize one has done this until after the fact. When that happens, you change your judgement. For example, one may get involved in something that seems like a fun game for a while, but then realize that evil is afoot. Rather like that story (can't remember the name) whereby two women are on a train talking to each other and voice how wonderful it would be if their no good husbands were dead, then one of them takes it seriously and commits murder, expecting the other to follow suite. I think that story moves along the possible, probably, certain axis when it comes to judging the character of the woman who committed the murder. What starts off as idle conversation and wishing turns into certainty that she is evil by the end of the story.

Then you would have to say that you can be certain of someone's moral character based on the evidence that you do have; which is no different than being certain of anything else. You go by the evidence, continuously. By saying that someone is moral, one is not saying that tomorrow he may change his mind and decide to become immoral tomorrow; to come to that conclusion, one would have to have the evidence for an immoral act. While it is true that a man has free will, saying that he is moral, at least in part, means that he goes through the effort to remain true to reality; since being rational is not the default. I don't think predictability is the primary issue, at least not in the sense of predictability regarding non-volitional matter. I don't know specifically how someone is going to reply to this post, but given this thread, I can make a good guess. And I haven't seen any posts in thread that would indicate a breach of morality. And I don't understand why a long-term advocate of Objectivism would be claiming that we can't be morally certain of someone's character based on the available evidence. If someone were trying to get away with something, I could understand them taking such a position; to say, "You can't be certain!" But if you are moral by a rational standard, then why would you advocate uncertainty with regard to morally judging others? As some have already pointed out, if we take your position as it has been expressed in this thread, then none of us can be certain of your moral character based on what we know about you. Why in the world would you do that?

Thank you. I would like to say something more about this part of my previous reply: There is some debate that Aristotle was not trying to say that the arrow had final causation (i.e. a purpose) but rather that the man releasing the arrow via a bow has the purpose. This would be an appropriate usage of "final cause" meaning very close to what we mean by the term "purpose." However, he also says that an acorn has the final cause of becoming an oak tree, even though we would certainly not say that the acorn has a purpose (i.e. an ambition) to become an oak tree; you know, like a young boy having the ambition to become like his father. The acorn has no awareness of what it is to become; it just becomes an oak tree (in the right conditions) because it is an acorn. The acorn does what it does because it is what it is. Also, man is not the only living being with a consciousness. I think it is rather obvious that cats and dogs and other animals like these have a consciousness in the sense of being aware of existence, at least on the perceptual level. But I think they are not aware of their awareness (they don't know they have a consciousness, they are just aware of what they can perceive). How far "down" this goes in terms of the complexity of the animal (in terms of evolution), I don't know. I think bacterium don't have awareness, but I have played with some insects and spiders that seem to have some minimal level of awareness, though that would be difficult to define on that level. So, from my understanding of biology, it is not as if we move from literal bio-bots to man, with no varying level of awareness in between. At least those animals which have large brains seem to easily be shown to have awareness (of their surroundings) and therefore have a consciousness. Some people claim, though again this would be difficult to define, that animals like dogs and cats and monkeys have volitional choice on some minimal level. They cannot choose the content of their consciousness like man can, but they can choose, for example, to, say, chase after a ball when it is tossed or not chase after it. Pet owners make the claim all the time that their dog or cat chose to do this or that, but it is difficult to tell if they are anthropomorphizing or not without careful study. After all, people will curse out their computer or ask it why it did that, when things aren't going right. In other words, the term bio-bot might not even apply to the "higher level" animals, let alone man. But this would require exacting study of those animals. When one considers that a lot of scientists fall for the idea of determinism and claim it applies to man, then I don't think they are capable, yet, to set up experiments in which one could differentiate chosen actions versus non-chosen actions for animals. That is, those scientists who claim that man has an instinct for building airplanes are certainly not going to make a claim that any "lower" animals have choices either.

I've been debating about saying anything else in this thread, since it seems to have settled down and no one replied to my last post, but I think one other thing has to be kept in mind when we are talking about causality and man with regard to consciousness and volition. The three fundamental axioms of Objectivism are existence, identity, and consciousness. That is, in one's grasp of anything, one is aware that it is (existence), that it is something (identity), and that you are aware of this (consciousness). Notice that the axioms don't say what exists or how they exist or how they came to be or even what the fundamental constituents of entities are. This axiomatic grasp simply asserts what is given in perception: There is something there that I am aware of. As to the other questions I raised, the questions can only be answered via rational observation and an integration of that investigation. It would be improper to do what some of the Ancient Greeks did and say that everything is composed of earth, air, fire, and water; without investigating what things are actually made of. Along these lines, I think it is improper to consider consciousness to be an entity in the primary sense of the term "entity." It is not as if we have a soul (a consciousness) that is an entity residing in the body and somehow interacting with it. I think this mistake goes back to Plato, but it was really embellished by the Christians; who claim, among other things, that man's soul was placed in his body by God (at conception or at birth) and that it can leave the body after death. There is no evidence for any of this. And there is no evidence that consciousness is an entity at all in the primary sense, so trying to find the "consciousness stuff" out there in reality is not going to be very fruitful. We can epistemologically consider our consciousness differentiated from our body in the sense that we can focus on what our mind is doing (imagining, thinking, emotions, etc.) which is different than, say, moving our arms and legs, which we can directly perceive with our senses (especially by looking in a mirror). We can also consider a two foot square patch of ground differentiated from the two foot section next to it, but that does not make the original two foot section considered to be an actual entity in the primary sense of the word. If you cut out a two foot section of grass and separate it from the rest of the yard, then you have a patch of sod, which is an entity in the primary sense. However, I don't think that is possible to do with consciousness. In other words, one can't cut out a certain section of the human body and claim that one has removed the soul of man and can hold it in one's hand. It is possible to destroy someone's awareness of existence, say by brain damage; but one can also destroy one's awareness of sight if one cuts out the eyes or cuts out the visual cortex. However, one does not say that one is holding sight in one's hands if one holds eyeballs in one's hands. Similarly, if one holds a brain in one's hand, one is not holding awareness in one's hand. In other words, I think consciousness is more like an attribute of a healthy human being rather than a part (such as his brain or his heart). We can certainly say that when it is all working properly we have consciousness and volition, and that functionality can be hampered via disease or illness or injury (and repaired via medication or surgery), but one could never put consciousness per se in a bottle.

I think the problem here that is showing up in this thread is that some people's conception of causality is only that of determinism. Determinism is kind of the left-over conception of causality stemming from the rejection of Aristotle. About the only surviving aspect of his series on causation is that of efficient causation, that a thing acts according to something acting on it. One of his examples was of a log being cut due to the action of a saw on it. The other aspects of his views on causation -- material, formal, and final -- are not really used, at least not in those terms. I think part of this demise was due to the cumbersomeness of his presentation of causality. While it was an advancement compared to the more mystical views or non-predictability, at least it was an attempt (I would say in progress) of having one view of causation -- i.e. one concept that would cover everything that could ever happen. I think he eventually did get it down to one, in the sense that he said that an entity acts according to its nature, but then he tried to prescribe what it means to have a nature -- i.e. that it is a form in material that leads an entity to do what it does based on its nature. I would, however, hasten to add that the fault of this confusion was not Aristotle's, but rather that he did the best that he could, and possibly made some mistakes along the way; such as saying, or at least implying, that even an arrow being shot from a bow has final causation, the final causation of (implicitly) having a purpose to hit the target. The Objectivist's understanding of causation is that an entity acts according to its nature -- i.e. according to what it is qua entity. That once something is an entity in the metaphysical sense, once it exists, then how it will act is according to what it is. But Objectivism doesn't try to pre-speculate what it is to have a nature (i.e. it rejects the idea of form in matter). Especially given that form, in the Platonic school of thought, is sort of an idea or a principle within material things that guides it to do what it does. Objectivism rejects this premise on the grounds that there are no ideas out there at work in the universe -- i.e. it is not an idea that tends to make the earth orbit around the sun in the sense of there being literally a principle of gravity at work in the universe. The point is that man is a certain type of entity, and qua entity has certain capabilities. The man is the entity, not the neurons and bio-chemicals. In the primary sense of the term "entity", the electrons and such that man is composed of are not entities -- i.e. they do not exists apart from the primary entity, which is a man. Once these are separated from the body -- i.e. if one gets one's arm amputated -- then it because an entity; but while it is attached to the body, the whole man is the entity. It is not as if the brain is an entity that somehow interacts with the body which is a separate entity. The whole thing that is a man is the entity. So, the idea of emergent properties I think is not the solution. Emergent properties tries to say that, for instance, that the properties of table salt, sodium chloride, are emergent from sodium and chlorine, which have different properties from table salt. But, in fact, once the sodium and the chlorine combine together in a certain way as to form table salt, they are no longer sodium and chlorine, but rather table salt, a different entity, and thus acts according to its nature, rather than acting according to the nature of either sodium as an entity or chlorine as an entity. Likewise for man. Even though it can be shown that we are composed of numerous elementary particles, those elementary particles are not the entity when we are talking about man, but rather the man is the entity. And he has the properties that he has, including consciousness and volition, because of what he is qua entity. If one starts there, at the perceptually self-evident and at the introspective self-evident, instead of trying to start at the level of elementary particles or dendrites, then one will not be confused by trying to start at the wrong place epistemologically. We can't yet explain how it is that those elements combine to form man with consciousness and volition, but it does happen, so it is not mystical, and the lack of that knowledge does not invalidate either consciousness or volition. To give a simple counter-example, it would be improper and illogical to say that birds don't really fly because sub-atomic particles don't have wings. Just as it would be improper and illogical to say that man doesn't have volition because sub-atomic particles don't have volition.

Why are you focusing on imaginary robots and brain damaged individuals? Nobody here, least of all me, is claiming that our consciousness and our volition are brought about by some ineffable process -- i.e. that it is like magic and happens without any means. Just as our vision requires us to have eyes, optic nerves, a visual cortex and have that connected to the rest of the brain; so, too, we must have a healthy functioning brain in order to have consciousness and volition. And it is possible for someone to lose their volition if they have frontal lobe damage or if they take certain drugs that inhibit that area. However, this does not mean that we are bio-bots. Epistemologically, one cannot get beneath the fact that we have consciousness and volition. Just as knowing about the visual cortex does not get beneath sight. We perceive red directly, and that is (near) the starting point of understanding vision. The perception of an entity comes before that epistemologically; the understanding of the visual cortex does not. In other words, sight is the beginning of understanding how the eye and the optic nerves work. Similarly, understanding how the brain works and what happens when certain areas are not working properly does not epistemologically get beneath consciousness and volition. The only way we can know that those areas of the brain are not functioning properly is by using the normal processing as the standard. In other words, without already being aware of consciousness and volition, we would have no idea that something was going wrong. Wrong? By what standard? A friend of mine once gave similar arguments to yours, and it took him nearly twenty years to correct his mistake. He corrected it by realizing that bats have sonar because of the types of creatures they are. That sonar was a biological power of the bats. He then realized that consciousness and volition were a biological power of humans and himself. I didn't argue with him on this topic for those twenty years, because after a certain point of someone not getting the obvious, one has to back off and let the one in error correct his own error. In other words, just as it is obvious that we see red (if we have normal eyes and visual pathways), so too is it obvious that we have consciousness and volition (so long as we have normal brain function). You are trying to explain away consciousness and volition in the same way that someone saying that we have eyes and optic pathways would try to explain away sight. It's a very Kantian approach.

This is a blatant contradiction. If you can make a choice, then it is not deterministic. The choices you make are not caused by external mechanical events impinging on you, nor are they caused by internal mechanical events impinging within you. Not if by "mechanical" you mean something like neuro-biochemistry. The neuro-biochemistry does not make your decisions for you; nor does the neuro-biochemistry present options to you for you to consider. However, man's will is both free and caused. It is free because you can weigh options internally before deciding what to do, and it is caused because you make the choice as what you ought to consider to be an option in the first place and then you choose to follow one of the alternatives. You qua entity are the one making those choices; just as you are choosing to hold a contradiction. I think your biggest problem is that you have bought into this whole bio-bot business; but you bought into it by choice. You could choose to rejected it based on the fact that you are the one in control of what you accept mentally. I mean, unless you can show that someone injected you with a neuro-biochemical concoction that pre-coded you into accepting the bio-bot idea against your will. Likewise, unless you are a psychotic and have lost complete control of your mind, then you are posting to this forum of your own free will. So basically, those who are trying to convince you that you are a bio-bot are trying to convince you that you are psychotic; that you have no control over your mind and no control of your typing things into the keyboard and then posting them to this forum. You are starting at an arbitrary premise, that man is nothing but a bio-bot, and you are starting there by choice. And that is what is leading you into the contradiction that you can make deterministic choices. When I used to frequent IRC (Internet Relay Chat), the communication channels would very frequently be overrun by computer programs that were spamming the channel. We used to refer to these as bot attacks. So, if you want to consider yourself to be nothing but a bio-bot and have no choice as to what you are posting, then why should we consider your posts to be anything but a bio-bot attack? Are you posting here by choice or are you posting here because of some agitation of your dendrites?

Here's the problem. If you are going to be taking the position that your mind is deterministic, then the output of your mind -- your posts -- are neither true nor false nor arbitrary; they are just an output. If one takes a look at, say, a very complicated action of a very large roller coaster, the action of the car following the track is neither true nor false nor arbitrary -- it's just an action that occurs due to the nature of the car following the track. Similarly, if you claim that your mind is just the outputs of neuro-biochemistry, then the outputs can be neither true nor false nor arbitrary. It's just the result of a chain of chemical reactions. And if that is the case, then why are you arguing so insistently for your position? The epistemological positions of true or false or arbitrary can only come about if you have free will, and they wouldn't apply to a bio-bot no more than they apply to a computer output. A machine simply does what it does because of its nature; it's not making a decision. So, if you are not making a decision to post to this forum -- if your posts are just outputs -- then they have no epistemological meaning.

Thank you. I think rationalism is the biggest factor in these types of conundrums. The rationalist realizes that he must start somewhere, but he doesn't always know where to start and he usually starts somewhere other than perception or self-awareness; primarily on the grounds that perception is untrustworthy and that a rational non-perception starting point is better. So, they start with a "true idea" without knowing how it came about to be true (even if it is). Truth means man's mind (his ideas) corresponding to existence, but the rationalist is only interested in tying one idea to another in a deductive manner; and if this does not correspond to reality, well then he claims that ideas are superior to reality because man's mind is superior to reality -- i.e. clearer and more identifiable. It was Plato who originated the idea that man's mind must be something other than matter or come from something other than matter, because matter is just too unformed to be able to have a mind; thus eventually leading to the Christian idea that we must have a soul which is not brought about by matter but only via spirit -- i.e. God breaths our soul into us, because only spirit can beget spirit. As man's knowledge of his body grew, the rationalist came up with an argument that we must not have volition, since we are composed of matter. Something along the lines of: Matter does not have volition Man is composed of matter Therefore man does not have volition I'm not here trying to say that man's mind is matter, and thus an illusion of neuro-biochemistry, I'm saying that the premise that man's mind cannot come from matter needs to be checked. If we never find anything else there, no type of "mind stuff" from which our mind originates, then we must conclude that we have volition even though we are made of matter. In other words, it might be time to check that premise, "Matter does not have volition." Some material things (rocks) definitely do not have volition, but man definitely does; and as far as we know, we are made up of the same fundamental stuff everything else is made up of. It has a different configuration in us, but there is no "mind stuff" that anyone has ever found. "But maybe we haven't found it yet!" I hear someone scream. Well, when you find the evidence, get back to me. In the mean time, I have to conclude that mankind, once again, has been sent down the wrong track by Plato. Both the rationalists who claim that we can't have volition because we are composed of matter, and the rationalists who claim that we must be composed of something else because we do have volition, are both barking up the wrong tree. We have volition and we are composed of matter. Those are the facts that have to be taken into account by any rational integration of man's nature. And actually, it was Aristotle who came up with the right and true formulation based on the evidence: We are so composed [by nature and nature alone] as to have the power of consciousness and volition.

Let me see if I can put this issue in more perspective regarding consciousness, volition, brains, synapses, and neuro-biochemistry. Consciousness and volition (for man) are at the very base of the above hierarchical listing. And because one begins with this axiomatic knowledge of consciousness and volition, one cannot get beneath these epistemologically. No matter how much one learns about how the brain works one is learning this by volitionally using one's consciousness to identify what one is studying. In terms of a skyscraper analogy, consciousness and volition are on the first floor, whereas brains are on the tenth floor, synapses are on the fifteenth floor, and neuro-biochemistry is on the twentieth floor. If you try to use your knowledge of the twentieth floor, neuro-biochemistry, to obliterate the first floor, consciousness and volition, then you are effectively destroying the proper hierarchy of knowledge. Let's give a more down to earth example. Privacy is a very high value and a right. If someone were to violate your privacy via force or fraud, you wouldn't give an argument that it was OK because they were using very high-grade spying equipment to undermine the fact that your privacy was destroyed. They may have been using the highest technology possible, but that is not more fundamental than your right to privacy. In other words, you wouldn't give a damn about how they did it in the technical details, you would just want them to stop. And if you told them that they ought to go stick a hot knife into their eyeball because they were spying on you, and then they claimed that you were violating their rights because it was you who initiated force, would you agree with that argument? Or would you say that the right to privacy is more fundamental than whatever it is you might say while being spied upon, say by nosey neighbors or others who you don't even know? Similarly, any attempt to use the latest greatest technological knowledge about how the brain works to undermine your knowledge about consciousness and volition is making a wrong argument. Besides, you are not going to be able to point to a dendrite in the brain and say, "Look, I've discovered volition!" You had to already have discovered volition and how to use it in order to be able to study dendrites.

I think the problem of those who think of man as a biological robot or that he is ultimately deterministic because he is made of matter is that you are starting in mid-stream; and that you don't realize that volition is self evident while the knowledge that material things such as rocks and sand are not operated by consciousness is a scientific advancement. The concept of determinism is dependent upon the concept of volition; that is, the realization that you are capable of making choices via your consciousness comes before the realization that material things (such as rocks) do not have the power of choice. By "before" I mean epistemologically. While volition is not an axiom, consciousness is; meaning that you are aware that you are aware at a very early age. And no amount of scientific knowledge about man's brain and his body can wipe out that axiomatic knowledge that you are aware of existence. Likewise with volition, which is realized at a very early age when you decide that you don't have to do what your parents are telling you what to do. For man, volition is almost a corollary of consciousness. That is, once you realize you have a mind you can then realize that you can control your mind -- i.e. make decisions. It is not an accident that primitive man considered all of nature to be operated by spirits, because it is self-evident that man has a spirit (his consciousness) and that his spirit guides him to do the things he does (volition). Given that it was self-evident that man is operated by such a spirit it was natural to assume that all of nature is operated by spirits -- i.e. that rocks do what they do because they choose to do it. The realization that rocks and other non-man aspects of nature are not operated by spirits was a scientific advancement. That is, the fact that a rock rolls down hill and cannot choose to go uphill was a realization to be able to differentiate man from other aspects of nature. To take that differentiation and then apply it to man, to claim that since man is composed of matter therefore he does not really have a consciousness or free will is to violate this scientific advancement -- i.e. to obliterate the difference between man and non-volitional aspects of nature. How we get consciousness and volition is not known at this point in the details, but it is obvious that we do have these and that we have these because we are what we are; that somehow in our biological make-up we gained the power of consciousness and volition. We are basically born with these abilities, and no amount of knowledge about synapses can erase those powers. They exist and they are real. Any integration of what we know about non-conscious and non-volitional matter cannot deny that man has both consciousness and volition. If such a supposed integration denies these self-evident truths, then it is not an actual integration. Proper epistemological integration starts with the self-evident and works out from there in a non-contradictory manner. To say that man does not have consciousness or volition because, as far as we know we are composed of matter, is to deny a rational epistemological hierarchy of knowledge.

I'm not against fantasy in the sense of imagining the world as it might be and ought to be, and as one can earn it by conforming to reality and actually acting towards a consciously held goal. My point is that if one's fantasies -- or one's projection of the future -- does not conform to reality to at least some degree, then what will happen to your motivation when you continuously can't achieve that which you are projecting? This reminds me of my disappointment I had when I watched man landing on the moon for the first time, live and in my parent's living room via TV. I was eleven years old and I had been an avid reader of science fiction, where the moon had been reached hundreds of years ago, and we now had commerce and other dealings with all sorts of creatures on the far side of the galaxy. So, here we are, in reality, landing on the moon, and the TV picture was all fuzzy. Now, I'll grant you that I was a child, but living in a fantasy world left me with a certain dissatisfaction with an actual historic accomplishment. The disappointment was only temporary, and I became an astronaut worshipper, and I still love to watch those kinds of accomplishments on TV -- and I would actually love to be there; you know, on Mars or making first contact with an alien race of adventurers. I mean, it would be very interesting. However, it is not a personal goal of mine. Now, if someone said, "Hey, Tom, we are going to have a private mission to Mars and we want an Objectivist with us -- do you want to come along?" Well, I'd have to know more of the details, but I would be hard-pressed to say no to that proposal. As an adult, and with the help of Objectivism, I realized that what I wanted was adventure and learning new things and living my life consciously; instead of simply taking things the way they were and not doing anything about it. And I do think the first step is to imagine what it would be like for such and such a goal to be reached. That can be very difficult to do, so I greatly appreciate the artistic projection of life as it might be and ought to be, to keep my abstract goals concretized. So that the achievement of such a goal can be experienced in real time. That, in fact, is one of the purposes of an artist. But the truly fantastical cannot be achieved because it can't happen in reality. Sure, in a sense, I would love to be able to zap my enemies with an energy bolt stemming from my eyes when I see them; that would be very convenient! But it ain't going to happen. I have to take other steps to deal with them, steps that are reality oriented so that they are actually defeated and not simply imagined to be defeated because I glared at them with my twin laser beams. Likewise with achieving actual goals. I could imagine all sorts of wonderful things and just live within my mind's eye, glorifying what it would be like "if only." But that becomes very dissatisfactory if one isn't taking any steps to actually achieve that goal. We are integrated beings of both mind and body, and consciousness is there to help you live your life, and not just to imagine it happening.

Dismuke, of radio dismuke and a friend of mine, has a lot to say about this issue on his blog: http://radiodismuke.blogspot.com/ As I understand the issue, there is an arbitrarily high licensing fee that is about to be charged to any Internet broadcaster who is broadcasting what the radio industry considers to be their turf, especially vocal artistry. Imagine the uproar if people were suddenly having to pay a $500 licensing fee to be able to drive because the professional drivers decided they didn't want to have other drivers on their turf, when they don't even own the roads! Now, I can understand copyright issues, and that some internet broadcasters may or may not be violating copyrights, similar to the way Napster used to violate copyrights in their early operations; but if a particular vocal or instrument artist wants to have their work broadcasted via the Internet, I don't see why there needs to be a barrier to entry, such as an artificially high licensing fee or an arbitrarily high copyright standard payment for such works. If I were such an artist, and I could get my music out there via the Internet for a small price to myself and to my broadcaster, I'd be all for it. So, I agree that this seems to be a move on the part of an established industry, radio, to squelch competition via the Internet. The Internet is great, in part, due to the low cost of entry, but mostly because of the freedom to post works at very little costs to the creators of that work. Imagine what would happen to the Internet if there suddenly became an arbitrarily high registration fee for URL's. This would effectively kill the vibrancy of the Internet. If this particular law stays in effect, then I would expect other broadcasters, say TV and Newspapers, to follow suit, since certain aspects of the Internet are intruding on their turf. There are a lot of people out there who want to take away your freedom to produce and to distribute your work, whether they be essays, videos, music, or other works of art. So, I would suggest not letting this stand.

A lot of that comes from the idea that we humans can't know reality simply by observing what is going on around here, by studying the earth and other aspects observable with our telescopes and other instruments. Other parts of the universe may operate entirely differently, so maybe telepathy or magic are possible. This is actually a denial that inductive knowledge tells us anything about reality as such. I mean, if we study water here on earth, how do we know water won't get you drunk if you are a hundred solar systems away from home? It can't happen here, but who knows what might happen out there in the last frontier? I'm not denying that it may be possible for creatures to arise elsewhere that have something along the lines of built-in radios; perhaps something like the shark's ability to detect fish living under sand because those fish (and all life) emits electromagnetic pulses simply by living. However, that still would not be telepathy, which is usually portrayed as some sort of ineffable connection between minds. The magic is generally due to advanced beings, who have somehow developed the ability to change things in reality merely by thinking about them. But, again, this is presented as something ineffable -- i.e. no apparent means. I agree with you that this certainly takes away from the science fiction aspect of those shows, but sometimes they do advance the story; just as warp speed gets one from here to there faster than light, so that they can get to a new planet with each episode. Or like the "beaming" technology, so they don't always have to use a shuttle craft to get down to the surface. However, I enjoyed Star Trek series and even the more "mystical" Babylon 5 because they are stories in which man is important and heroic in the universe. So, I'm not saying never write fantasies, for either games or stories; I'm just saying the closer one gets to reality and finds adventures here the closer it gets to romantic realism, which is the top of the artistic ladder. In other words, John Galt is way higher up than Harry Potter artistically. Edited to say: It is possible for a fantasy type character, say Harry Potter, to be higher up artistically than a romantic realism character. It all depends on what is being concretized and how well that is done. If someone wrote a completely boring romantic realism character for the lead role of a story and didn't even give enough details that the characterization seemed real, then one might be able to say that he is lower than Harry Potter.