Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leonid

Regulars
  • Posts

    896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Leonid

  1. Dante :"How are "life-values," which you seem to define as values which sustain life, different from the "other values" on which they depend? Other values are not primaries and could be reduced to the ultimate value which is life itself. Ayn Rand observed that "The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness." (“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 22). Even if for some reason one decides to negate the value of life, in order to do so he has to be alive, in other words such a decision would be contradictory. That means value of life is irrefutable, independent from man's consciousness and therefore intrinsic. Unlike other values which are matter of choice, value of life itself is metaphysically given since life is a process to gain and keep itself.
  2. Dante:"You're simply renaming a property of some values, such as life, from "self-generated" to "intrinsic." I don't understand the motivation behind this redefinition, " Intrinsic value means value in itself, and in the case of life, values which sustain life cannot be separated from it. I prefer to call life-values intrinsic because that gives good, rational explanation why life and only life is the standard of value. (SOV). Life is SOV because life-values are axiomatic, irreducible primaries on which all other values depend. The reason why all other standards which are acceptable today as VOS (like god, state, society, future, race, ecology etc...) cannot perform this function is exactly because they are not intrinsic and depend on intrinsic value of life.
  3. First, for Harris morality is sine qua none of altruism, that is-for him ethical problems are always in relation to others. Second, he's reductionist who wants to reduce morality to neurophysiology. In my opinion both approaches are very wrong.
  4. Cmac19 " life has intrinsic value specifically BECAUSE you cannot separate the value and the valuator. " That right. Here is another line of argument in favor of life's intrinsic value. Life, any life (not only human) is " a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action."(GS). "“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep." (VOS). That means life is a process of self-generated actions in order to gain and keep itself. In other words, by definition life is a process of self-generated values or intrinsic values.
  5. Intrinsic value doesn't mean value "at all times, to all people, for all purposes;” it only means value in itself. In the case of life value and valuator cannot be separated. As long as valuator is alive he acts in order to sustain it, even if he's unconscious. In other words life has build-in mechanisms for self-valuation, regardless to the valuator's choice of value-standard. This is sine qua none of intrinsic value.
  6. The value is what one acts on in order to gain and /or to keep it. It doesn't mean than each and every such an action has always to be volitional. In the case of life many such actions are automatic, vegetative, like breathing for example One can volitionally stop to breathe only for very short period. Man isn't alive by choice, but exactly because he happens to be alive. He may choose to die, but that would require from him a complicated action of his mind and body. Therefore even if one negates the value of life, he has to use its qualities for this very purpose, in other words he has to recognize, that life has value, in spite of his denial. The meaning of this situation is that life has axiomatic, undeniable value, value in itself or intrinsic value. Usually valuator is separated from the thing of value. In the case of life value and valuator are the same inseparable entity. If one values his life he's an entity who possesses a value of himself, in other words his life has intrinsic value. This is the metaethical basis for rational egoism and self-esteem. Even if he doesn't, life is still valuable since he has to act in order to keep it if only for a period which is needed to end it.
  7. If one doesn't choose life, then he chooses death. But in any case, choice’s precondition is life. Dead people don't make any choices. That exactly why life has intrinsic value-one has to be alive in order to negate life and to act toward this purpose. The value of life is inescapable even for suicide bomber.
  8. There is no life without valuers. These two concepts cannot be separated. Life is identical with valuers and therefore life is the only thing which has intrinsic value for them as long as they alive. If they reject life as value and source of value then they cannot value anything.
  9. This is very old argument out of creation. Basically the argument postulates that everything which is less complicated has to be created by something or somebody which is more complicated. Watch is created by man and man is created by god. The logical fallacy of the argument is infinite regress.
  10. Eiuol "Why, then, is it not proper to say life is intrinsically good?" It is proper. "In Valuable values" Tara Smith asks the same question: "The exact status of life in this account of value's foundations may seem ambiguous. At times, it's sounds as if life is itself a value...yet at other at other times ... life seems to be that what gives rise to value. Which is it? Is life a value or is life the source of value? The answer is, both." (pg 104). Only concept of life makes concept of value meaningful. But life itself is a value since one has to act in order to sustain it.
  11. "My question is this: what happens in a new context? That is, how can I know that a generalization which is certain within my range of experience, for example, all the past, will remain true tomorrow, as it is a different context?" Context of knowledge represents its identity. This is a total sum of knowledge which is available to us at the present moment. Your question belongs to the problem of induction which Karl Popper in conjunction with Hume considered unsolvable. I think the best way to resolve this problem is to invoke the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is and its interactions with other entities defined by its properties. If these properties remain unchanged with time then its physical nature and way of interaction also will be the same. A new context appears if 1. We discover new knowledge in regard to the given entities. In such a case the new knowledge has to be non-contradictory integrated with the old one as long as previous knowledge has been proved true. For example Einstein’s theory of gravitation doesn't disprove Newton's physics but incorporates it. 2. Basic physical constants become different. (For example law of gravitation). That would mean violation of identity law which is axiomatic and therefore such a situation is incomprehensible. In any case that would be incompatible with life.
  12. "True man emerges when the painter of bull and even of its hunter turns to concerning himself with the unpaintable image of his own conduct and the state of his self. Over the distance of this wondering, searching, and comparing perception there is constituted the new entity, "I" "Transition", The Phenomenon of Life by Hans Jonas, pg 185. For Rand there is no such a thing as mind-body dichotomy. The phenomenon of self-consciousness, that is-awareness of the fact that one is a conscious being pertains to human being, who is inseparable unit of mind and body. The essence of self-consciousness is in the fact that one possesses oneself
  13. To be is to be something. Entity cannot be nothing in particular. How you separate thing from its shape,size,colour,smell? All these things constitute an entity,make it exist.
  14. a.It is appropriate to accept gifts from loved ones b.You should state clearly that to participate in this dinner means great deal of sacrifice to you. If your parents love you they wouldn't demand that from you. c I think it is moral as long as you oppenly state your intentions. I think they will help in any case since you are potential customer.
  15. The crude analogy of relation between mind and brain would be the relation of software and computer. A computer has the ability to process information, and software “knows” how to do that. Software is based on some physical substance like a floppy disc or CD-ROM, but its essence is information on how to process data. The brain is a tool which processes sensory-perceptual data and the mind knows how to do that. The difference is that brain can generate its own software .
  16. The main queistion is :What this inorganic immortal brain needs consciousness for? The consciousness is not an end in itself, this is our only tool of survival. If one's existance is secured, one doesn't need consciousness. Ayn Rand tought about this problem already 46 years ago. That what she said" Try to imagine an immortal, indestructable robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed.Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose...it could have no interest and no goals" ( The objectivist ethics in The Virtue of selfishness pg 16 1961). Such artificial brain doesn't need and will not have any consciousness. The only thing it can do is to entertain itself with previous memories from the times when it was human. Leonid
  17. Dan ,you quite right.If focusing is automized process ( which it is ) then it's not formidable task. But then it is not volitional process either.Focusing can be triggered by goal or purpose setting which is volitional act but focus itself is not volitional and therefore cannot be primary choice. Leonid.
  18. Choice and Focus By Leonid Fainberg The concept of focus represents central part of Objectivist philosophy of mind. Focus means the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality. Focus is also defined as primary choice on which all other choices depend. In the book on Objectivism Dr.Peikoff wrote: “The choice to focus is man’s primary choice. Until a man is in focus his mental machinery is unable to think, judge or evaluate. The choice to throw the switch is thus the root choice on which all the other choices depend” (1) This proposition represents some logical contradiction. Presumably a man who has to make this primary choice is not in focus-otherwise he wouldn’t need to make such a choice. To choose volitionally to be in focus, one has first to recognize his condition-to be aware that he’s not in focus. Then one has to understand that this condition is undesirable and he would be better off if he’s in focus. This is value-judgment. Then he has to be willing to change this condition and to decide to be in focus. This is the decision-making process. Then he makes a volitional mental effort and thus becomes in focus. All those actions require a very high level of awareness. The obvious question is how the person, who’s out of focus and hasn’t made his primary choice yet, would be able to perform such a formidable feat. It would be as the drunk in the middle of an alcohol induced mental fog would suddenly decide not to drink anymore. To make a volitional decision to be in focus a man has to be in full focus already. Therefore this act cannot be primary volitional choice. This proposition also contradicts the collection of empirical data about human mental development. It’s well known fact that the most acute mental focus we have as infants and toddlers. In just few years we acquire and process enormous amounts of knowledge. By age 3-4 most children learn to speak fluently meaning they’re able to form concepts. However it would be bizarre to claim that infants and toddlers make the conscious volitional primary choice to be in focus. I propose to resolve this contradiction by suggesting that focus is not a volitional choice but a property of consciousness like red colour is the property of tomatoes. To be aware is to be aware of some thing. Without focus there cannot be any consciousness. Volitionally man can only unfocus himself, “to throw of the switch” so to speak, but even that he cannot do completely without the help of drugs or alcohol. Otherwise how such an “unfocused” person is able to go about his daily life? Even simple activities like shopping, driving a car and holding the most simplistic job require abilities to make choice and value-judgment. Focus is inherent in the consciousness and we only can volitionally change its degree (to be more in focus or less).If it's so then how can we call this condition primary choice? To make any choice (including to be in focus) one already has to have some degree of focus and that sounds like circular argument. Infants who unable to speak and function on perceptual level cannot make any volitional choices. However they are observable in very high focus from practically day one of their life. During first 2 years of life a child absorbs and process more information then during the rest of his life. For example an infant can learn numerous languages without difficulty-a task which is very difficult in adult life. Infants obviously conscious beings but I don't believe they can make volitional (even implicit) choice to be in focus. Only when they become older they able volitionally to alter the level of their focus I think that volitional choice is always teleological one-one want to achieve certain goal. When such a choice is made then level of focus will adjust itself to the requirement of the needed action. This adjustment not necessary has to be volitional. What I mean that if one makes volitional choice to be in focus he has to have already quite high level of awareness. The focus itself has two properties: Intensity and selectivity. Observe animal behavior: for them (especially for hunted animals) to be in focus is a question of survival and not of choice. The level of animal focus intensity is high but selectivity is low-they aware of every thing all the time. The animal with higher level of awareness has better choice to survive and transfer this trait to it offspring. Evolutionally it may be the way to reach the level of human consciousness. Adult humans cannot be focused on every thing all the time. Their focus thus becomes selective. Our sub consciousness may adjust the intensity level of the focus needed to obtain some particular goal. Obviously the level of the focus needed to get ice-cream is different from the one needed to write philosophical treatise. In other words intensity of the focus is determined by the chosen purpose. The choice of the purpose is the primary choice. Volitionally man can only unfocus himself and also not for a long time if he wants to live. Volition is a faculty of consciousness which enable as to make choices. Animals and small children don’t really make any choices-they however may pursue certain goals on preconceptual level. ”The preconceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional; “Volition begins with the first syllogism” (2) The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. “Existentially the choice to focus or not is the choice to be consciousness or not” (3) Therefore the act of focusing is volitional act and cannot be done on preconceptual unconscious pre-focus implicit level. That why I claim that focus cannot be primary choice since choice requires conceptual focused level of consciousness as its follows from the above quoted statements. My proposal is that focus is an attribute of any consciousness and its intensity and selectivity is a function of the goal or purpose needed to be achieved. Goal-driven behavior is not necessarily conceptual but the choice to focus qua choice has to be. Animals don't make any choices but they do face life and death alternatives. Their actions are goal-driven when survival is the primary goal. The difference between goal and purpose is that purpose is consciously chosen goal. Infants who act on preconceptual level also don't make any choices. They have desires which are driven by pleasure-pain mechanism. Their behavior is also goal-driven: to avoid pain and to obtain pleasure. As we have established, both animals and infants have the ability to focus without choice. What than the mechanism of focus of preconceptual mind? In my opinion it is a goal itself; the implicit desire to achieve something activates focusing. In adult humans unfocused mind is also functioning on preconceptual level. Unfocused mind is unconscious mind in human conceptual sense. Such a mind doesn't possess volition. Therefore prefocused non-volitional mind unable to make any choices, let alone any primary choice. It's no such a thing as implicit choice since choice presupposes reasoning. Only desire or goal setting can be implicit. One may feel implicit desire for ice-cream but when one has to choice which ice-cream to buy one has to employ his conceptual faculty. In conclusion: I’ve shown that unfocused mind acts on preconceptual level and doesn't possess the faculty of volition. Volition and choice are attributes of conceptual mind. Therefore in logic unfocused mind cannot make the choice to be in focus This is definition of choice from Brainy Dictionary:" Choice-Act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from two or more things that which is preferred; the determination of the mind in preferring one thing to another; election. “Choice’s characterization of action is that it's a volitional action.” Aside from involuntary responses, such as bodily reflexes, all human actions, mental and physical, are chosen by man. As Leonard Peikoff once observed, the man who is completely out of focus has abdicated his power to choice. Choice to focus is not reflex and qua choice it has to be volitional action. To say that this choice is prerequisite to all other choices is like to say that volitional action is prerequisite of volitional action which is infinite regress. Choice has to be volitional. This is metaphysical base of free will and freedom. Non-volitional choice is contradiction in terms .Precisely because one cannot choose without choosing something, focus cannot be primary choice. The concept of primary choice belongs to the category of concepts known as primary or first cause-like primary mover, intelligent design, Big Bang, God etc…First cause allegedly causes everything of its kind or everything at all. However this concept has intrinsic contradiction. If primary cause is the cause of everything, then it has to be the cause of itself and that leads to infinite regress. If primary choice is the cause of all other choices then what will be the cause of primary choice? Evidently it has to be another primary choice and so on ad infinitum. Since infinite regress is logical fallacy, the concept of primary choice cannot be valid. Suppose X="Choice" Y="Choice to focus" It is clear that Y is included in the genus X. X(X1,X2,X3.......Xn) and therefore cannot be prerequisite of X since Y is part of X. Actually the proper way to express it would be X=choice; X(f)=Choice to focus. X(f)<X and cannot precede X. If X (f) is cause of X then X (f) is cause of X (f) since X (f) is part of X and that means infinite regress. If X (f) is not part of X then A is not A which is violation of the Law of Identity. In both cases we face irresolvable contradictions. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to postulate that primary choice is axiomatic like existence or consciousness. But this also cannot be validated since primary choice qua choice is not metaphysically given. It’s man-made act of human volition. Focus is not matter of choice but intrinsic attribute of human consciousness. Every man possesses focus and maintains the level of its intensity by choosing his goals. The possible trigger of the process of focusing is goal-setting. In other words focus is teleological, goal-driven concept. That can explain how animals and infants are focusing. That also may explain how unfocused adult human mind which functions on preconceptual level become focused. Volition is ability to set or reset goals according to their priorities. Conscious mind is always in focus in various degrees Degree and selectivity of his focus is secondary to man's goals. Without goal or purpose man needs neither focus nor consciousness. I claim that focus cannot be primary choice, prerequisite of all other choices-for the obvious reason I've described above. This is the summary of my position: a. The concept of primary choice is invalid since it leads to infinite regress . b. Focus is not a choice; it is prerequisite of any choice. c. Focus is inherent, inalienable property of human consciousness and qua focus doesn’t require prerequisite. d. Volition is ability to set or reset goals by choice according to man's priorities. e. Focus has properties: intensity and selectivity which are goal-driven. References 1. Leonard Peikoff “Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand” 1991, pg 59 2. Ayn Rand “For the New Intellectual”, 9; pb14. 3. Ayn Rand” The Objectivist ethics, Virtue of selfishness”, 13pb21.
  19. I'd like to reffer you to the theory of elementary waves by Lewis E Little which succesfully resolves all contradictions of Ouantum Phenomena. Check on www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html. Albert Einstein said "You believe in a dice-playing God and I in perfect laws in the world of thing existing as real objects"
×
×
  • Create New...