stephen_speicher

agroves, I think that it is important to consider the context when trying to analyze various quotes by Ayn Rand in written essays, or, extemporaneously, in radio interviews. You might want to look at this topic started a year ago. The topic itself is not directly relevant to the issues that you present, but starting with my post #155 in that thread we do discuss several aspects of your concerns.

Perhaps you are recalling something like this from Dominique's testimony on the Stoddard Temple in The Fountainhead, p. 356: "The Stoddard Temple is a threat to many things. If it were allowed to exist, nobody would dare to look at himself in the mirror. And that is a cruel thing to do to men. Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don't ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul."

Yes, exactly. And when I see that scene I hear in my mind Mr. Keating again saying: "Boys, you must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all."

Your protestations notwithstanding, if you study the history of ideas it is clear that indeterminism as acausal is both historically and technically correct, from earliest use to the fundamentals that underlie today's adherents. Your same confusion extends to your grasp of the libertarian incompatibilist position. The soft determinism of the compatibilists is not properly offset by the standard libertarian's view of free will and determinism. (Note for clarity of reading: By the "libertarian" here we do not mean the political "libertarian" we know today, but rather an historical view towards free will.) The libertarian "classic argument for free-will" is most certainly not the perspective of Objectivism. One will search in vain through the traditional classic literature for the Objectivist arguments and perspective, and instead will find a mishmash of commonsensical and pseudo-philosophical half-truths. As Raphael notes (Causation and Free Will, D. Daiches Raphael, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 13-20, Jan. 1952): "... libertarianism means that acts, or some acts, are uncaused, and that the view denies the universality of the causal axiom: 'Every change has a cause'." One will not find the Objectivist view of free will anywhere in P.H. Nowell Smith's classic tome Determinists and Libertarians, Mind, New Series, Vol. 62, No. 251, pp. 317-337, July 1954. What one will find in the literature, however, are notions of the sort advanced by thinkers such as C. A. Campbell, of whom Edward Walter (Is Libertarianism Logically Coherent?, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 505-513, June 1978) notes that he "has made what is considered to be the most powerful defense of libertarianism." And this "powerful defense" of free will consists of elements such as "Campbell alleges that the self is the cause of behavior -- that self through creative energy overcomes the pulls of the formed character." This "formed character" is a pattern of behavior that a person tends towards as a result of experience or genetic factors, and "certain actions are more or less probable." The self can then intervene and perhaps override what would otherwise be destined to occur. Indeterminism is not the answer to determinism, whether in the realm of consciousness or smuggled into the physical realm. Indeterminism is acausal, and it implies randomness.

It does not invalidate the conclusion in the sense of proving it wrong, but the conclusion can be known as true only by reference to valid arguments that support it. But he did so by reference to false arguments, and your acceptance of the conclusion should not be based on falsities, but on truths.

That is not the point; no "pronlonged[sic] discussion" was required. The point is that you left the impression that your argument was flawed as a logical consequence of what the other poster provided. By doing so you lend credence to fallacious arguments. Apparently, based on what you have subsequently said, you also think that that which is false can actually support a truth, which seems to explain your apparent disregard for what is actually true, or not. I was speaking on behalf of the forum, because the forum rules can only speak for themselves by those who read and abide by them. The very first rule states: "(1) This site supports discussion of (a) the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute, and ( their application to various fields. Therefore participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted. However, since the focus of this forum is the philosophy of Objectivism, such questions are not encouraged." What I have encouraged you to do is to actually study the philosophy of Objectivism and directly address any questions of its veracity, rather than continue to espouse the philosophy you hold. That request is consistent with the rules of the forum. And, rather than listening to you lecture us on computer algorithms giving rise to volitional consciousness, or the nature of truth, you instead could actually be talking about Objectivism which, afterall, is what this forum is supposedly all about. Look, Hal, I think you are an intelligent guy, which is why I bother to make these suggestions. A lesser mind I would mostly ignore, as I do with some others here. You are studying philosophy presumably as your profession; if you want to live in the world of standard philosophy then why bother us here? If you are choosing to come to this forum, then why not study Objectivist philosophy with the same effort and care you apply to your other studies, instead of trying to educate us in the philsophy you already know?

Yes, it is possible to make bad or false arguments, but that is not what you originally said. You said "A true conclusion can be supported by flawed arguments," which is a claim that a truth can be justified by a falsity. Bowzer is right about the "fallacy of modern philosophy" in that logical form is often given preference over meaningful content. Logic is not an algorithm that is blindly applied, but rather a tool which must be artfully used to reach a reasonable truth. No truth can be logically supported by that which is false.

Yes, necessarily, since that is the historical root and proper philosophical meaning of the term. Indeterminism is acausal and implies randomness, which fact highlights the essence of the entire discussion, attempts to obliterate the proper philosophical distinctions notwithstanding. The historical roots of indeterminism lie in Ancient Greece where Epicurus first introduced random 'swerves' to Democritus' atoms in an attempt to explain why there were atomic collisions. Then, in an apparent response to the Stoic view of determinism in man, Epicurus' indeterminism meant a choice between possibilities for man which paralleled the actions of atoms -- it was causeless. Indeterminism is acausal, and that certainly implies randomness Here are a few words from a most authoritative classic source. "Epicurus went still further. He found the Stoic determinism so irreconcilable with the wise man's self-determination which formed the essential feature of his ethical ideal, that he would rather still assume the illusory ideas of religion than believe in such a slavery of the soul. Therefore he, too, denied the universal validity of the causal law and subsumed freedom together with chance under the conception of uncaused occurrence. Thus, in opposition to Stoic determinism, the metaphysical conception of freedom arose, by means of which Epicurus put the uncaused function of the will in man upon a parallel with the causeless deviation of the atoms from their line of fall. The freedom of indeterminism means, accordingly, a choice between different possibilities that is determined by no causes ..." --Wilhelm Windelband, "A History of Philosophy," p. 194, _The Paper Tiger, Inc._, 2001.

Not only was it relevant, it was essential. You let stand a whole array of philosophical claptrap without challenge, and used it to form a conclusion of your own, thereby implicitly acknowledging the validity of what was said. No. Truth is the recognition of facts of reality, and falsities can never lend "support" to the truth. If you have come here to lecture us on the epistemology you are taught in your philosophy studies in England, then may I respectfully suggest you may have come to the wrong place. This is a forum devoted to the philosophy of Objectivism, and your continued assertions in many fundamental areas of philosophy indicate you have not made much of an effort to study Objectivism. I would suggest you study, in detail, at least Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and if you want to directly address any epistemological points that are presented in that book, then do so openly. At least then you will acknowledge that you are challenging something specific in Objectivism, rather than continuing to lecture us on ideas that we care not one iota about.

S.R. Hadden: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" But it was clear that Hadden (the businessman) was the behind-the-scenes force for the building. Recall, also, that it was Hadden's companies that were the sub-contractors for a lot of the work. He had it all set up, and he had the power. It was Hadden who said to Ellie about the Japanese location: "Wanna take a ride?"

Let me get this straight. You concede the validity of what you quoted? Every one of the five sentences quoted suffers from a basic, fundamental error. Taking them, briefly, one by one: 1) "However when the universe wasn't in existence ..." But there is no alternative to existence. It is absurd to talk about when the "universe wasn't in existence." The universe is eternal. 2) "Simply nothing existed." "Nothing'" is the absence of something; the concept of "nothing" is genetically dependent on the concept of "existence." It is absurd to talk about "nothing existed," as if "nothing" could "exist" without existence. 3) "There was no existence before the beginning of the universe.." That is nonsense. Existence is all that there is. It is eternal. The universe cannot have a beginning, just as it cannot have an end. 4) "Existence as such didn't exist.." Sorry, more nonsense. There is no alternative to existence. Existence is eternal. 5) "When the universe came into existence, that was the beginning of time and the beginning of existence." Phooey! The universe cannot come into or go out of existence. And time is in the universe; the universe is not in time. There is no "beginning of time" or any nonsense such as the "beginning of existence."

Your statement assumes that we induce this from large-scale observation of action, rather than recognizing what matter is, i.e., non-volitional. Note that this is why I exclude the ultimate constituents from this determination.

False. Indeterminism is acausal, which does not describe volitional action. (I have snipped the rest since it is just repetitive misunderstanding.)

I originally declined the offer some time ago, mainly because I had intended to phase out of the forum. However, since (obviously) that has not turned out to be the case, perhaps I might reconsider.

I really am glad that Burgess is a moderator. He obviously takes the job seriously.

That would be a completely arbitrary assertion. The current argument is that there are two fundamental and mutually exclusive modes of actions possible to all entities that exist in the universe; they either act deterministically, or by choice. Now, there is one sense in which I would actually agree with the spirit of your concern, if not the letter, and that is in regard to the ultimate constituents of reality. (Note that here I am at odds with some other Objectivists, noteably Harry Binswanger.) The "mutually exclusive modes of action" argument pertains to entities that we perceive in the three-dimensional world of our senses, and in my view we have to allow that the ultimate constituents, which may themselves give rise to these three-dimensional effects, might be as radically different in nature as volition is to deterministic entities. Until we identify the nature of the ultimate constituents we cannot say anything about their mode of action, other than that they act in accord with their nature. I think you need to go back to that post and read my argument more carefully.

I assume you meant to say "now claims that he did NOT write the offensive message." I too received a note from him saying that he did not send the message, followed by a note that said he may have sent the message after taking some sort of substance, followed my another note saying again he did not send the message. My head hurts! I sympathize with the moderators on the forum, especially Burgess who somehow got caught up in all this, and you, GC, for evidently all this filters to you. I am sorry that I got involved at all and opened my mouth on this thread. At this point my own personal opinion is that the two offending posters may both be, let us say, a few axioms short of a full foundation.

That depends upon how you build your foundation. It is easy enough to use a single particle as the basis for the theory, along with position and momentum operators. So, for instance, we can take particle and momentum operators, X_m and P_n respectively, to describe the position and momentum vectors of a particle in some space. The canonical commutation relations are then expressed as [ X_m, X_n] = 0 = [P_m, P_n], [X_m, P_n] = i h <delta>_mn. Define a simple particle as that which has observables x_m and p_n which satisfy the commutation relations, but there do not exist observables compatible with all x_m and p_n. These are equivalent to the operators acting on the wave function <psi>. This is a rather simple formulation, but if you study the history of the development of quantum mechanics -- a fascinating subject -- you can see the ebb and tide between conflicting interpretations, on a foundational level, repeat itself from generation to generation. An excellent place to start with this, for the technically minded, is Max Jammer's The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

Okay, but I am a little perplexed by what you now claim as compared to what you wrote. I asked that question in response to this which you wrote: "Or, for some time t, much, much quicker than the blink of an eye, a proton and anti-proton pop into existence, ex nihilo, cross paths and dissapear again. See why certain Objectivists are "hostile" to the theory? It 'seems' like is's not "deterministic". Like cause and effect is in some sense obliterated." When you say "It 'seems like it is not ..." gave me the impression that you thought the theory just appears to be not determinsitic, but it actually is. This seems to be further supported by your claim, multiple times, that these theories are misunderstood by Objectivists because of bad interpretations. If that is truly the case then, I must say, you yourself have been guilty of just that, as I demonstrated in your misinterpretation of the Copenhagen intepretation. Leaving aside your somewhat disrespectful attitude, you really need to learn to read with greater care and precision, what others write. I challenged your "wave nature of all matter" as being just an inference from experiment, not a scientific fact as you made it appear. I never denied that any wave exists, as you now claim. It is easy enough to intepret the mathematical form of the Schroedinger equation as representing a set of waves that physically exist independent of any matter particles. As I said, your "wave nature of matter" is an inference (a very bad one), not an experimental fact. No, to both. It just requires some understanding, understanding beyond the absurdities inherent in the theories you described. Well, then, you must be unique. The rest of us in physics actually judge and evaluate data according to some set of ideas that we hold. Some ideas being better than others, means that some interpretations of experimental fact are better than others. You are free to believe whatever you like and ignore the philosophical and scientific contradictions that the theory is based upon. But, in that case, it is a good thing that you put the scare quotes around "know." (By the way, what is it with you and these scare quotes you use all over the place? You use them so often, and so out of context, that they lose their meaning.) Well, thanks for the advice, but since I take my physics and philosophy seriously, I reserve the right on this public forum to reasonably criticize errors when I see them. You are free to do so too, but note that in doing so you need to back your criticism up with fact, not vague assertions and misrepresentations.

I agree that this is one way that that occurs. There are other ways, too. But, the whole issue is so simply solved if posters would just provide exact quotes and citations, instead of offering their interpretations of what Ayn Rand said.

But we already know the nature of an entity that acts way -- a volitional consciousness. We do not need a scientist to tell us that, and volition is the general principle which accounts for that sort of behavior. Why? I made that argument in a philosophical context, in this post.

I would say that it is quite some time before an infant even starts to become aware of its own consciousness, much less that of another. That very act (of his own self-awareness) in itself implies a relatively high degree of sophistication, extending in a sufficiently more complicated manner to apply to the consciousness of another. But, perhaps it is best that we not belabor the point, and agree to disagree. Anyway, nice to see a new thoughtful person join the forum. Welcome.

I would like to add my recommendation of these two courses. Stephen Siek is one of those rare individuals who not only has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of music, but he also possesses such a warm and endearing character that it is virtually impossible for anything that is alive not to be enraptured by his talks. In addition, Alan August has a magnificent voice and, doing a bit of first hand research on his own, he is a wonderful supplement to Stephen in his lectures.

Yikes! Not exactly acceptable. I'm glad I asked. But, I'm still a little confused. Did he write that message after his posting privileges were removed? If so, then why was he disallowed to post and not also Thesweetscience, whose behavior on the public forum seemed much worse than Citizen Publius?

Permit me to point out that this is now a somewhat different argument from where you started. You previously stated, "Actually, the inference that other humans are "conscious" is a _sub_-conscious, pre-conceptual, _implicit_ knowledge which infants grasp from observing the behavior of parents (or their equivalent). The axioms are _implicit_ knowledge from infancy." And I pointed out that while one's own consciousness is axiomatic, the issue is whether or not a chain of reasoning and experience is required to attribute a similarity in consciousness to another. If so this would mean it is not an axiom that was implicit knowledge in this case, but an inference -- a somewhat sophisticated one -- based upon experience and a chain of reasoning.