Thumos

Oh, it’s just a miscommunication then; by “determined” I mean: result of causality, ‘chain of events,’ etc…having to do more with the nature of the universe (independent of mans ability to perceive it). That is one of the things I am asking - part of the catch-22 I am talking about: If your actions are a causal necessity then “you couldn’t help it,” if there was no causal relationship then “you didn’t cause it.”

Grames, (RE:#40) O.K. now I see what you mean. I think this is the most interesting reply so far (and the most grounded in OTPAR terminology which, since I imagine we are all familiar, might aid in communication) perhaps we should narrow the focus of the conversation a bit to #40 (though I’ll gladly continue other strings)…I would be interested to see what some of the other think. I am going to have to reflect on this for a while, but to get the conversation going I’ll start with the following (my underline): How does one go about selecting?

True, nor should one accept free will without evidence or rationale (which I am questioning/seeking). #33 – Regarding the Mathematics of Determinability I do not dispute that there are limits to knowledge, but I don’t understand why having an omniscient agent (or capability) is any more necessary than having a “determiner” (god). Why should either be a pre-requisite of acknowledging that we find ourselves in a universe that has causes & effects and that our decisions take place subject to the same rules? #35 – Random vs Deterministic Universe I think there is an important distinction to be made: the decisions made by humans generally involve mental objects that do not behave like sub-atomic particles (unless you are a physicist). In addition, based on my understanding (as discussed at #5 & #7), the actual mechanics of a decision are conducted at an aggregated level of matter whereby the randomness known to exist at the sub-atomic level cancels itself out.

I would like to state that I am trying to work my way out of this, so please do not get defensive or dismissive (I am not attacking Objectivism, I am trying to understand it…..I have read the whole canon, but this is the one point that always bothered me). I really do appreciate the replies, but I wish you guys would be a bit more descriptive on where you think my model is flawed. For instance, Grames, I really do not understand how composition/division would apply to the “chain of events” in decision making (I always thought it was more for part vs. whole considerations). Brian: “are requesting that people first assume determinism is true, or at least accept it as a possibility, then show it is false” – that is the catch-22 I am talking about. I am trying to understand how either the #21 regression is not valid, or how Free Will can exist within it. Your last two paragraphs are interesting, but I am not sure why the universe would have to be ‘knowable’ to be deterministic, could you expand on that? For instance, it doesn’t matter that a fish can’t understand the concept of ‘enclosure’, it is still stuck in its bowl (depressing). Re #35: Particle motion exists independent of man’s classification of it. David: I am trying to understand why my (unfortunate/reluctant) position has been refuted. Has the decision making process ever struck you as being deterministic? How were you able to get out of it? (what piece of the puzzle am I missing?) Marc: To make sure you (and others) understand what I mean by the ‘focus exception,’ I am referring to OTPAR ch 2 under The Primary Choice as the Choice to Focus or not, a dozen paragraphs in or so: “Until a man is in focus, his mental machinery is unable to function…The choice to ‘throw the switch’ is thus the root choice, on which all others depend.” How can a man “choose” to “throw the switch” if his ‘mental machinery was not functioning’ during the decision? If it was functioning and he was not in control of it before he threw the switch, how is he responsible for the ‘choice?’ (same for if the switch was thrown randomly) My apologies to Dr. Piekoff, I do not mean to belittle the book by focusing the microscope on two sentences. (Note: I will not be able to reply until Sunday)

Why do you use the word “demand?” I am “asserting” that people’s decisions are rooted in those laws…to the extent that they ultimately do not originate them. If the conceptual level consciousness is capable of generating output (i.e.: making a decision) then that output is a function, ultimately, of things that are not original to it. (I feel as though I am just reiterating my position, is there a miscommunication here?) Again, I restate my closing questions at #21

Marc, welcome to the conversation. I am saying that the decision to gain knowledge was determined (not that there wasn’t a decision). I agree that it is not random (I qualified the sentence with “if any”…just trying to cover the bases). "What I decide to pay attention to or ignore would also be “determined” in the same manner." I am not trying to be smug here (the human experience without free will seems very bleak), what I am trying to do is escape what I see as a “catch-22,” which I outlined in the last two paragraphs of my original post. (I believe you were alluding to one leg of the 'catch' here)

Decisions made at the conceptual level (which derives its means from the perceptual level) have precedents that are not original to the decision maker, these precedents are direct and determined by the mechanistic laws of the universe. Since the link is direct (if it isn’t, please illuminate the transcendent feature…I have already addressed the ‘choice to ignore determining’ factors at #25) I am not sure why composition and division are applicable, those “fallacies” refer to categorical classifications. I restate my closing questions at #21

I agree that consciousness is finite & active and that mental objects are passive, but it would seem that whatever discretion the brain uses during the “searching” process would fall back into that damned deterministic process; and to the extent, if any, that there is not discretion (random searching) there cannot be free will. But what I choose to pay attention to or ignore would also be “determined” in the same manner.

Yes, as I explained at “The Nature of Decision Making…” in my original post (the derivation was a summary), I agree that decisions are a function of both biases (I am using the word to mean a tactical level of my ultimate ends) and knowledge (from experiences). Since, ultimately, one does not originate either of those two things it is hard for me to see how a decision to focus can be made with free will. BTW, we do have survival and pleasure seeking reflexes: our adrenal system become active when we are in a predator/prey situation (blood rushes to your torso, etc...) and our brains are wired to treat dopamine (from sex, drugs, etc…) as "good".

Again, I am trying to understand how what you have said is true in the case of decision making? Allow me to restate: -My decisions are determined by my biases -My biases were determined by previous decisions about my ends -My ends were determined by survival & pleasure seeking reflexes -Those reflexes are determined by my DNA -I did not choose my DNA Which of these reductions is illogical? As you go from bottom to top, at what point can/does a decision transcend its determining factors? If so, how?

I disagree, a metaphor can be a useful aid to communication, but I appreciate your directness. I have not come to this forum to prove objectivism wrong (indeed, life seems rather unexceptional/unimportant without free will). I would like to understand how the model I outlined does not apply to “focus,” or how the model is wrong.

I am not asserting that you are your DNA, I am asserting that your DNA (or more broadly, the circumstances of your origin) was the determining factor in your first decisions. All future decisions are determined by previous decisions. Perhapps you could address the portion of my original post entitled: "The Nature of Decision Making..." (I think it is what we are both tugging at) Does this seem accurate to you?

It is a metaphor David…like an actor in a play, where the facts/unfolding of the universe are the storyline. I suppose that could imply an author…apologies.

Grames, how so? It is only false if the inference is wrong. (Your definition of the fallicy is correct, but you don’t support an assertion that this is an instance of the fallacy.) It seems to me that “composition” is a safe assumption; it is a direct route: -My decisions are determined by my biases -My biases were determined by previous decisions about my ends -My ends were determined by survival & pleasure seeking reflexes -Those reflexes are determined by my DNA -I did not choose my DNA (obviously a simplified version) My perception is only that I have made a choice (input, thought process, output). I do not perceive that I have arrived at the choice independent of the “direct route” above. It may also be useful make sure your perception is not an illusion. Try searching videos for “free will experiment;” there is some interesting (though not at all conclusive) evidence that our brains are just adding a “feeling of free will” to the end of our decisions.

Good point eriatarka, I was a bit too brief in my definition. I also agree that the subatomic randomness that is postulated in contemporary quantum physics is not applicable to Free Will vs. Determinism. I think this is a reasonable assumption since (from what I have read) the chemical reactions that govern the decision making processes take place primarily at the “whole atom” level and are therefore unaffected by any subatomic randomness (which would not change the composition of a chemical compound or affect an electrical signal).