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).

But this is precisely the problem: If you take (1) reality [an approaching train…perhaps the comet] and (2) an inherited bias [toward self-preservation], then how is the resulting decision [to get out of the way] any different than a reflex, or a plant turning toward the sun….the same goes for a decision to focus. I could substitute some other word for independence but the problem would still exist: if I am operating in a cause & effect universe and my decisions are a function of my knowledge and my biases, which are ultimately a function of inherited biases, at what point could the decision be (independently, uniquely, separately) my own? How is it not just a small portion of the script for the entire universe that happens to play out in my mind?

I apologize that this was not clear: As I explain later on, I am trying to communicate that if the primary decision is generated using the logic of a deterministic universe (“based on my knowledge of the universe, my life will be better if I focus, therefore I shall focus” - the choice was made assuming causes and effects) then the choice is ultimately a product (effect) of the universe (cause) since the chooser’s means of arriving at the primary decision are ultimately rooted in the state of the universe, including his mind, just prior to his choice. The second is not an amplification of the first: it is stating that if the cause-effect relationship of the first statement is somehow broken (to allow the chooser’s decision not to be rooted in the state of the universe prior to his choice) then the chooser (cause) cannot be responsible for the decision (effect) since the cause/effect deterministic universe has been violated. By the way, the latter part the first sentence in the second to last paragraph of the original post should be italicized.

Objectivism tries to avoid the conflict between Free Will and Determinism by removing the “decision/choice to focus” from the conflict. Though I have been studying objectivism on my own for a number of years, and have read all of the literature and postings on the subject, I have not been able to understand how that “primary choice” is either: -Logically generated by an individual independent of the facts and circumstances of his existence, or -Made independent of the facts and circumstances of his existence but still attributable to him to the extent that he is responsible for it. I will attempt (below) to explain this conflict as thoroughly as possible in the hope that the problem, as I see it, is understood and that someone may shed light on how it can be resolved. (sorry about the length, it is the only way to get the point across) -------------------------------------------------------------- Is “Free Will” (defined as the ability to (a) originate an ( uncoerced/independent decision among multiple open alternatives and act in accordance with that decision) compatible with the nature of the universe? The Nature of the Universe (x) In a causally deterministic universe all of existence is governed by the same laws and shares a common origin; therefore, it may be assumed, the universe will unfold in a manner determined by the previously existing state of the universe and laws of physics. (y) In an indeterministic universe events unfold randomly and are not a function of the previous state of the universe or of any universal laws of physics. The Nature of Decision Making in a Deterministic Universe Every decision is explainable as a function of two things: (1) Reality, defined as the facts/circumstances of which one is aware; and (2) Biases, which are predispositions to further one’s agenda via the decision. Biases are a function of previous decisions about one’s ends that are ultimately rooted in the circumstances of one’s existence, which is essentially an element of (1). That is, the (2) portion of a current decision (externally or internally focused) is tainted by the outcome of a previous, internally focused, decision about what (2) should be; which its self was the product of a previous decision, etc…. The origins of these biases predate one’s consciousness and are entirely a product of nature, beyond the control or responsibility of the decision maker. Thus both the facts & circumstances of which one is aware and the biases that are rooted in those same facts & circumstances are not original to the decision maker and are, therefore, beyond his responsibility. The Free Will vs. Determinism/Indeterminism Paradox If (x), then (a) but not (; this is because decisions are a function of reality and biases (as explained above) that are not independent or voluntary since the biases are ultimately rooted in circumstances that predate one’s ability to originate a primary bias. (the primary biases are survival reflexes like hunger, etc…) If (y), then ( but not (a); this is because it would be impossible to truly originate any judgment that one could be held responsible for if the mental processes that led to the outcome were at all random (if a decision a function of a chance, one cannot be held responsible for the product as it is beyond their control). Since both (a) and ( are required to have Free Will, but cannot occur simultaneously in either (x) or (y), which are exclusive of one another, it would seem that Free Will does not exist. The Logical Fallacy of Determinism/Indeterminism without Free Will One cannot meaningfully affirm that Free Will does not exist without contradiction because such a conclusion, in order to be validated by the proclaimer or a listener, must, by definition, be done so at a level beyond the proclaimer [(a) - not originating with him] or must be done so without his consent [( - lacking independence], in which case it is hardly a claim at all. Indeed, it would be wrong to accept as knowledge anything that lacks an identifiable origin in an indeterministic universe or to accept a claim that emanated from an unidentifiable/indistinguishable actor in a deterministic universe. Without Free Will, there are no means by which to check the validity of a statement, therefore the difference between true and false would be arbitrary. Far from coming to any real conclusions one would have to settle for “I have been programmed to accept that…..” or “the unfolding of the universe has caused me to say that….” The Essence of the Conflict: The universe is causally deterministic so far as human interaction with it is concerned. However, Free Will must be held, as an axiom, in order for any analysis (prior, present & future) to have any meaning. The conflict can be summarized by noting that there are two equally atrocious alternatives: To claim to live in the type of causally deterministic universe required to validate the decision making aspects of Free Will, but to know that Free Will is not possible in that universe (see "The FW vs. D/I Paradox" above). To claim that the universe is deterministic (or indeterministic) and that Free Will is impossible, but to do so without any means of independently (or logically) verifying that such is the case (see "The Logical Fallacy of D/I without FW" above). To accept the later alternative would be the end of the analysis; any additional (and prior) conclusions would lack meaning since they would amount to little more than neatly arranged observations & data upon which only meaningless calculations could be performed, and for which no judgment could be rendered. However, acceptance of the former alternative would allow for additional analysis of the universe, but any conclusions reached would be qualified in the same manner as the former alternative, which has the same effect as the latter alternative (italicized above). Should/Must I pretend to live in a deterministic universe in which Free Will is possible in order to validate knowledge or have moral responsibility? If so, why not pretend that a God, or a “soul,” exists in order to reinforce that moral responsibility? Or, for that matter, why not invent any number of non-existent things to suit my predetermined (or random) needs?

Ah, but econometric models are not meant (or at least should not be) to produce explanations, only theory can do that. The models only measure the strength of the "causal explanations," within certain parameters. Your objection is valid. Whether or not the minimum wage causes unemployment is seperate from the morality of price controls. Knowledge of the MW/u relationship is valuable to me apart from my dislike of MW. Along those same lines, there is a lot of research going on right now regarding the revenue effect of the "Bush tax cuts" and where the US might be on the Laffer Curve. A lot of students who are new to economics see Laffer's parabola and have a Calculus 101 spasm, automatically trying to optimize revenue. Of course, Mr. Laffer's discovery of the relationship only proves that it exists, and current research may prove/suggest where the US is on the curve, but the science behind it does not tell us where the US should be. RE Hayek: Agreed...he certainly was not as free market as your typical objectivist, but to paint/remember him as a "welfare statist" would be analogus to remembering Jefferson for slavery rather than liberty. Keep in mind his context, too - he wrote The Road to Serfdom while Stalin and Roosevelt were running the show.

Data cannot tell you what is best unless you define an objective. For instance, if empirical data suggested that you may be able to maximize GDP with slavery, that does not mean that it is the best outcome. (Respectfully) You also need to check a premises that seems to be implied by you statement: who organizes human society/should human society be organized? (maybe I am just reading into it too much) Be careful not to confuse positive economic theory with normative economic philosophy, although they seem to inevitably cross paths. Positive economics, like any of the other sciences, should be judged by how well a theory describes some system within the universe (i.e.: the Fisher Equation, E. A. Phillips Curve, Efficient Markets Hypothesis, etc…). Normative economic ideas are an entirely different ball game; they are about the “should” and “aught,” whereas the positive ideas are about the “is” and “will.” It is tempting to dismiss the valid positive economic thoughts of those with whom you have normative disagreements, but your relationship with reality will suffer. For instance, the fact that Paul Krugman might not respect my property rights does not reveal anything about the validity of his theories on the Japanese Credit Crunch of the 1990’s. Similarly, the Austrian School’s use of Praxeology to describe/predict the economic consequences of human actions, macro & micro-level, does not, in and of its self, speak to the appropriateness or moral consequences of the actions of those humans. Aside: GreedyCapitalist, you typically have very insightful posts, but your dismissal of Econometrics was petty. Also, why do you think that Hayek was a “welfare statist?”