Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

crizon

Regulars
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by crizon

  1. I hope it is ok for me to digg up this old threat but it is exactly what I'm thinking about right now. Generally I follow the thinking of Felix. The argument on objectivists side seems to be: Free will must exist, since it is the source of our knowledge. Since a statement like "free will does not exist" would mean that we can't gain knowledge, renders "free will does no exist" invalid because it is knowledge and had to be gained with free will. I see a problem there. That still leaves the question of the nature of free will. It might just be an "illusion" or another mechanism that helps our brain to categorize information. In other words the underlying question is: Can we make a _free_ choice. Determinism argues that the exact same starting conditions will result in the exact same results. applied to free will that would mean that a human faced with the exact same problem in the exact same conditions will always make the same choice. that also leaves a theoretical test. will a human always do the same as discribed above? if he does not, determinism is wrong and there is something in the human brain that is not deterministic and since the human brain is part of the universe means that the universe is not deterministic. that would have a _huge_ impact on science. the other possible test result would be that a human always makes the same choice. that means that the human mind is in fact deterministic. So what is wrong about this statement? "Free will must exist, since it is the source of our knowledge. Since a statement like "free will does not exist" would mean that we can't gain knowledge, renders "free will does no exist" invalid because it is knowledge and had to be gained with free will." It means that free will is not the source of all knowledge and free will is in fact merely an illusion that developed in the course of evolution to help our brains to organize information in some sorts. The illusion of free will is real, but the implication that free will results in free choice is not true. That is what the hypnotic example in another posts illustrates. The act of doing something comes _before_ the "illusion" of free will. The action results in the illusion "i just did that because of my free will". Of course this concept is very hard to imagine when it comes to difficult "choices" like making a move in chess. But that does not mean it can not be true. How can it not have free will if I sit there 20 minutes and think about a move that I'm going to do in chess? I could have made another move! No, you would always have made that move. Free will is an incredible complex mechanism of the brain to help process complex information. I believe free will is an illusion, but a very smart one and one that must be dealt with. We _need_ that illusion to work, but we have to accept that it is a practical concept and not a fundamental physical one. We should not throw it over board abandon all morals; we need the illusion to function in any way and that means that morals still have to work with free will, even if it is an illusion.
  2. I think you missed my questions. These points you quoted are no interpretation of QM, because the experimental findings and mathematical formulas that describe them are not interpreted. I obviously don't expect a thorough explanation more like a rough overview of his interpretation. About your other question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem this might explain what i mean.
  3. What I meant when i use "feel" is not that I don't like it as a matter of taste. In other words some aspects do not connect the way they should for me to accept every aspect of objectivism. About the copenhagen interpretation and philosophy: I think you agree with me that philosophy must be in accordance with reality. The Copenhagen interpretation is not just some maniacs mystic babbling about science but a widely accepted theory. The Copenhagen interpretation does not disagree with philosophy in principle; it "just" disagrees with objectivism. "that is we perceive reality the way it really is via the senses" That is i think the root. I'd like to quote Erwin Schrödinger here from a talk with the heading: "Objectification". I have the text in German here. I don't know if the talk was originally in English but i try my best to translate it. "With that (with the principle of objectification) I mean exactly the same as what is often called "the hypothesis of the real outside world". I argue this is a sort of simplification that we adopt to master the egregiously intricate problem of nature. We exclude the subject of cognition from the domain, that we want to understand in nature, without making that clear to our selfs and without being always strictly coherent. We step back with our persons in the role of an observer, who does not belong to reality, which in the end becomes an objective world by that."
  4. Can objectivism be refuted by reality? If so, then how? If so, must it be an ideal objectivist system or society for it to be refuted? If not, how close must it be? I'm aiming more at the concrete solutions that objectivism provides (IE individual rights, property rights and capitalism) but I don't want to exclude the axioms.
  5. The thing is, I read a bit in the physics and math board, especially the thread about QM. There I read quite a few times that interpretations of QM can't be right because they violate one of the axioms. Thats were my feeling that they are maybe not formulated correctly stems from. As I said several times before, I'm still reading a lot about QM and it's interpretations. My understanding so far is that the subject plays a fundamental role, which might not be reflected fully in the way rand formulates the axioms.. Also it doesn't feel right for me how Rand concludes the free mind and deterministic aspects of objectvism. IE a free mind seem to be deterministic in way that it _will_ adopt individual right when being reasonable and it will adobt capitalism. In other words I feel that Rands describtion of a reasonable man does not feel consistent with free will to me. I think some of my issues are addressed in the debate on the maverick philosopher blog (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/one-fallacy-of-objectivism-.html), but i have to admit that i lack substantial knowledge to fully understand the debate there.
  6. I just realised that it is improper for me to argue here. Every single aspect that i talk about is in some way addressed in other threads already and each needs a seperate one (also this belongs in the debate board).
  7. That is interessting So what interpretation does Mario Bunge follow? Is his interpretation non locally? What is your explenation for Quantum leaps? Why do you think Bohm's interpretation is wrong?
  8. My words were wrong i think. Math is indeed more of a tool that combined with physics is our most accurate way to describe reaility. Translating these describtions in words is the problem.. thats why there are so many interpretations of QM. About the property thing: I don't understand the objection. Why can't nobody own the sun or the moon? (my intention is to think about if yes, if it was ok to destroy the moon or alter it in a way that would affect people on earth)
  9. I hope it is ok for me to answer "in defens" of wrath since i state that my oppinion is close to his. It is a practical conclusion. I don't see any practical way to make everything in nature property. How do you do it with air or the ocean? How do you solve it with the moon or the sun? I think by now I can say, that i disagree with the way she formulates the axioms. Maybe that is what he meant. Personally I'm not 100% sure on that one yet. Math is the most accurate language we have to discribe reality. "Translating" it into words is usually the problem.. as it is right now with QM. If there is something that can't be described accurately with math, then we have no way to describe it accurately. My disagreement here again stems from the way she formulated the axioms. Well. "starting with an assumption" would be an axiom in a way. Also the rules on how to formulate axioms are somewhat assumptions as well.
  10. Don't you then disagree with all important figures of QM? I'm not even close to really understanding QM and the various interpretations. Is there an accepted QM interpretation that follows your claims?
  11. I don't see "free mind" there. Either the chain of determinism is broken or it is not. Either the chain of events that cause the next events is broken or not. It does _not_ matter what exactly happens inside your mind or what causes the next event, what matters is that there is a deterministic cause. It can't "flip itself on" deterministic since that "flipin itself on" is a cause of an event in the past and how can anything be "completely self-contained within the entity itself". It does have no connection with the outside world? That is not possible. Can you explain where you see the difference in casuality and determinism? There can be no inbetween. The concept of free choice implies that it is not based on previous events and therefore not deterministic. Everything else is just juggling with words (IE redefining free will or determinism). So you have to take volition as an axiom in some form or us an axiom that directly follows that if you want to follow free will.. I don't think that is a bad thing, it is a nice practical choice. And besides: At least the axiom of identity is somewhat "under fire" by interpretations of QM. It seems to me that you can never leave out the subject or the observer on a fundamental basis.
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom "Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths." Well.. if it described the scientific difference between man and human in an accurate way, it would have to make croncrete predictions to what that corespondes in reality. You could device a test that deterimes whether the subject has volition or not (at least in theory) and you could define the exact border between volition and no volition or let's say the "minimum volition". I don't think the way volition is used in objectivism corespondes in any way to that. No. Not every statemant about reality is an axiom.
  13. Wow. Didn't expect a post here that i would agree with so much. Can't tell much about Metaphysics yet though.
  14. I think one fundamental thing about QM is the role of the subject. I hope I'm not distorting things, but i think interpretations of QM are saying that you need 2 sets of explanations: One for a system without a subject and one for a system with a subject. You can no longer exclude the observation itself. If I'm not correct on this one, please correct me. I'm currently reading Dr bertelman's socks, but I'm not finished yet.
  15. Well yeah.. as I said i believe the difference stems from a difference in extend of ability not in a difference in ability. As for your example with the apes. One could argue that they do not understand the concept or more importantly are not fully able to communicate it. Memes need to be exchanged and if they are no longer exchanged, it is no longer a meme. But I'm more inclined to think that yes, memes do not fully explain the gap between animals and humans on their own. They are just a part and the extend of more abilities fully explain the gap. The thing about volition is: It has to be axiomatic in order to explain or conclude a free will. Otherwise you get a problem with determinism or causality or what makes the human brain in any sense special. IE any action we make results from unchangeable events in the past. And, as I said, if volition is then defined in a way that separates animals from humans, there is no point in argueing. And that means that no matter what science has to say about the relation of animals and humans has no part in the argument (since there can be no argument). And i did not say the axiom is chosen randomly or chosen meaningless. So the response from an objectivist to a person who says "why don't grant animals right? they can think too" (or any variation) should be "it is axiomatic."
  16. I think this statement shows most clearly that you don't understand what measurment and observing means. Your subject that is taking photos must be part of your system and is therefore not "frozen". Also when you are talking about measuring 2 entities you need a subject first. You can't measure without interaction. If it is not part of your system, it can never measure the system. That is _fundamental_. So that thought doesn't make any sense in a physical perspective. You might use it for a movie. I didn't read all your posts in this forum but i think you did not understand what QM says about the relation of object and subject since i never saw you taking that into account in the right way. I suggest you read "dr bertlmanns socks".
  17. No baby understands what money is and humans did exist without tools. Humans invented fire and bow and arrow so there was a time before that where humans had no fire and no arrows. In fact such tribes were even found. They possesed no music, no ability to make fire or bows. It is wrong to say that humans alway were dependant on making tools. An explanation for the long distance running in basically every culture might be that it has evolutanary roots. I other words humans used their ability of long distance running to really run their pray to death. There is still some evidance in tribes that exist today. The principal seems to be that humans don't overheat as easily as some potential pray that is more specialised in sprinting. (IE human follows pray. pray sprints away, stops. human reaches pray. the constant sprint - stop causes overheating while humans can virtually run for days)
  18. quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random#In_the...sical_sciences: As i said i don't have enough knowledge to say whether that is scientific census right now.. there are more interpretations, but there is a least a reasonable debate about it in science.
  19. Ok. As I'm reading more about QM now: I had _no_ idea what i was talking about. I hope this will change when i start to understand it.
  20. Where did i say that one should support another person? I did not say disabled person who can do some work, but how can't work. Hawking does not fit, but there are people who just can't communicate well or fast enough to work effectively in any realistic scenario. And donating for the government is a different story in this example, because, as you said, it is not based on the direct feeling of happiness.
  21. Yes my statement probably was not correct, but so is "Plus, probability and statistics are just math used to help us estimate a reality too complex to represent fully (as information) and events to complex (in their causality) to predict with 100% certainty." As i said: I think i can make better ones, once i read the book (and understood it). quantum physics is such a crazy thing..
  22. These are my own adaptions and i don't know if this correspondes with the "offical theory". I a sense I would describe it as ideas that can and will be transported or communicated from one host to another. Ideas being solutions to problems or concepts; hosts being live that understands these ideas. I don't see why the perspective is wrong to see ideas (or memes) competing against each other. And i don't support social darwinism. But i think that is still not all. I can imagine a species that meets all these criteria and can be even more intelligent than humans but fail to "close the gap" if they don't have the ability to make tools. So I think the ability to make tools must be a condition. And yeah this might be useless for philosophy. About those 3 links: I admitted that they are not very good indeed.. I think the example of the bonobo in later posts is better.
  23. On your first point: I agree. For me the gap between humans and animals results in the extend of ability. More precisely in the ability to be the host of memes. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) I agree with your second point.. where do you feel i stated something different?
  24. First of all: I was notified by a moderator that I'm not allowed to argue against Objectivism (in a sense) by the forumrules in this subboard and i respect that. So let's interpret my responses as a way to find the answer to the question about objevtivism. If that's not ok, please notify me and I will stop responding. I think we have to clear a few things again. When we are talking about this hypothetical world were there are no forced taxes, are we talking about an ideal objectivist society? Does that include the fact that every member of this society is an objectivist and always acts that way? I actually feel that this leads me to other questions that might be best answered in a new Topic: Can objectivism be disproved by reality? If so, then how? Must reality be the exact objectivist ideal? If not, how close must it be? I ask here, because maybe there is no reason to debate about it. I feel, for you, being a reasonable man follows acting in a way that is ok with objectivism, which leaves not room for argument. So i use other words: A man who uses what he knows about his environment and his ability to make choices in the best way, that he can at this point for this particular choice, who thinks that other people will donate enough or that if they don't his own contribution will not change it anyways, might not pay, since a new car will increase his personal happiness more than a payment to the government. Also i dont see the irrefutable connection between these two sentences: Maybe the word ethical needs to go or you exactly describe it in a way that follows the next sentence, then i would question why reason follows ethics first and not firstly happiness and survival. In other words, i think a reasonable person _would_ adopt a system that allow _his_ survival and happiness. That does not follow where the understanding that he can't expect more or less from others than he is prepared to do himself. IE a disabled person that is very well able to reason, but not able to work, would not adopt a system that is based on voluntary donations for his survival, since he can't pay for the costs to keep him alive. This person might concludee that other people will see no reason to donate money for a stranger (him) and therefore would not adapt it. His survival will be based on whether or not donating to disabled persons like him will make people happy or not.
  25. That's OK. I was in the library today and got another book about quantum mechanics. This one is _way_ better as it discusses philosophic implications, but it is even more disturbing than when i first read about this theory. I think i can give much better responses ones I read it. Still, your statement about 100% accuracy is highly debatable in modern physics and so are many other things that seemed to be the foundation of our understanding of reality. einsteins "gott würfel nicht" means "god doesn't throw dice". So I meant the rejection of the implications of quantom theory on determinism based on feelings and not facts.
×
×
  • Create New...