whYNOT

"His volition is limited to his cognitive processes;" The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made All for nothing, was this theory put forth here: "Our hypothesis is that the ultimate adaptive function of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. All conscious processes exist to subserve that ultimate function". Pierson/Trout Nice try, merjet. But falling back on property of, attribute or "volitional faculty" -most often used by Rand - is not going to rescue that erroneous argument. You found it's you who have been contradicting Rand. Thanks for the link.

Consciousness: "the faculty of perceiving that which exists". "Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action—the content of awareness, and the action of consciousness in regard to that content". CoC, ItOE "The faculty of volition operates in regard to the two fundamental aspects of man’s life: consciousness and existence, i.e., his psychological action and his existential action, i.e., the formation of his own character and the course of action he pursues in the physical world". tRM --- That "action" always repeats In Rand's writing. Action preceded by an exercise of will. That *faculty* of volition is responsible for a mind's existential action AND content. A volitional consciousness requires volitional actions, and ALSO will choose and act upon the character virtues, which themselves are volitional means to ends. Actions, descending by way of "the course of action", the abstraction for the millions of corresponding concrete acts - volitional and voluntary or self-automated by repetition - that comprise a physical life, in order to gain the material/spiritual rewards. "A volitional consciousness" - in this "psychological" respect, the self-formation of character - then can literally be said to be: the mind you want and chose. I.e., volitionally.

Man has the type of consciousness which calls on him to raise his levels of awareness (above perceptions). That consciousness is the given. What is not the 'given' is that he chooses to do so or not. That action is achieved by his free will. Therefore, volition is not automatic, not the metaphysical given. Free will would not be "free", otherwise. What merjet isn't following is that "man is a being of volitional consciousness" means that man has a consciousness which NECESSITATES man's volition. The action of, not the property of - that consciousness. I refer you to Rand's the metaphysical given v. the man made. And quite relevant also, to LP's Necessity and Contingency. Concerning men's actions and creations: "It happens to be, but it could have been otherwise".

Not only their premises, but their results. If anyone wanted to undercut the rationale behind Objectivist ethics, they have done a good job.

Their summary. Their words. Make all the rationalizations and nuanced meanings you care to, that's what they say. "All conscious processes ... to subserve - volitional movement".

I have often acknowledged the CNS, muscular control and the brain's neuro-plasticity. They are the physical/metaphysical given - I take them for granted. Comes a point, your misrepresentations amount to evasions.

I have covered (innate) instincts and their primary survival instinct; automatized sense-perceptions, integrated and retained; learned behavior; pain-pleasure responses; voluntary/involuntary responses to their surroundings. So yes, assuming all the above, non-human species are ¬attentive¬ and reactive to everything within range. They observably are and need to be to survive.

You think? Show me where my ideas, not original to me, differ from Rand's.

I was not thinking of "they'". But if you insist, their premises are wrong, anyhow. "What is consciousness for?" Plain and self-evident answer: "For" the subsistence and survival of the specific species. And MAN's consciousness is of the kind that ¬necessitates¬ mental volition. Man's consciousness evolved, volition did not. It's a necessary faculty to be individually carried out given the nature of his consciousness. (Primacy of existence, yes?). Free will is not a property of consciousness, it is the means to develop/access it. And 'they' say: "The answer to the title question is, in a word, volition. Our hypothesis is that the ultimate adaptive function of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. All conscious processes exist to subserve that ultimate function". Reduced to simple language, - Consciousness is "for" volitional movement. All wrong and overly physicalist.

Predominant ideas will make for dominant consequences, socio-politically, and the ideological power lies with those social media which have the greatest market share. Visibly not by a little, but overwhelmingly. Considering that apart from sheer numbers, a de facto monopoly, they additionally reserve the right to suspend and ban whomever differs from their 'narrative', they have a lock on what is being said and opined, giving the impression that the majority of the country thinks a certain way. Which for now, is a strong leftist slant. Less heard and so safely ignored are their opposing voices. (The same would be said if positions were reversed, the media favoring a conservative superiority). In all, what is going on amounts to leftist propaganda. Like I reiterated, a business has to have the right to do what it pleases with its property or platform. A dominant company like Coke ¬could¬ restrict its sales from 'group' x (as was remarked). One might not like what they do but will and should defend their right to do so. Disapproving of the policy is a question of morality before rights. Coke would be irrational and so, immoral. It's against the self-interest of any business to behave prejudicially and collectively, non-capitalistically, for certain 'groups' and against another - and would earn them loss of sales/revenue by many other (rational) customers. Here is where the mixed economy and gvt interference enters, because in a healthy, capitalist economy that business would go under. The market force would rule and competition would be active. As it stands, a leftist government and the leftist (pseudo-capitalist) social media are largely of one mind. The immorality of BOTH has to be condemned, neither exists in a moral vacuum.

An ACT of will by an individual has not and obviously does not ... evolve over generations. The evolution of the brain-and- emergent consciousness did not include 'volition' (for man or animal) as the 'given'. If the volition to reason had so 'evolved' (i.e. to be *heritable*) it would have to be an inherent property of the brain-consciousness, that would mean an AUTOMATIC function. In which case animal and man would possess the characteristic of automatic reasoning and conceptualization. The way they do both ¬automatically¬ form perceptions from sensations, they would both form concepts from perceptions. Clearly not the case, however. Free will - and - an 'automatic' function - is a contradiction in terms. Only man has the higher consciousness which is effort-fully volitional, free willed and chosen. Only each individual can perform that act. The section which was the transition to Rand's rational egoism, evidently had a purpose and a target: this is what provides full justification for her ethics. This is THE fundamental of rational selfishness that has been much overlooked here. Man is a being of volitional consciousness - means that each 'man' has the choice or not to employ his own. NOT that it is automatic, involuntary or instinctive - volition is not the metaphysical given. The prerequisite of a rational egoist is that he is one who is volitionally "rational".

They make a simple mass product; for which they are handsomely recompensed by advertisers. The contract is implicit: One is allowed to partake in this media platform - IF- one sees the ads (which they know one can't help seeing), and then many of you will buy products from. Iow, each user is a potential or actual buying customer. Fine and good, but I would not worry about their profitability or providing something for nothing. For them to additionally be in the business of promoting an ideology and politics and restricting other ones, while in the process of providing a 'free' service for millions and making huge profits, and sometimes claiming to be altruistically serving the common good, means they can rightly be criticized for hypocrisy and an ideological bias. Profit - or ideological power? Can't have your cake and eat it. The implicit contract then further reads, "one is allowed to partake in our platform IF one submits to the ideas put forth without dissent. Else, you're canceled".

The article is far more extensive than, and hardly touches practical business advice. Among other true observations she makes a good moral case, too. imo, the ¬right¬ to do something on one's property or platform does not ensure that it is morally right to do that thing. Rights do not provide one a moral code, they only limit what one's actions to and with others would be. As long as one only looks to government's interference in the market, losing sight of businessmen who take advantage of government regulation, the further will societal controls be consolidated. This cuts two ways. Where some or most media owners espouse the same politics and ideology as the party in power, they will be tacitly or overtly supported by gvt.. And likewise. They then, in banning users and content, will be practicing actual censorship *on behalf of* the government. As its unofficial organs (or even lackeys). It is not enough for freedom defenders to keep affirming - rightly - that 'You can do what you want on your property'; and: the only "censorship" is by Gvt (also rightly); or, these big media corporations only want to make a profit (true but not entirely) and should be praised. Etc. Therefore, all the problem lies in government control. Etc. Standard property rights fare, which will not change anything in favor of full liberty and render freedom defenders ineffectual, and worse, silent, on this matter. But the pragmatism, or amorality or immorality of so-called 'capitalist businessmen' (cronies of state, one might say) are as much responsible for restricting Capitalist freedoms (here, of speech, thereby controlling minds) and should be called to task, morally.

For which minor error and uncharitable interpretation you could have simply apologized. It's a measure of the lack of good will and candor in this discussion that you would presume I am not looking for a charitable 'read' nor want a rational debate. Both assumptions are unjust. Seems you haven't heard it takes two to tango, or three. Look to merjet's and your confrontational behavior here, too. The effects of some of these arguments about physical volition are *only* compromising to man's volitional consciousness, the mainstay of reason and Objectivism - and therefore it is not a non-sequitur for me to assert that universal determinism/skepticism is the biggest problem faced today. Those are only what matters to me, not anyone's opinion of me. Simple: don't read me. Someone else may gain some value.

Priceless. merjet is covering up his severance of volitional MENTAL actions. I've constantly stressed both: mental actions and their active consequences. Unsurprising, that the volitional theory by P and T, the "muscle-volitionists", exhibits concrete-boundedness.