CJM

This was a response to an argument that was being put forth, it is not my views. Of course it itself is not, it is our perception of it that is. When I say subjective, I mean it is someones perspective, in contrast to things as they exist. I think I said this in a sentence where I was just putting forth the view that they were not magically, mystically incapable of error and were just a part of our physical being, as physiologically imperfect as anything else.

I'm glad of that rationalbiker, as you have contributed nothing of value to this discussion whatsoever. "You are a determinist, your views can nots change!"..........right....applying the implication of my argument to my argument. You aren't understanding what I mean by totality I see. If we take the example of a table, perceiving it in totality means knowing everything about it. We do not need to know everything about a table to know about, let us say the leg of a table. However to know the leg of the table objectively, that is to know it as it is in Objective reality, we need to know everything about it. You feel this does not imply that we can not know things about the leg of the table objectively, but this is to miss the point entirely. To know that a part is soft objectively, let us say a piece of the wood on the leg, we must know everything about that piece of wood. Parts of that part may be hard, parts may be soft, we must know the sum of the parts to know the piece objectively. This line of reasoning continues to the level at which we cannot perceive where our sensory systems can give us no knowledge. Do you understand? I do not mean totality in some grand sense. I just mean it as what a thing is, in it's absolute form in objective reality. A lampost exists in objective reality. It's totally is what it is composed of. As for as I can see, there is no contradiction in equating this totality to identity as it is used by Ayn Rand, however that may be incorrect.

Totality is just things as they are. Things exist as something, and totality is just what they are. You could say identity, but totality is important for this line of argumentation. I just mean it in contrast to perceiving certain aspects. You may think a table is hard. You cannot be sure parts of it are not soft. You cannot perceive the totality of this object. You cannot even be 100% sure that parts of it are, since you cannot perceive the totality of the parts. This continues to the level to which we cannot perceive. My definition of Objective isn't arbitrary, how do you figure it is. When I use objective, I mean it in relation to Objective reality. We all know what is meant by Objective reality right? I dot seek to reject objective reality, just knowledge of it.

This may be true, but it does not change the thing that Objectivism holds to be true that I have a problem with, which is that sense perception is objective. If there is an objective reality, it must exist in totality, whatever that totality consists of this. How could it not? Not knowledge, but objective knowledge. If you are to know a thing objectively, you must know it as it exists in Objective reality. Things in objective reality exist as they are, in totality. If we do not know the totality, we do not know the thing objectively. Claiming reality is objective is imposing a concept on reality. Mine is derived from reality the same as yours.

It's not about not being able to know everything, it is about not being able to know everything about anything. If I cannot perceive the totality of something, I am not perceiving that thing as it is in objective reality. You will probably reply with "No, but you can see aspects as they are in objective reality." This is untrue, the same problem of absolute detail arises in relation to any physical objects we perceive down to the smallest part we are capable of perceiving. ZSorenson, I do not hold any faith in mystical beings or souls. But if this is true, Objectivism cannot be correct, since it is held in Objectivism that sense perception is not subjective, but objective.

Some subjective stances would have to reasonably be more in line with objective reality than others, and thus be more valid. The only way to distinguish them is to see which ones correspond more with our interpretation of Objective reality. I don't think they are valid, I think that is what Rand holds. By objective perception I just mean a perception that is wholly and perfectly representative of objective reality. This is what is required for objective knowledge. Anything less is subjective.

Maybe in future you should try not to start it, Mr. Moderator? I am not ignoring anything about the stolen concept fallacy. For my arguments to rely on stolen concepts, I would need to claim they rest on Objective knowledge. I do not. Whether you like the fact I do not is not relevant to the fact that I do not. The fallacy still does not apply. Do you understand? The stolen concept fallacy also completely ignores the problems I borught up(I like the fact that you calim I am ignroing your arguments while you do the exact same thing) about the reliability of the senses. If my position was a fallacy it still wouldn;t change the problems in your own arguments about gaining objective knowledge, that of physiological imperfection and the impossibility of perceiving absolute detail. I have also never been to a place where such a large misunderstanding of both the concepts of free will and determinism have abounded, but still rather than deal with the probelm of Volition as causation, a lot of you choose to attempt to provide arguments against beliefs you do not even know if I hold or not.

They are invalid at attaining objective knowledge, as I have stated numerous times. I am not the one who is confused here. Lol, why do the arguments collapse? Why must my assertion be objective? Do you people not get the idea that the stolen concept only applies if I am caliming my statement to be objective? Stop parroting for a moment and come up with something else, because that argument does nto apply.

I have not said you cannot use your senses to perceive reality. This perception merely isn't objective. It is subjective. When you said the picture was blurry, I thought you meant that the picture WAS blurry(which obviously makes no sense as an argument lol), not that it appeared blurry. Sorry for the confusion. What we perceive is objective reality can have a few different meanings. What I take it as, is that our perceptions are valid representations of reality. It could also mean that what we are perceiving is itself objective reality, which seems a redundant statement. One which also tells us nothing about our perceptions. What you seem to be claiming is more that sensation is valid, rather than perception.

This argument has already been dealt with. The stolen concept is a non-issue. Stating that sensory perception is not perfect and objective does not meant that we cannot have reasonable approximations or reality. Subjective ones. Not having true knowledge of objective reality does not mean that all other knowledge must be completely false. By false here, I mean opposed to reality diametrically, nothing more. Something being necessitated does not mean it is not accepted, it just means that it could not not have been accepted. Acceptance is willfully(please don't jump on this word and try to take it out of context, look at the sentence guys) receiving, you can do this without the possibility of alternatives. Determinism does not imply that there are no beliefs, just that the ones we hold are the only possible ones for us to hold. We could accept no others. Also, I do feel the need to point out that almost all the discussion in this thread has had nothing to do with the original problem, which is that of Volition as a form of causality, which doesn't appear to make sense. If will is free, it must be uncaused, otherwise it is clearly not free, but subject to causation.

Debate is healthy. Just because the answers that have been given so far are not satisfactory to me does not mean I am not still looking. Machines observing absolutely was brought up by another poster. I probably should not have referred to it as knowledge, but data. Your analogy makes no sense. If a picture is blurry, it is blurry. Seeing it as blurry is not inaccurate. The things in the picture are not existing independantly of the picture in some objective universe you are attempting to gain knowledge of.

This is hilarious. I don't believe in absolute or objective knowledge being held by machines or living organisms. Thus how can I give you examples? Absolutes exist in objective reality(This is an objectivist view aswell). I just maintain that I am incapable of knowing them. If theri is no objective knowledge ALL positions are based on some degree of faith. Especially yours I said nothing about faith, that was you. Axioms are untestable and unfalsifiable. By your definition, not mine, they require faith.

Not really. My concern about objective knowledge has to do with the senses, nothing more. I hold no such thing implicitly. If we were talking about a mans live being his highest value because it was his standard of value thats what I meant. You said The arguments I have been given have mostly been that mans life should be his highest value since it is his standard of value. I see no reason this must be so. I would respond by saying I see no reason why merely collecting data from objective reality denotes infallibility. A huge relationship does not entail a moving towards, as was claimed. I just meant sacrificed in terms of killing yourself, not in the Randian way. No, Just because there is a standard does not mean it is objective. It is less an explanation than a claim. I said: Is it possible for you to choose your values? CJM said: It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice. I said: I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice? CJM said: I would define it in much the same way. [... and... ] Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others. If I had chosen otheres(which I could not) what makes you think they would not still be mine? No, your perception could be completely contradictory to another persons knowledge.

Brian, as I already said, I am not changing my writing style or vocabulary to suit my metaphysical views. The future is unknowable to me. When I say I can do this or I can do that, only one may really be possibly open to me. I do not know which, therefore I have no problem using the word can in relation to either. Even so, different possible futures where two "cans" may be possible don't necessarily imply free will any more than indeterminacy and chance. These words imply nothing of free will. Yes, but it doesn't show that free will exists. It is just self-awareness in the way he used it. Infinite may be, absolute is not. It is necessary for objective knowledge. If you cannot perceive anything in totality, then what do you truly objectively know about said anything? I did not say it, other people did. Choice is not just integrating evidence and knowledge and applying value judgments, the concept of "choice" when used in the context of free will is much more. To the vast majority of people choice does not merely mean that one makes a judgement, but that other judgements could have been possible for that same entity. Oh I am sorry, and your axioms are not? This is about whether we can gain objective knowledge through the senses, nothing more. No-one is saying you can perceive what is not there, merely that you can perceive what is there in inaccurate ways. If you cannot perceive anything(and I mean anything) in it's totality, then what objective knowledge have you really got? You can bring this argument to it's logical conclusion and say since we cannot perceive the whole of anything, we cannot know anything in it's true, objective state. Colour blindness is a pretty good example, though I am not sure it will suffice.

We are also stuck with the problem of dying for a cause or person, which Rand states is not against the principles of Objectivism. Since things are only valued in relation to our own life, for example the life of a loved one, you have no more reason to die to save their lives than you do to let them die if the consequence is as bad as death to you. If the consequences of their death on you would be worse than death, you have no more reason to die for them than you do to commit suicide. I fact, rational self interest would just lead us to take the least harmful path. Structuring values the way Rand suggest we do leaves us in a pretty sticky situation in relation to things like this. But if your will is causally determined, it is not truly free. If it is not subject to causation, then what the hell is it? An unmoved mover? This makes no sense. Well this is just consciousness. I don't see what that has to do with free will to be honest.

If no knowledge is objective, there can be no objectively suppported arguments. Only approximations. This isn't complicated, but if you get confused again let me know, all right? You should go back and check the original context in which my statement was made then. Please stop saying incredibly ridiculous things like "You does be a determinist, you cannot change what you think and are stuck like that!!1"(watch out BobG, I'm not being 100% serious and attempting to create a strawman here.) and then refusing to acknowledge it was a ridiculous thing to say now. No, you ignored what was already said, then refused to put forward any real arguments on why there is a contradiction. Me not having perfect, objective knowledge does not mean every argument I come up with must be necessarily wrong. Not objectively true? Of course. A reasonably accurate approximation? No reason to think it is not. Great post. This is not free will though. If you choose to have certain views about how much we own our choices, thats great(I would in fact agree with most of what you said) but it isn't free willl. If our choices are deterministic, it is not free will. Our choices are a part of us, someone who chooses to do something still chose to do it, even if it was casually determined. Free will entails a lot more, namely that we(our identity) could have done otherwise. What RationalBiker said made no sense. My thought processes and reason being casually determined says nothing about how they will operate. There is no reason a determined person can't perceive reality as well as a non-determined one. Why can't they be a misrepresentation? Our senses perceive in objective reality, this is obciously true, but there seems to be a huge jump in stating that this means they MUST be accurate in the way they function. They aren't connected outside ourselves? We perceive with our sense organs which are apart of us physiologically, nothing about them is connected to the outside world apart from ourselves. Unless I am misunderstanding this statement? Absolute is merely a word that means in totality. People were using infinite in a different way, you may not have been. How are they not capable of making judgements without free will? Free will involves the belief that people can make other judgements. A casually determined entity can weigh up options and come to a conclusion, the fact that he could have come to no other conlcuison is irrelevant. I am not a clairvoyant, therefore it is fine for me to use the words "can" and "capable". And if those receptors do not work fine(as they do not in many people) where does your theory of sense perception go then? How can objective knowledge not be infallible? If it is knowledge of objective reality, it must be infallible, otherwise, well it just isn't knowledge of objective reality. Here is the gap again. Just because our senses are in objective reality and automoatic, why does this mean that they are not prone to innacuracy in there perception? This gap isn't being explained. But why is it irrational to hold something other than your own life as as your highest value. The arguments so far have been A. Your life is your standard of value. This is true, but does not also necessitate that your life should be your highest value. Another gap. B. That if your life isn't your highest value you move towards self destruction. This obviously just isn't true. Being willing to do something for a value you hold and moving towards it are two different things, and your own self preservation may be in the best interest of this value you hold in most instances.

I don't really get this analogy. Two people acting differently with the same information wouldn't have to mean they perceived it differently. My point here on detail is simply that perceptive organs are limited physically in their accuracy. I feel this applies to all aspects of accuracy. I see no reason why it wouldn't. I agree with your definition. I am not sure I understand your question. This doesn't have to imply free will. In fact I haven't heard this argument outside of the matrix. Things being in-determinant due to chance does not have anyhting to do with being free or will. And your definition requires a further defining of what free will entails. I only started using truth because the concept of Objective being used in different ways was too confusing for certain people.

Freestyle, I am not certain of anything. I would not claim to be. This is the problem. You are acting as if this is self evident. It is not. Being connected to reality does not necessitate that we gain true knowledge of that reality. Our sense organs being physical and present in reality does not mean they work perfectly in fulfilling their function. Why would it?

You said no such thing. You said. Of course, this is not an alternative, but a choice. I choose to ignore that. There cannot be a single alternative with no alternative to it. This is fucking grade school bullshit. If I can have an apple, this is not an alternative. If I can have an apple or a pear, this is not an alternative. It is a choice. In relation to the pear, the apple is the alternative. In relation to the apple, the pear is the alternative. In raltion to thinking or not thinking, both are alternative to each other. Two relative alternatives. Jesus, do I need to explain every simple sentence like this to you? I'll amke a note of it. I wasn't swinging wildily, these were your arguments, not Ayn Rands. They say nothing about my knowledge of Ayn Rands position. I did not say that. I said "It's hyperbole". I said what you qouted in answer to your claim that you did not do what you called me out on. Try to comprehend a bit better. I am not using words out of context. Absolute has a meaning outside of Kant. Did you not know this? So did objective before Rand. I can't help it if you can;t distinguish they way the words are being used based on their contexts. You can ask me, and I will tell you, other than that I can't do shit. No agreeing with someone isn't a lack of knowledge. Jesus.

Paticular to a given person. Sorry, should make it clear when I use a word with different definitions like that. Either/or in the context of this conversation. No, the whole point is not whether it is volitional or not, but whether it is accurate. Whtether it is true representative information of objective reality. This is what I have a problem with. How is it true information when we are not perceiving it, or even anything about it totally? Connected, but that does not necessarily imply truth. Our perceptions are what they are, they cannot deviate. The events that allow us to perceive what we do are the same. I don't see how you get from this that what we perceive is true. Because this impossible situation is what free will entails. Thats the entire idea of it. Its what free will is.

No, not because they are volitional, but because they are physical. Our senses are physical, they are subjective. They can gather no objective information of reality due to this. Now to use your sewing machine analogy, my analogy would be that we are assigned, not volitionally, physically, to reconstruct a sewing machine based on one that exists in objective reality. To the must absolute detail. Are we physically capable of doing this, excluding problems of choice etc.? Our physical systems are imperfect. Our senses, our physical actions, all of them. Do you really feel you have the ability to choose differently? If the moment when you wrote that reply was repeated over and over with no physical variables changing, could you have chosen not to? I'm surprised you say that TLD, I feel I have a good grasp of her ideas. Good enough that I could use Rands words against someone. To answer your question, I have read many of her essays from collections like The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: who needs it and some Peikoff. Disagreeing is not the same as not understanding. To the other members, are RationalBiker and BobG what are commonly referred to as Rand-Roids? It sure seems like it. Try actually addressing some arguments guys.

Dante, I will just tackle the Causality part of that since the perception issues addressed are not mine and the ethics part has been done to death. If people exercising choice is an example of causality, it is either caused by previous events, in which case it cannot be said to be truly free, or it is an unmoved mover, a causa sui and quite frankly an incredibly illogical concept. Thats nuts. Someone cannot be right by degrees, people must be either right or wrong, and people can and are 100% right a lot of the time? Wow. Oh, so if someone does not have free will, they must continue to believe what they do today? That is what you said. I am taking it you believe this to be a logical end? lol. My assertion of this objective reality is subjective. Non-sensical. Lack of free will does not entail that someone/something else does out thinking for us. The idea it does is completely ignorant of the whole debate. Why on earth would it?

Not perfect now equals wrong. Excellent reasoning. I see you also do not understand the concepts of free will or determinism. Eugh. Just to sort this out for you, free will has nothing to do with "thinking for ourselves" and not having free will has nothing to do with whether or nto your views can change.

Risking we are not talking about, dying we are. I fyou love someone so much you cannot go on living without them, if it would literally destroy your life in the same way as death, take all your values, you have no more reason to die for them than you do to let them die. The consequences are the same. You would be Buridans ass. I'm sorry, but would you like to re-tract that before I go quoting mad and show you that is wrong? My position has been misstated numerous times in this very thread. If there is only one alternative, there are still alternatives in relation to each other. Two differetnt choices. Tell me where I was wrong again? Of course not. If no alternatives are truly available to you but you don't know it, and you come to a conlcusion, you have still come to a conclusion. Thinking and coming to conclusions are in no way contradictory to a lcak of existence of free will. Your arguments are weak. You say I must have free will because I come to conclusions and think, that is ridiculous. One can think of the of consequences of impossible actions. You say sense perceptions can give us objective knowledge, despite the fact they can never give us absolute knowledge about even the simplest thing. This is ridiculous.

Yes I would. Unless you are suggesting that postions that are difficult to hold are untenable? It is called hyperbole. You should try it. This is the essence of free will, the idea than man has a choice between alternatives, and that he is free to follow either. If you wish to use words outside of their regular meaning, you should be more careful and give greater advance warning. Thinking and coming to conclusions are not contradictory to a lack of belief in free will either. You are trying to pigeon hole me into beliefs I do not hold, which you also seem to not understand very well.