Jacob86

That's right. Choices must also be caused by something (unless you would like to argue that they are eternally existent or something like that). However, they must not be caused entirely by physical phenomena--otherwise they are automatic reactions and not "choices". However, they ARE caused by desires. Every choice is based on your highest desire in respect to that decision at that point in time. It's true that the way things acts comes from their identity- but it also comes from the influence of other things and the identity of those things which influenced it. If the identity of Man is such that everything in him is made up of physical phenomena, then he can only act as determined by that physical phenomena interacting with other physical phenomena.

Agreed. But it does need to be free from physical causality in the respects in which it is self-determining. Isn't that what "self-determining" means? That the action is determined by the conscious self rather than caused by physical reactions? We call those actions in our bodies which are entirely caused by physical reactions "involuntary"- but if our thoughts are also entirely caused by physical reactions, then why are they not also considered "involuntary"? *By "thoughts" here, I am specifically referring to conceptual reasoning (not perception). I am not saying that our conceptual & volitional faculties must be totally free from physical cause and effect (I admit that these are instrumental causes in some respects), but I am saying that these faculties must be free in some respect and to some extent. And, in that respect and to that extent, our nature is non-physical.

Either you misunderstand my original post and the point of my argument, or you misunderstand the application of the axiom of existence. Either way, you come across as rather arrogant. "everything that exists actually exists"- agreed. How did I challenge this? I am challenging the idea that ONLY THE PHYSICAL WORLD EXISTS... i.e. I am proposing that more than the physical world EXISTS. There is a category called "existence" which encompasses all things which exist. You (and atheists in general) hold that this category only contains physical existents. I am contending that this category includes non-physical existents and that Man's nature must have non-physical aspects to it. This does not violate the axiom of existence in any way, shape, or form. The fact that so many Objectivists are able to willy nilly accuse others of violating this axiom just because they happen to disagree is a rather annoying and extremely inconsistent misapplication of the axiom.

I never talked about a "mathematical infinite series" - unless I implied it without realizing it??? My argument is this: An infinite regress denotes a series stretching into the past forever with no beginning. But if a series does not begin, then it does not exist. To suppose that an infinite series into the past (regress) exists, is to suppose that a non-existent series exists. It's a contradiction. Likewise, an infinite amount in the present is also impossible since the present denotes a definite period in time and "infinite" denotes an amount which cannot be contained in a definite moment in time. The only infinity in time which is possible is the potential infinity which stretches forever into the future but which cannot at any definite point in time be said to be infinite. It is explained a little better in the "Infinite Quantity" Thread- my post is the last one on there... no one has yet replied to it.

Yes- I apologize for the delay, and I appreciate you bringing this issue up. I will ask you to recall what the essential problem is with the "Primacy of Consciousness" position- its problem is that it asserts a consciousness apart from existence, a consciousness which is not conscious of anything but its own consciousness... and this is a contradiction because consciousness by definition means conscious of something which exists. That is why the primacy of consciousness is flawed. My proposal of an existent which is also conscious does not commit this flaw in any way more than man being conscious is a flaw. The only reason it seems to be bothersome is because the existent I am proposing is the "primary existent" which is conscious. But, notice, this does not say that it is a consciousness which is conscious of nothing but its own consciousness. It is an existent, which is conscious of its own existence-- which is no more flawed than the idea that I am conscious of my own existence.

Yes it was. If this is an attempt to explain "why existence exists" (which is a "no-no" philosophically), then ALL science and all thinking and all questions which ask "why is this particular existent acting this way?" are also attempts to explain "why existence exists" and are therefore also "no-no's" philosophically. My argument does not ask "why does existence exist?" It asks "why is there non-volitional action in the universe since non-volitional existents cannot by nature act apart from prior action?" Big Difference. The only reason you THINK it is an assault against "existence exists" is probably because you have equated the physical universe with "existence" in that axiom. Ok...but why? I just said that when I say "infinite", I mean "boundless" (and vice versa). Is there some other connotation which you wish to signify with this term? And how does this change the argument at all? Except for the fact that I've already proven that an infinite/"boundless" regress is impossible and therefore it HAS been proven that there is a beginning. Haha. How? Go back up and re-read my argument which you quoted above. It's air-tight. You have tried to find cracks by suggesting theoretical possibilities for non-volitional actions to be the starting point of action, but at each turn, I have demonstrated that each of your theoretical candidates require prior action and therefore cannot be the starting point. The reason for this is in the original argument: Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally. All reactions require prior action. No matter how many REactions you propose as the starting point, it will not work since they by definition require prior action. It is very simple. The only reason it has gotten so complex is because you keep trying to come up with some other answer. If this particle acts and its action is not a reaction to any other action in any way, then it must be volitional. If it is not volitional, and we do not know what it was reacting to, that does not change the fact that we know it reacted to something-- that's where Science comes in to discover what it reacted to and why. I am asking you to examine your premises- by speculating about various theoretical reactions which do not require prior action, you are implicitly holding out hope that Science will find something which acts against its nature- some non-volitional thing which is able to act apart from prior action. Think philosophically about it. It will never be done.

More or less, this was my original argument. I've sort of emphasized more of a "Prime Mover" argument toward the last part of this thread since the former argument began a lot of confusion. A) I THINK you mean "analytic" instead of "synthetic"..?? B ) Why can it not be used to prove anything about the real world? Is it true? True about the real world? Then why on earth can it not be used in a proof about the real world? No. Almost everything in the universe is both cause and effect (in different respects). This is why we moved the conversation to motion. Cause and effect refer to motion/interaction between entities. If anything exists in a state which is not an effect (not a result of prior causation), then that thing is eternal. I am arguing that such a thing must exist and that it must be volitional in order to have caused anything else.

Greebo brought it up as a possibly first cause for reactionary action as opposed to volitional action being the first cause to reactionary action.

Woa. haha. Wait a minute. This is exactly the premise that I am challenging. You reason that I am wrong because I deny that free will can exist in a purely physical world...but I am challenging the idea that our world is ONLY physical. You're begging the question. Haha. It gets tiresome hearing this "amazing Objectivist development on the issue of causation!". There have been plenty of good philosophers in the past who realized that things act according to their natures and that this should be factored into causation. Perhaps no one was ever explicit enough about it, so Rand get's props for emphasizing it. I totally agree. But this doesn't magically solve all the issue pertaining to causation. Yes, a thing only acts in accordance with its nature. However, the nature of physical (non-volitional) things requires causal influence in order for it to act. Yes the ball moves the way it does when I hit it because of its nature- but don't forget that it ALSO moves the way it does because of the nature of the stick which hit it and the nature of the hit (angle, speed, etc..) and the nature of the field on which it moves. The issue here is this; if Man's nature is entirely made up of physical molecules- all of which act deterministically according to their natures and the natures of all those molecules which influence them- then how can man be said to have the ability to think or act "freely" apart from the irresistible deterministic influence of physical phenomena? Yes, but this just restates the obvious: "A volitional being's nature allows him to choose". Yes, that is what volitional means. The question here is, since Man has a nature which allows him to choose, can Man's nature be entirely physical?

I do not deny that this "would not alter the fact that consciousness is an axiom. However, because consciousness is an axiom, and because I am convinced that consciousness being an entirely physical phenomena is contradictory, I am arguing that biologists will never give us a full scientific analysis of the conditions of consciousness. And this is why we are agreed that consciousness is axiomatic. Yes- in fact, I am actually more concerned about consciousness (or objective consciousness...right reasoning) than volition, ultimately. However, I realize that they are very closely tied together.

But this is the "fact" which I am challenging. Agreed. A) Isn't the influence of mind altering drugs an "internal influence"? I know that it originates outside the body, but so does water which makes up a large part of our internal stuff.. B ) Aren't all of our internal physical "parts" entirely influenced by external physical phenomena? If Man is only physical, then all of his physical parts are inevitably and irresistibly determined by the effects of other physical phenomena just as much as the earth was determined to be the way that it is as a result of the previous physical phenomena. If not, how is it that some of our "internal physical parts" are free from the causal influence of other physical phenomena? I don't think that is possible. C) As clarification, I do not expect or hold that Man be 100% free from "internal" OR "external" influence. I agree that all of Man's consciousness and volition are influenced to some degree or other by internal and external physical phenomena. However, I am arguing that Man's consciousness and volition must be ultimately free from these influences in a deterministic way-- that Man's consciousness and volition must be able to take in the influences, but then must be able to "rise above"/"objectify" in order to make the ultimate choice in any given situation.

Haha. I'm sorry for causing you to waste your 2000th post! And I'm not being sarcastic- you really should have made it an epic treatise. I suppose you always have 3000 to look forward to....? Perhaps you have a different idea of the meaning of "free will" than others. When I say it, I do not mean "freedom from reality" or even "freedom from the influence of outside causes/physical phenomena" or even "total freedom from any causation whatsoever". I mean "free from the total and incontrovertible influence of physical phenomena". So, I am not denying that Man's choices are caused (I hold that they are caused by desires), and I am not saying that Man's choices are not influenced in any way by physical phenomena whether inside or outside of his body (clearly many physical phenomena affect our desires which in turn can affect our choices). However, I am saying that Man must be capable of overcoming the TOTAL influence of physical phenomena in order for his choices and reasoning to be considered significant. If the thoughts in my head are caused entirely by molecules bumping into molecules, then there is no reason to believe that any thoughts in my head correspond to reality-- including that thought! I am not saying that molecules bumping into molecules have NO influence upon my thoughts (i.e. I achknowledge that the chemical functioning of the brain is a good and necessary part of my ability to think), I am saying that my thoughts (MIND) must be MORE than that.... not less, but more. Otherwise I cannot consider the activity in brain to correspond to reality any more than I can consider other bodily functions to correspond to reality.

This issue has been brought up briefly in two other threads, but I think it is better to make a separate thread for it since it deals with issues that may be confusing to new objectivists/ new philosophers-- and I don't want to cause anyone to stumble. I know that Objectivism upholds volition and I know that the reason why Objectivism uphold volition is because it is axiomatic. This thread is NOT meant as an attack against volition or an argument for fatalism/ determinism. SO, in order to stay on topic, please do not supply proofs for volition or against determinism. We are agreed on that point. I also know that Objectivism holds that "Man's nature is such that he has volition". But this begs the question of "Then is Man's nature entirely physical?" This is the issue: If Man's nature is such that he has volition (all are agreed here), then is it possible that Man's nature (specifically his mind) is ENTIRELY physical? How can Man have volition if he is ENTIRELY a physical being with no freedom from the total influence of physical cause and effect phenomena? I hold that this implies that Man's nature must be such that he is not an entirely physical being- that he has a non-physical soul which is free from the deterministic influence of physical cause and effect. This does not mean that the soul and the body are dichotomous or set against each other- in fact they couldn't be. The soul must be "above and beyond the body" (in the sense of being effected by the physical) but must be compatible with the body so that they complement each other. I would like to hear the thoughts of Objectivists on this issue- How can the doctrine that "man is only physical/ has no soul" be compatible with the doctrine that "man has volition"? Since the latter is axiomatic and since they are incompatible (unless you can demonstrate otherwise), it seems the former doctrine must be discarded.

Yes. Objectivism is absolutely right to say that volition is axiomatic (for the reason I said above). However (keep in mind I do NOT represent Objectivism) I don't think Objectivism has an answer as to how volition can be integrated without contradiction into the rest of the worldview. But that is a separate topic from the one above-- in fact, I think I will begin a new thread on specifically that topic, so if you wish to see that debate, you can go there..

I'm aware of this. I was using "proximity" very loosely to refer to ANY distance between two objects. If we are suggesting that this gravitational force was the beginning cause to action, it will not work since the objects in question would need to be eternal (along with gravity, itself) which would mean that the objects never would have had any distance between them in order for gravity to act upon them to begin with. All instances of gravitational motion must be reactions to prior motion (whether gravitational or otherwise).

HOWEVER, the issue of "supernaturalism"/"the mind being free from physical cause and effect" is more properly a topic of discussion in the argument for the existence of God thread (or perhaps a separate thread)...so I apologize for bringing up that specific issue here. I invite Grames and anyone else who wants to continue that conversation to do so either in the "God" thread or in a new one.

I specifically meant their theological work- if in their theology, they functionally treat God as a fairytale, then nothing they say about God should be taken seriously. This doesn't apply to their studies elsewhere (to the extent that they have any). I'm sure I could if I thought long enough about it, but that is irrelevant. The fact that science necessarily rests on philosophical assumptions and the fact that science can only be conducted in a moral (i.e. non-cannibalistic/ chaotic) society are justification enough to suggest that scientists ought to care about philosophy.

Once again you twist the meaning of my argument. I am not searching for an explanation to "why existence exists"...and then concluding that God is that explanation. My argument has NOT been that sort of speculation and I would appreciate it if you paid enough respect not to treat it that way. What is this distinction you are making between "boundless" and "infinite"? I might need you to explain more before I can accurately respond to that. When I say "infinite", I mean "non-finite".."without limit"..."without beginning (specifically in this case)"..."without boundaries"..."boundless" The point here is a "beginning". Do you propose that there is a beginning to action or no? If "no", please explain how this is not a fallacious infinite regress. Yes, I understand that gravity is non-volitional reaction of one object to another...but it does not occur without prior action- it cannot. The effects of gravity occur when two objects have a proximity to each other, but this begs the question. If these two objects did not come into proximity be means of prior action, then they were eternally proximate to each other. But if they were eternally proximate to each other and if the effects of gravity are also eternal, then these two objects never would have been apart from each other in order for gravity to act upon them. "If these two particles of sub-atomic dust materialized spontaneously from coalescing energy"- stop. Is this "materializing" and "coalescing" not action? Was this action caused by prior action or no? You keep missing the point and just taking the problem one step back or one step down on the microscopic ladder. This presents the same problem with proximity as gravity did above. This also brings up another issue, though; isn't magnetism caused by the action/motion of particles within the magnetized element?? I have tried to emphasize to you that no matter what science shows us, it will not show us something acting against its nature (i.e. acting apart from prior action unless the thing in question is volitional). We don't need to get into all the scientific details. They are irrelevant to this discussion in the same way that the details of micro-economic activity are irrelevant to the discussion of Capitalism vs Socialism.

Any attempt to treat reality as split or dichotomous can only result in negative consequences. The "theologians" who are content to believe that which is set against Science are conceding that what they believe are fairytales and that is how there work should be treated. The scientists who are content to leave morality/ethics/etc.. to "matters of faith" are conceding that they believe that morality/ethics is non-real, non-important, and non-objective... and they will cause trouble (like Dr. Stadler in Atlas Shrugged) The key (as always) is Philosophy...or a commitment to knowing objective reality and having an entire, coherent, and comprehensive worldview. Any of those "theologians" that are rationally convinced that God exists would do well to study philosophy and to understand that IF God exists, then He is not afraid of Science. Likewise, the Scientists who don't care about morality would do well to study philosophy and understand that without a proper moral code, they and their studies would be covered in blood. Additionally, I think far too many scientist ignore philosophy at the peril of their own studies-- they don't have a proper philosophical (i.e. logical) foundation and so they waste a lot of time and energy in search of proof for irrational theories.

A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism. I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical. Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do. C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??

I don't think you are understanding what is meant by "volition is axiomatic"... it might be partially because some of the folks on here don't entirely understand it. The reason volition is axiomatic is because you must assume it in order to deny it since you must assume it in order to think or say ANYTHING objectively. If the thought in your head that "we don't have volition" was deterministically caused by molecules bumping into molecules, then that thought cannot be said to correspond to reality (i.e. to be "correct") anymore than a belch corresponds to reality. Get it? The only way for any idea/proposition/concept/etc.... to have any objectivity (correspondence to reality) is if the mind is capable of being free from the deterministic cause and effect of the physical world. If we don't have volition, we would never know that we don't have volition (since we would never know anything!). If you don't have volition, then the string of letters put together on your post are just a meaningless combination of words which are the inevitable results of chemical reactions in your brain. If we don't have volition, then all of our thoughts (including the thought that we don't have volition) are meaningless stimuli which are the inevitable results of chemical reactions in our brains. Therefore, if you want to claim that "we don't have volition" is objectively true, then you must assume that we do have volition in order to know this objective truth (thus contradicting yourself). If you want to concede that the thought in your head which says "we don't have volition" is just a subjective chemical reaction (in order to be consistent and avoid contradiction), then please keep it to yourself and don't act as if it has any objectivity.

I don't see the mystery. Ideas (non-physical) correspond to physical reality. I think we all would agree on this. Again, I don't see the problem/"contradiction". For the mind to be free from the deterministic effects of physical causation does not mean that the mind is "aloof" or incapable of interacting with the physical (body). It just means that while the mind is influenced by physical causes (stimuli, etc..) it is not entirely chained to such physical causes, but rather is free to act apart from those causes. What you describe with the eye (and footprint analogy) are good descriptions of percepts corresponding to reality, but we are talking about concepts. It's very simple: Concepts must correspond to reality or else no knowledge is possible. If concepts are entirely caused by physical phenomena, then they cannot correspond to reality any more than any other deterministically caused body function. Therefore concepts are not entirely caused by physical phenomena and therefore the faculty which produces concepts (the mind) is not entirely physical.

It's not about the cleanliness or morality- it's about the correspondence to reality. The results of chemical reactions (like burps) do not correspond to reality in any way. If the functioning of the mind is ONLY the result of chemical reactions, then there would be no reason to consider the functioning of the mind to correspond to reality-- anymore than a burp corresponds to reality.

Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Putting words in my mouth.... It gets tiresome responding to these types of silly retorts. Do you have a refutation of my point or not? I neither said nor implied that matter should not be a means to consciousness. Nor did I say or imply that matter is "dirty" or that the brain is disabled because of its material nature. Matter is a means to consciousness- but volitional consciousness requires MORE than matter. That is my point. It has nothing to do with matter being dirty and it has nothing to do with matter as a means. If the mind is ONLY matter, then it can only act according to its material nature (deterministically). It is VERY simple.

By the way, it seems like most everyone on here is focusing on the wrong aspect of "Determinism"-- namely a symptom of it. It seems like most everyone is saying that "if something can be predicted then it is deterministic", but I think this misses the point. Predictability is a symptom of deterministic activity (if a certain type of activity is deterministic, then it will be possible- given the right tools/data/etc...- to predict it). However, the inability to predict something does not make it non-deterministic... it just means that we do not possess the proper tools/data/etc.. An action is deterministic if it is impossible for it to have been otherwise given the various causal factors. Action is non-deterministic if the action is free (to some degree) from the influence of other causal factors, i.e. if the action is volitional. All non-volitional action is deterministic (whether we are currently able to predict it or not). All volitional action is non-deterministic (even if someone who knows the volitional actor well is able to predict the action). The point is that predictability alone is not a sufficient indicator of deterministic activity.