Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rand's argument against determinism

Rate this topic


ctrl y

Recommended Posts

nanite1018:

Great points. I would contend that "choice" implies that a person could have done something other than what they did, but regardless, you're right that we have to keep definitions straight to have a meaningful discussion. I agree with most of what you say here; however, I still worry that the paradox inherent in concluding determinism undermines all knowledge, including supposed knowledge of determinism.

Obviously. Please connect this to the question at hand.In contrast, a fire, rock or bacterium are infallible -- they do what they do automatically, and cannot fail to do what they do. This is also true of animals, because their consciousnesses are automatic. Being fallible implies being capable of making the wrong choice, which implies being capable of making choice. It is obvious -- self-evident -- that you are fallible, and therefore that you are capable of making choices. Being capable of making choices is just another way of saying that you have volition, or free will.

This does not follow at all. By "fallible" I mean "drew the wrong conclusion" about some facet of reality, which is primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank you for a relevant reply.

How is this the fallacy of composition? The argument is not that people behave the same way as atoms. The argument is that if everything in the mind is reducible to physical processes, and since we know all physical processes depend entirely on the initial conditions of a physical system, then the mind also must be such a physical system, so it must be determined by its initial conditions just like any physical system. If this is still fallacious, please explain how.

You obviously do not read very careful.

I made the exact same point, argued for it, showed how and why your argument amounts to nothing but is a fallacy of composition. But you just rejected what I said, without any argument or explanation, or even mentioning of this point.

Volition is self-evident via introspection. You can know that you possess volition, and that it is self-evident, just as you know that the grass is green, and that it is self-evident, by direct observation. This is all you need to know that volition is an axiom.

I also made this point in my post but you never commented it. You just ignored it.

An indication that volition is axiomatic is the fact that knowledge, truth and proof become stolen concepts if you deny it. I also made this point and, as usual, you ignored it.

You have been answered on every single point. Not only by me, but also by others. But you just keep ignoring what has been said and demand that we throw something else in your direction. But since you have been answered, I see no reason for this.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "fallible" I mean "drew the wrong conclusion" about some facet of reality, which is primary.
What does "draw the wrong conclusion" even mean? It refers to a choice as to the relationship between fact and a conceptual proposition about reality. A failure to choose a particular "correct" proposition as the one that describes reality is possible only if one can choose between propositions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim that we can only know if we have volition by going back in time or duplicating exact conditions is an appeal to non-reality, since time travel is impossible and we can never know the exact position and state of every sub-atomic particle within a given system. In other words, it would be like trying to assert that the only way we can know that the universe exists is to step outside of it and take a look. If your argument is relying on a metaphysical impossibility, then you have no argument.

As to the idea that we are all pre-determined by our thoughts and premises, this isn't true, because your choice to focus your mind and to consider your options is a primary choice; rationality does not happen automatically, like turning on a computer and running a program. You must choose to focus on the facts of reality in a rational, non-contradictory manner every step of the way.

Long, drawn out, deterministic based arguments fall flat in the face of the fundamental choice to focus one's mind or not to focus one's mind, which must be done by an act of will. In fact, in Objectivism, your choice to focus your mind on the facts and to consider them rationally is your free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim that we can only know if we have volition by going back in time or duplicating exact conditions is an appeal to non-reality, since time travel is impossible and we can never know the exact position and state of every sub-atomic particle within a given system. In other words, it would be like trying to assert that the only way we can know that the universe exists is to step outside of it and take a look. If your argument is relying on a metaphysical impossibility, then you have no argument.

As to the idea that we are all pre-determined by our thoughts and premises, this isn't true, because your choice to focus your mind and to consider your options is a primary choice; rationality does not happen automatically, like turning on a computer and running a program. You must choose to focus on the facts of reality in a rational, non-contradictory manner every step of the way.

Long, drawn out, deterministic based arguments fall flat in the face of the fundamental choice to focus one's mind or not to focus one's mind, which must be done by an act of will. In fact, in Objectivism, your choice to focus your mind on the facts and to consider them rationally is your free will.

You did not read carefully. My claim is that volition could only be self-evident as an axiom under those circumstances. It can still be demonstrable otherwise.

The rest of this is just re-asserting the same nontrivial claim. I'd still love for you actually to defend this position and not just assert it repeatedly.

Edited by Prospectivist_Objectivist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously do not read very careful.

I made the exact same point, argued for it, showed how and why your argument amounts to nothing but is a fallacy of composition. But you just rejected what I said, without any argument or explanation, or even mentioning of this point.

Volition is self-evident via introspection. You can know that you possess volition, and that it is self-evident, just as you know that the grass is green, and that it is self-evident, by direct observation. This is all you need to know that volition is an axiom.

I also made this point in my post but you never commented it. You just ignored it.

An indication that volition is axiomatic is the fact that knowledge, truth and proof become stolen concepts if you deny it. I also made this point and, as usual, you ignored it.

You have been answered on every single point. Not only by me, but also by others. But you just keep ignoring what has been said and demand that we throw something else in your direction. But since you have been answered, I see no reason for this.

Your argument was trivially incorrect for the same reason I discussed above. However, in your case, the weakness in your argument was so explicit (via misunderstanding the determinist argument) that I opted to let you figure it out for yourself. But now that another post motivated me to explicitly describe the problem, I'm not sure why you think re-asserting the same invalid argument makes it any more useful. Please be more productive.

Moreover, volition simply is not self-evident via introspection, since there is no indication that we could actually have done anything but what we chose to do. For a more explicit treatment of this point, see the longish post by nanite1018.

It is a hallmark of bad philosophy to assert some point as "obvious" even when it has been demonstrated to be nontrivial. Productive comments still appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does "draw the wrong conclusion" even mean? It refers to a choice as to the relationship between fact and a conceptual proposition about reality. A failure to choose a particular "correct" proposition as the one that describes reality is possible only if one can choose between propositions.

You've muddled the point by injecting the word "choice" where it doesn't belong. Accepting a false proposition constitutes fallibility. Choice is irrelevant in this respect, ergo fallibility does not imply free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a hallmark of bad philosophy to assert some point as "obvious" even when it has been demonstrated to be nontrivial. Productive comments still appreciated.

What is truly nontrivial and not self-evident is the determinist universe fantasy.

How is this the fallacy of composition? The argument is not that people behave the same way as atoms. The argument is that if everything in the mind is reducible to physical processes, and since we know all physical processes depend entirely on the initial conditions of a physical system, then the mind also must be such a physical system, so it must be determined by its initial conditions just like any physical system. If this is still fallacious, please explain how.

It is fallacious because the 'then' clause does not follow from the 'if' clause. See fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read Merrill's essay "On the Physical Meaning of Volition" linked by Grames. I found it most interesting that Merrill links volition to the self-referential nature of consciousness (as that is my preferred explanation for the origin of consciousness from the physical system of the brain).

Merrill's argument seems to be basically that the brain is a self-referential physical system and this property makes it impossible to create a single model of it in the terms of quantum mechanics. Now that does not seem contradictory to my position, honestly. To say that if I try to build a quantum mechanical description of the entire system I end up with several different possibilities with no way of selecting one, and so I can't make any prediction about what the system will do in a few moments, is not a problem for my definition of "determinism." It does not say that the mind is outside the laws of physics thanks to a soul or magic, but far more simply states that it is impossible to describe the brain as a whole with a single mathematical model of it in terms of quantum mechanics. It must, by its nature, abide by the rules of quantum mechanics, but the system is not reducible or describable by one and only one mathematical model. If that is what Merrill was saying (which I think it was, please correct me if I am incorrect Grames), then I have no problem with that model for "volition", and I honestly don't even think it is a problem for my understanding of "determinism" in my sense of the word. They are, it seems to me, compatible.

I had been working on how to make volition and my sense of determinism compatible, I had gotten somewhere around there. Thank you for linking that article, it was enlightening. Again, please correct me if my understanding of the main thrust of the article was incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prospectivist,

This bone of contention arose, I think, from, and in, your first post when your readers didn't notice, or let slide your statement: "......like modern science is getting better and better at explaining the mind in purely physical (well electrochemical) terms."

The mind? Surely you meant the brain?

This whole discussion is founded, [and has foundered] on this point, I believe.

What , in your opinion, is the difference between the two, and the relationship of the two?

Then perhaps this debate- between the concept of predeterminism, and self determinism - can get off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. is not reducible ...

That's the key right there. I think you have a good enough understanding that I would not argue with you any further, there is nothing more to be said until neuroscience comes up with more on how it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepting a false proposition constitutes fallibility.
I see: so is your position that man is fallible only in the sense that if presented with a proposition, whether he will accept it or not is preordained and just in case the proposition that he accepts is false, he has failed. In all other respects, man is infallible. Does that correctly state your position (and if not, why not)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir:

I will now prove to you that volition exists and that you possess it.

Wiggle your finger 2 times.

Wiggle your finger 3 times.

I suppose you will say that you were determined to do those things, I guess I am the God of the determinist Universe.

OK, so now wiggle your finger x times. Did you do it? How many times did you wiggle it? Could it have been otherwise? If not, what was the determining factor in this case? I suppose you will continue to say that some arrangement of subatomic particles in your brain, or mine, or out there in the Universe made you do it.

OK, so if both of these examples are demonstrations of determinism in action and I can determine how you act, then I ask you to wiggle your finger an infinite number of times (or at least until you die). Did you do it? Why not? I guess it could be otherwise, after all. Was there some force greater than me controlling your actions?

Lots more fun with volition to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc K. your post is one of the most worthless I've seen in discussions about determinism and volition. Just because you say "wiggle your finger 2 times" and I do it does not mean that you "made" me do it, that you were the determining factor. More importantly it certainly does not mean that you are then granted the power to make me wiggle my finger any number of times. Everything is contextual, and you are dropping context an astounding amount in your post. Your dismissive post doesn't further rational inquiry into the subject. I doubt anyone believes that people do not in some manner decide their actions, we obviously experience choice and decision-making. The main problem that many people have is how to reconcile our introspective information with science, physics to be exact. That is an important question, and the answer is not, despite what many say, obvious. Attempts to make determinism sound absurd by asking someone to make a choice are silly, since no determinist says that people do not come to conclusions in some manner, only that the conclusion had to be that way given the laws of physics (or was somehow random).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prospectivist_Objectivist made some arguments I brought up as well in older Topics about free will / volition. I didn't get

First of all: Volition and Free will is obviously _not_ self evident. Truly self-evident is existence. You can never honestly question that, but as a side note: Free will and volition is the single most discussed topic in this forum.. I wonder why that is, if it is that obvious.

As Prospectivist_Objectivist said, the core of free will is that one could have made a different choice in the same conditions, which is obviously impossible to prove (and even if that was the case one would have to prove that this wasn't random).

The claim that we can only know if we have volition by going back in time or duplicating exact conditions is an appeal to non-reality, since time travel is impossible and we can never know the exact position and state of every sub-atomic particle within a given system. In other words, it would be like trying to assert that the only way we can know that the universe exists is to step outside of it and take a look. If your argument is relying on a metaphysical impossibility, then you have no argument.

Actually _you_ claim to have prove volition and since this experiment is the only way to prove it, your argument relies on a metaphysical impossibility and _you_ have no argument.

What I noticed over time is that there is actually not real explanation what volition actually is. It seems to be not deterministic, but not random either. It is referred to as "self-causation". But what is self-causation?

As I said before: There is nothing between strict causation and randomness, like there is no third option between existence and nothingness. A third option is unimaginable, unreal, mystic.

Now the real interesting argument is, that one can not integrate reality without volition or in a deterministic universe. I never really understood the connection there.

Let's say there happens to be a simple robot in a deterministic universe. This robot has sensors that let him collect data and he has a device to store the data. Now where is the impossibility to integrate this data (reality)?

IE: "wall ahead" --> "turn around". What would be a concrete example of a human action that is fundamentally impossbile in a deterministic universe?

And please don't deny this example as unreal.. Rand used an example of an indestructible robot herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all: Volition and Free will is obviously _not_ self evident. Truly self-evident is existence. You can never honestly question that, but as a side note: Free will and volition is the single most discussed topic in this forum.. I wonder why that is, if it is that obvious.

It is also no coincidence that the posters most frequently picking fights on this issue are teenagers and college students.

The answer is the a priori conceptual framework you bring to the issue. In the first lecture of Dr. Peikoff's Art of Thinking course he identifies the problem of Clashing Contexts. You have learned and automatized the perspective of a solver of physics problems so well you cannot conceive of causality in any terms other than the one-way open-loop entropy increasing collisions of billiard balls in the elementary Newtonian/Cartesian way. No matter what your difficulties of comprehension are, there is no contradiction of physics involved in causation that works top-down in addition to bottom-up in some systems. Those special systems are physical manifestations of recursion, examples of which are living creatures, conceptual consciousness, and attractors in non-linear dynamic systems. None of these topics are covered in AP physics classes or freshman physics, so naturally your own understanding of causality omits them.

Now the real interesting argument is, that one can not integrate reality without volition or in a deterministic universe. I never really understood the connection there.

Let's say there happens to be a simple robot in a deterministic universe. This robot has sensors that let him collect data and he has a device to store the data. Now where is the impossibility to integrate this data (reality)?

IE: "wall ahead" --> "turn around". What would be a concrete example of a human action that is fundamentally impossbile in a deterministic universe?

And please don't deny this example as unreal.. Rand used an example of an indestructible robot herself.

Claiming any correspondence between what you think is real and what is real would be fundamentally impossible if you were completely determined because there is no special reference frame that makes you an exception to the general rule of determinism, meaning you only believe determinism because you are forced to do so, which means determinism refutes itself as a claim to truth.

Go chew on On The Physical Meaning of Volition by Ronald E. Merrill. If you can understand it, it will help pry open your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no contradiction of physics involved in causation that works top-down in addition to bottom-up in some systems. Those special systems are physical manifestations of recursion, examples of which are living creatures, conceptual consciousness, and attractors in non-linear dynamic systems.

If you're saying some physical systems are not determined by their initial conditions, then I'm interested and I'd like to learn more. Please talk about (or link to) some examples which clearly illustrate your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you still must apply reason as best you can because it has been found time and again to be the best way of optimizing your life
if determinism is true, then the determinist is forced to believe as he believes by blind forces.
How does the determinist apply reason if the determinist can't tell the difference between what is objectively reasonable and what is "environmentally reasonable?"

Our mind [qua subatomic particles] must have a definite nature which will determine its behavior in all situations)
Why? Isn't this, again, fallacy of composition?

or there is something nonphysical which is outside of the range of physics and thus outside science's domain ... Magic
You implied that these are the same things. Lest anyone be misled, they aren't the same.

This premise that there exists a set of physical laws which are determinative of everything is a claim that physics is, or potentially is, a formally complete and consistent theory. This guy Gödel had something to say about formal systems that claimed completeness.

On The Physical Meaning of Volition by Ronald E. Merrill in the defunct journal Objectivity offers an argument based on Gödel's Incompleteness Proof that the laws of physics can never be complete, so the determinist argument from physics fails.

I'm only slightly acquainted with the Gödel's Incompleteness, and I haven't read the Merrill article yet, but I find this to be a very interesting point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word, "Mind" has been casually chucked around this thread, at times used interchangeably with "brain".

Is it not obvious that self-determinism cannot be raised without reference to consciousness (a few have done this); and that consciousness cannot be discussed without an attempt to understand the nature of the mind? Or is there also a 'brain/mind paradox!?'

Is there any natural law that can explain the working of the mind? Furthermore, do we even understand the relation of brain to mind? Can pure deductive reasoning itself illuminate our ability to not only be conscious, but to be SELF conscious?

e.g., I can think about thinking, so I know that you can too. I can self-regard my own state of consciousness, therefore I conclude, inductively, that every other being does- or should be doing- the same.

When one approaches the concept of 'higher mind' - which is, I believe is inherent in Ayn Rand's "self-made soul" concept - one is talking about a consciousness that is simultaneously illuminating outwardly AND inwardly : i.e. all reality.

Self consciousness directly implies a high degree of continuous self 'adjustment', and with the right premises, a moral human being. That consciousness is at work throughout our every day, gradually and inexorably moving us towards our desired state of being. (We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then,is not an act but a habit- Aristotle).

This is self-volition at work. It is what it is, and I might be wrong, but I can't see logic and deductive thought fully explaining it - or Man's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem that many people have is how to reconcile our introspective information with science, physics to be exact. That is an important question, and the answer is not, despite what many say, obvious. Attempts to make determinism sound absurd by asking someone to make a choice are silly, since no determinist says that people do not come to conclusions in some manner, only that the conclusion had to be that way given the laws of physics (or was somehow random).

But this is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. All one can say, philosophically, is that they obviously do not contradict another. My guess is, however, that our volitional mind is an emergent product of atoms, just like consciousness probably is an emergent product of atoms.

Those who seem to think that there is a contradiction between volition and the laws of physics, commit the same fallacy of composition over and over again. In essence, they say that if our mind, which consist of or is an emergent product of atoms, which are ruled by physical laws, then it too must be determined by the very same physical laws, and therefore volition must be an illusion. But, as I have also said before, by the very same reasoning you could argue that you are not conscious at all, since the atoms that make consciousness possible, are not themselves conscious. But that is obviously not true.

Prospectivist_Objectivist made some arguments I brought up as well in older Topics about free will / volition. I didn't get

First of all: Volition and Free will is obviously _not_ self evident. Truly self-evident is existence. You can never honestly question that, but as a side note: Free will and volition is the single most discussed topic in this forum.. I wonder why that is, if it is that obvious.

As Prospectivist_Objectivist said, the core of free will is that one could have made a different choice in the same conditions, which is obviously impossible to prove (and even if that was the case one would have to prove that this wasn't random).

The fact that volition is one of the most discussed subjects does not prove anything. If you ever decide to study the history of philosophy, then you will notice that most philosophical discussions are the result of people not graping, evading, denying and contradicting the axioms and other self-evident truths.

The fact that some people deny axioms, including free will, does not indicate that it is not a self-evident truth, i.e., an axiom. The "core" of free will is that we can make choices, and all that anyone needs to know that we have free will is that we can observe ourselves exercising it every single moment of every single day.

"Prospectivist Objectivist" have really not brought up anything. He just ignores everything one says then make some irrelevant, incoherent comment that only goes to show that he either did not read what you wrote or did not understand it for some reason. He does not seem to understand what an axiom is, for instance, which is why he rejects those who do not attempt to "prove" the axioms, including the axiom of free will. He says that it is "bad philosophy" not to argue for "nontrivial" controversial issues, although you cannot and need not prove the axioms - regardless of how "nontrivial" and controversial you find them. All you can and need to do is to validate them, which is not the same as proving, and all you need to validate the axiom of volition is to observe it introspectively.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also no coincidence that the posters most frequently picking fights on this issue are teenagers and college students.

The answer is the a priori conceptual framework you bring to the issue. In the first lecture of Dr. Peikoff's Art of Thinking course he identifies the problem of Clashing Contexts. You have learned and automatized the perspective of a solver of physics problems so well you cannot conceive of causality in any terms other than the one-way open-loop entropy increasing collisions of billiard balls in the elementary Newtonian/Cartesian way. No matter what your difficulties of comprehension are, there is no contradiction of physics involved in causation that works top-down in addition to bottom-up in some systems. Those special systems are physical manifestations of recursion, examples of which are living creatures, conceptual consciousness, and attractors in non-linear dynamic systems. None of these topics are covered in AP physics classes or freshman physics, so naturally your own understanding of causality omits them.

This is so very true. Good point!

Also, thanks for posting your good notes of The Art of Thinking. They are a good complement to my own notes. Do you plan to post more notes from some other course?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He does not seem to understand what an axiom is, for instance, which is why he rejects those who do not attempt to "prove" the axioms, including the axiom of free will. He says that it is "bad philosophy" not to argue for "nontrivial" controversial issues, although you cannot and need not prove the axioms - regardless of how "nontrivial" and controversial you find them. All you can and need to do is to validate them, which is not the same as proving, and all you need to validate the axiom of volition is to observe it introspectively.

A proposition is "possible" if it can be true without contradiction. A priori, it is possible that choice is illusory and that we could not actually make any choices other than those we make-- that we experience the sensation of choice, not actual choice. There is no contradiction here, and your contention that "all you need to validate the axiom of volition is to observe it introspectively" does not show that lack of free will is impossible a priori, which undermines your assertion that free will is an axiom.

This does not rule out free will. It just means free will is not an axiom. Your repeated assertions that it is an axiom thus smack of bad philosophy.

I'm still most interested in Grames's examples of physical systems which have been shown to act independently of pre-existing physical conditions. If he can support that point, he'll undermine the paradox I brought up at the beginning of this discussion.

Edited by Prospectivist_Objectivist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is simply false. A proposition is "possible" if there is some evidence for it. You've described "imaginable".

On the contrary, yours is simply false. There is never a reason to reject a proposition out of hand unless it would cause a contradiction (perhaps with existing evidence). Of course, we can't promote a proposition beyond the relatively weak stage of possibility without evidence.

This doesn't matter so much, though. I'm waiting for elucidation on Grimes's point.

Edited by Prospectivist_Objectivist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, yours is simply false. There is never a reason to reject a proposition out of hand unless it would cause a contradiction (perhaps with existing evidence).
You have a confused view of the burden of proof, also of the Objectivist epistemology. A proposition for which there is no evidence has no if neither true nor false. I suggest that you read OPAR chapter 5.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...