The Fallacy of Composition

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm certainly not denying that man, bicycles, cats, dogs, rocks, etc. are composed of matter (as far as we can tell) and that there isn't a "life force" element in them or even a "rational principle" in them making them be what they are. But I do think that the determinist considers free will to be magical because of a misconception about the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is an axiom because being aware is fundamental to understanding anything about existence -- there is something there that I am aware of. However, it is not as if consciousness exists apart from or in contradiction to his body and his body functioning properly. For example, when you are really sick, you can't think well; and I think we have all experienced this when we have the flue or something more drastic. So, in that sense, certainly the body must be on, alert, and working properly for rational thought to be able to occur. But the awareness of awareness and the ability to be self-directed are experienced logically prior to our understanding that we have a brain and synapses and neural pathways. At least for me, I understood that I was aware and self-directing long before I knew anything about the brain. We are not self-aware of our brain, and are not even self-aware of our nerves -- not from direct observation before having awareness of reality and awareness of our own mind. And all of this awareness comes far ahead of any knowledge of sub-atomic particles.

So, the attempt to build everything up from scratch from the sub-atomic particles inverts the knowledge hierarchy. You are aware of cats as playful animals who love to be cuddled and purr when petted long before you have the knowledge that it is composed of animal parts and living cells. And if you want to understand a cat, then study a cat! Likewise, if you want to study man, then study man qua entity -- mind and body -- which requires both perception of existence and introspection.

[nanite1018]

So, the attempt to build everything up from scratch from the sub-atomic particles inverts the knowledge hierarchy.

Well actually this idea is covered in ITOE and OPAR, that simple concepts and percepts are very difficult to define, because they are the base of your knowledge. So if you are to come up with some sort of a definition, you have to use higher level concepts. So it isn't wrong to invert the hierarchy of concepts when seeking full understanding of a particular subject, it is simply an attempt to make your understanding complete.

The moment you state that at the particulate level there cannot be any reason for particle behaviour other than pure determinism then you are obliterating the very idea of there being any such thing as a choice to focus. If that is accepted then the entire system of morally condemning a man for failing to do so, or praising a man for doing so, falls to the ground. You then have no comeback against the claim that "a man, fundamentally, is not responsible for what he does" with all that implies about the propriety of a variety of moral and social structures.

I think this is incorrect. The universe is a noncontradictory whole, that follows immediately from the definition of universe and the law of noncontradiction. Consciousness is the perception of reality. Man is a conceptual being, who must put forth some effort in order to understand the universe and form useful abstractions, integrating all his knowledge into a noncontradictory whole. He has to do this because his mind is his only tool to survive, the nature of humans makes it necessary to apply our brains to any and every problem we face in our quest for survival. So, focusing and putting forth a great deal of effort in order to think rationally is for-life, and living in fog and behaving irrationally (or evading) is anti-life. The only possible purpose of man is to live (just as all living organisms) for his own life, and so focusing is moral and not focusing is immoral.

Where is the problem in the above logic? And where do I ever say that someone must have been able to focus or not focus in order to declare something "moral" or "immoral." You still decided, because your brain went through the process of the decision to focus or not to focus. Whether it could have come out differently is irrelevant, you still picked one or the other. One path is life-preserving the other life-destroying. You chose, and thereby were moral or immoral. This is why I do not think there is any problem with saying that we live in a deterministic universe and saying that Objectivism still holds true (with that minor revision).

We could debate whether knowledge is possible, but honestly the methods by which volitional and nonvolitional conceptual beings arrive at decisions are precisely the same, so I don't think there can really be an argument there either.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well actually this idea is covered in ITOE and OPAR, that simple concepts and percepts are very difficult to define, because they are the base of your knowledge. So if you are to come up with some sort of a definition, you have to use higher level concepts. So it isn't wrong to invert the hierarchy of concepts when seeking full understanding of a particular subject, it is simply an attempt to make your understanding complete.

No, I don't think you understand what Objectivism means by a conceptual hierarchy. Your ostensively definition of the term "cat" -- by pointing at a cat -- is on the base of the conceptual hierarchy. You concept of "quark" is much, much higher up the hierarchy. If we were to use a skyscraper as an analogy for the conceptual hierarchy, your concept of a cat is on the ground floor (a first-level concept), whereas your concept of a quark is way up at the top of the spire as one of the most recent concepts of physics. In other words, the concept of a quark is logically dependent upon your pointing to a cat.

What you are trying to do is to say your knowledge of a cat is logically dependent upon your knowledge of a quark, which isn't the way it works at all. Any very young child can grasp what a cat is simply by playing with one; but that same very young child wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what you meant by atoms or quarks. So, you have to know about a cat or some other perceptual level entity and that it is composed of stuff before you can get anywhere near understanding a quark.

Physics -- especially concepts of atoms and quarks -- is not the fundamentals of knowledge; the first-level conceptualizations are, and physics is not a first-level conceptualization.

[ctrl y]

I think this is incorrect. The universe is a noncontradictory whole, that follows immediately from the definition of universe and the law of noncontradiction. Consciousness is the perception of reality. Man is a conceptual being, who must put forth some effort in order to understand the universe and form useful abstractions, integrating all his knowledge into a noncontradictory whole. He has to do this because his mind is his only tool to survive, the nature of humans makes it necessary to apply our brains to any and every problem we face in our quest for survival. So, focusing and putting forth a great deal of effort in order to think rationally is for-life, and living in fog and behaving irrationally (or evading) is anti-life. The only possible purpose of man is to live (just as all living organisms) for his own life, and so focusing is moral and not focusing is immoral.

But for the Objectivist, reason is invalid unless we have free will. You can't really build an ethics on a faculty that you think is invalid.

(Or if "invalid" is the wrong word to describe the Objectivist's stance toward deterministic reason, they do seem to think it would be somehow problematic or untrustworthy. Perhaps one of them will fill you in on the official position.)

Edited July 6, 2009 by ctrl y

[hunterrose]

I don't use the FOC because it falls utterly flat... The attempt to exempt the human brain from this principle [that objects composed of deterministic particles are necessarily determined] is an instance of the fallacy of special pleading.

You and every other volitionist rejects that "principle." You fault the fallacy of composition for that?

The argument from a determinist view is primarily an argument from physics... (I discount the "well its an axiom" argument because it does not address the flaw in the above argument).

Scientific experiments show that the effect of gravity on a human is determined. So while we couldn't say that every action of a person is determined, we can say that some are. That's science.

But the idea that every action of a particle (let alone a human) is caused by outside forces is not science. How would you disprove it??? Exactly: it's axiomatic.

If you don't like pro-volition axioms, that's fine. But why are you then accepting pro-determinism axioms as if they were proven science?

Edited July 6, 2009 by hunterrose

[nanite1018]

Physics -- especially concepts of atoms and quarks -- is not the fundamentals of knowledge; the first-level conceptualizations are, and physics is not a first-level conceptualization.

Knowledge has to be a noncontradictory whole. The only evidence for volition is introspection, which does not in fact prove that you have volition. No one has ever proven to me how they can know that given the exact same situation they would not have done precisely the same thing they ended up doing. No one has ever even come close. All they have is the feeling (before they make a decision) that they have options (which of course, in a general sense, they do) and then the suggestion that because of that feeling they could have made a different choice. There is no reason to believe with the certainty of conviction you and others seem to have that you actually know that you have volition. You only know it feels kind of like it. For reasons I've gone into before, that would obviously be the case for a variety of reasons.

Since all introspection can give you on the subject is exactly what you would expect even if you were determined, and all the evidence of physics points to a deterministic universe, then it seems that the only reasonable conclusion is to say that volition (in the sense of being able to do something else, beyond what quantum physics allows for due to uncertainty, given precisely the same state of the universe) does not exist. I will address below the issue of how knowledge is possible without volition, hopefully taking out the only remaining block I can see to my viewpoint.

But the idea that every action of a particle (let alone a human) is caused by outside forces is not science. How would you disprove it??? Exactly: it's axiomatic.

Physics reduces the behavior of all particles to systems of equations. Since their behavior is described with extreme accuracy with equations (and its been getting better since science first came into existence as a real avenue of human effort), there is every reason to believe that they behave in a deterministic manner. Or in a semi-random manner perhaps, but still one or the other. We have no evidence for anything other than deterministic or stochastic processes in nature. And so there is no reason to believe that anything else exists. Such a belief would be arbitrary at best.

But for the Objectivist, reason is invalid unless we have free will. You can't really build an ethics on a faculty that you think is invalid.

I addressed that in my last paragraph of my post I believe. The process which by a volitional consciousness uses is to look at reality with full clarity and try its best to understand that reality and integrate all of its knowledge into a noncontradictory whole. Then it would look over it to make sure it can't see any errors, then perhaps present it to someone else, or several other entities, for checking on their part. If no one can point out a problem (that can't be dealt with), then there is every reason to think that that consciousness has correctly understood reality. That process can still be used by a nonvolitional entity. The only difference would be that it would have to ensure that it uses its full capacity for focus (the most it has attained, or more, since obviously it can't really focus more than it is currently given a certain set-up) in order to be certain that it is more likely it will be correct. That's it, as far as I can see. I don't see why free will is necessary for knowledge to exist. I don't see what rational thought is impossible if you do not have volition. Unless, of course, you simply define it to be so when there is no reason to do so (except to be able to say that "without volition reason is impossible" in a debate such as this).

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I don't see what rational thought is impossible if you do not have volition. Unless, of course, you simply define it to be so when there is no reason to do so (except to be able to say that "without volition reason is impossible" in a debate such as this).

Human consciousness does not automatically stay within the realm of reality and doesn't automatically take the facts into account, as your posts and your position quite adequately shows.

[SuperMetroid]

You are trying to invoke the principle of the emergent property of a system to deny the consequences of the existence of properties of that system's components. You are trying to say that what a man does is not already totally determined by past conditions, while using the concept of emergent property to gloss over the fact that you are then calling volition a mere illusion.

The issue here is that you consider the rationalistic concept of multiple possible futures to be necessary for volition and choice to be possible. It is not.

The moment you state that at the particulate level there cannot be any reason for particle behaviour other than pure determinism then you are obliterating the very idea of there being any such thing as a choice to focus.

The moment you make this statement, you are obliterating the meaning of the word "choice" and replacing it with the rationalistic concept of multiple possible futures.

By the way, I agreed with everything Nanite said until he started arguing about humans not possessing volition. However, that's because of a conflict in the definition of "volition" that's going on here.

I have defined volition as the faculty of a conceptional self-aware being to make a choice. This does not require or imply multiple possible futures. However, clearly, nanite is arguing against the Objectivist conception of volition, which is synonymous with free will, which is requires multiple possible futures, indeterminacy, and the mystical brain-force.

Anyway, I am retiring from this thread, as it's clearly at a permanent impasse at this point.

Closing comments: This thread has highlighted that Objectivism as a philosophy still relies on some rationalistic, unnecessary concepts and mysticism when it comes to the human mind. (This is not surprising considering that Rand herself didn't even acknowledge evolution as certainly being the way humans came into being.) However, it is not necessary for a philosophy to understand the "why and how" of volitional consciousness, as the consequential properties of it are axiomatic and directly observable. Thus, this (understandable) error does not generally filter down into other areas of reasoning to cause further misunderstandings.

The brain is the most complex piece of hardware/software in the universe, quite possibly. The relationship between a man and his mind is similar to the relationship between a programmer/hardware designer and the end-user: you don't need to know why conciousness/volition/choice exist, you just need to know what you can do with it. And I don't expect many of the end-users to be know or care how the hardware or program work, because it's incredibly complicated, almost moreso than any human being can conceive. This is an area of specialized knowledge that requires an understanding of many prerequisite concepts to grasp properly. To assume that your lack of understanding forms an axiom of existence is an incredible act of hubris.

Edited July 6, 2009 by SuperMetroid

[ctrl y]

I addressed that in my last paragraph of my post I believe. The process which by a volitional consciousness uses is to look at reality with full clarity and try its best to understand that reality and integrate all of its knowledge into a noncontradictory whole. Then it would look over it to make sure it can't see any errors, then perhaps present it to someone else, or several other entities, for checking on their part. If no one can point out a problem (that can't be dealt with), then there is every reason to think that that consciousness has correctly understood reality. That process can still be used by a nonvolitional entity. The only difference would be that it would have to ensure that it uses its full capacity for focus (the most it has attained, or more, since obviously it can't really focus more than it is currently given a certain set-up) in order to be certain that it is more likely it will be correct. That's it, as far as I can see. I don't see why free will is necessary for knowledge to exist. I don't see what rational thought is impossible if you do not have volition. Unless, of course, you simply define it to be so when there is no reason to do so (except to be able to say that "without volition reason is impossible" in a debate such as this).

Okay, but that is not the *Objectivist* view. The Objectivist view is that there can be no ethics without free will. So any moral code you build on the premise that determinism is true is not the Objectivist ethics. That's all I was saying. I wasn't even necessarily saying that you are wrong.

Edited July 6, 2009 by ctrl y

[whYNOT]

I by no means advocate that free - will is one's only means to knowledge. No one else here is either, I think. Of course observation, logical deduction, and Reason play the main part.

["I don't see why free will is necessary for knowledge to exist"..... "I don't see that rational thought is impossible if you do not have volition".]

But imagine or consider rationality without volition: one would lose an important aspect of empirical thinking - rejection.

When a range of possibilities becomes open to one, the most immediate mental action is "which can I discard?" For any of a variety of reasons, the thinker eliminates a number of possibilities, and instead focuses on the more feasible ones. (Naturally he should return to the 'discards' if he doesn't make a breakthrough the first time.)

The ability to choose (hierarchically) the most promising 'angle of attack' is imo, the hallmark of many great thinkers and scientists - it also speeds up a conclusion.

I'm sure this is but one aspect of the relationship between Reason and Volition, but certainly you can't have one without the other.

Edited July 6, 2009 by whYNOT

[Grames]

I'm sure this is but one aspect of the relationship between Reason and Volition, but certainly you can't have one without the other.

The definition of Objectivity is volitionally adhering to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man's form of cognition.

[hunterrose]

But the idea that every action of a particle (let alone a human) is caused by outside forces is not science. How would you disprove it??? Exactly: it's axiomatic.

We have no evidence for anything other than deterministic or stochastic processes in nature. And so there is no reason to believe that anything else exists. Such a belief would be arbitrary at best.

When you are starting with the axiom that every action of a particle is caused by outside forces, it's impossible to accept any possibility of the non-deterministic/stochastic.

If a particle acts for an unknown reason, you are already ignoring it and saying that "there is every reason to believe that it behaves in a deterministic manner." And when humans act in ways that in no way appear to be deterministic, you are ignoring these actions and falling back on your axiom that things made of determined particles are themselves determined.

What would constitute evidence of non-determinstic/stochastic action? If nothing qualifies, then that's more indicative of your reliance on an axiom to make your case.

[Eiuol]

I have defined volition as the faculty of a conceptional self-aware being to make a choice. This does not require or imply multiple possible futures. However, clearly, nanite is arguing against the Objectivist conception of volition, which is synonymous with free will, which is requires multiple possible futures, indeterminacy, and the mystical brain-force.

I really have no idea where you're getting this definition of free-will. I've never heard of anyone saying that there are multiple possible futures, as though there is a separate universe containing each choice. And no one ever claimed that "there's just a force, we won't ever be able to explain it!" It seems that no matter how many times people explain it, you're just going to say "but you believe in free-will, and that's mystical!", even when it's obvious that you are using the term free-will in a completely different way. The concepts you're speaking in make sense, so you're essentially just arguing that free-will is the wrong term and we should all say volitional consciousness instead.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Eiuol

[SuperMetroid]

I really have no idea where you're getting this definition of free-will. I've never heard of anyone saying that there are multiple possible futures, as though there is a separate universe containing each choice.

The fact that you were unaware that is what the concept of "free will" entails doesn't mean that it isn't true. (Your assertion that "multiple possible futures" is synonymous with "multiple universes" is incorrect). This is by and large the most commonly held view, and is central to the Objectivist conception of what free will means.

And no one ever claimed that "there's just a force, we won't ever be able to explain it!"

The non-determinists in this thread are claiming that it is obviously an unknown force that doesn't need to be explained or will be explained in terms of completely new and unknown non-mechanical (mystical) physics.

so you're essentially just arguing that free-will is the wrong term and we should all say volitional consciousness instead.

Why are you lumping yourself in ("we") with people who have been arguing completely diametrically opposite views as yourself? You seem to be confused, or in the very least confusing.

Yes, the standard definitions of words relevant to this "debate" are incorrectly defined and produce unnecessary byproducts and ambiguity. There are many instances of people using using loaded, non-essential concepts in this thread.

[Marc K.]

As an example, we observe that the Sun rises and sets each day. You can say "we don't know how, but the Sun rises above the horizon and sets below it each day." And then ignorance of how doesn't seem to interfere with the certainty of that. But it does. Because you are leaving out an important part "it appears that the Sun rises..."

You are equivocating on the word "appears", there are two ways one could take this. One possibility is that you are advocating a classic primacy of consciousness position in which we don't observe reality as it really is, we only observe appearances. Is this what you mean? Are you suggesting that there only appears to be a sun moving through the sky but really there is no Sun, that it doesn't exist, or that we don't exist, or that we don't observe it moving through the sky? That it is possible that we are all dreaming the same hallucination or that the Sun could actually be a chariot of fire moving through the sky? Hopefully this isn't the case.

Maybe then what you are saying is that the Sun exists and we observe it moving through the sky but that observation is mistaken -- the Sun is stationary and it is really the earth and our observational platform that is moving. Is this what you are saying? Hopefully so, since this error is correctible without the need for a frontal lobotomy.

The observation is not mistaken. We actually do observe the Sun moving through the sky, our senses are not fooling us, they can't. But nor can they apply reason, that is something only our rational mind can do, we must volitionally choose to figure out how nature works. There are lots of other observations of effects on earth and in the heavens which help us to determine that the Sun is stationary and the earth is moving. You wouldn't call all of those observations mistaken would you? In fact you would negate the conclusion that the Sun is stationary if you didn't observe it moving through the sky. This is a question of relative movement not whether something is actually moving, it is.

This is exactly comparable to the pencil-in-water exercise. The pencil looks bent when you put it in a glass of water, but this is no illusion. It is a fact that the pencil looks bent in water and this fact tells us something very important about the nature of light in different mediums. Physics wouldn't be possible without these observations being accurate.

Perception gives us the world as it actually is. If it didn't, if perception gave us the world as it isn't, then that is the situation in which no knowledge would be possible, nothing would be explainable.

In exactly the same way, it appears that we make free decisions and could have chosen otherwise given precisely the same conditions. But people on the pro-volition side of the argument want to turn that into "we do make free decisions..." which is an entirely different matter. All we know is that it appears to be so. It also appears the the Sun rises, or that the Earth acts on the Moon by spooky action-at-a-distance, or that light travels infinitely fast.

In exactly the same way that it is a fact that the Sun moves through the sky, it is a fact that we observe ourselves making choices. First you have to acknowledge that you do observe this going on, you do observe yourself making choices that could have been otherwise. (There are many ways to confirm this, I suggested one to you in another thread.) This is the given, then you may propose some other explanation for it but in so doing you would effectively be saying: "I don't observe the Sun moving through the sky or I don't observe the pencil being bent in water". You would be denying the evidence of your senses in favor of some explanation unsupported by any evidence.

And you can't develop your evidence rationalistically from abstractions, that is not the way science works. Contrary to the way you and others here have characterized the study of science in general and physics in particular as the rationalistic study of deterministic particles, no scientist operates in this fashion. Science is the study of cause and effect relationships. We observe the effects and we try to determine what is the cause. "Deterministically" is an adjective description for the way that certain objects interact but there are no laws of determinism. Rather, the study of the universe is governed by the law of causality.

I think it is telling how you attack your opposition by ascribing to them magical explanations for phenomena when that is what you are doing. You've effectively tried to cut us off at the pass and put us on the defensive. No one here has proposed "spooky" action or invoked the infinite in reality. With a proper epistemology you would know that these things may be dismissed out of hand. But you want to deny the evidence of your senses in favor of some rationalistic theory of everything developed from the actions of particles which you admittedly don't know how they work or interact. You can't tell me the first thing about the properties of these particles and how they interact. You propose that they act deterministically and yet you leave open the door that they act stochastically. You have no idea how these particles work and yet you want us to accept your word that they definitely rule out the existence of free will, which is something that we observe?

None of those are in fact the case, but it seems like it given the inaccurate tools of perception we humans have. It is only through science that we can be sure that what we are seeing or experiencing actually is what we think it is.

When you say that "it is only through science that we can be sure" you intend for us to use our senses to make that determination right? In other words what you are saying is: since our senses are inaccurate, the only way to accurately determine what is going on is to use our inaccurate senses. This is not logical and in fact you have stolen the concept that our senses are infallible in order to show that they are fallible.

I submit that the senses are infallible so I'd like for you to provide a concrete example of our senses being invalid, of our senses fooling us.

I suppose you think you've left yourself an out by using the word "inaccurate" instead of infallible, but not much of one. If "inaccurate" is really the word you intended to use, then again, this is an appeal to the unreal. I guess you were wishing that man had the nose of a dog and the eyes of an eagle? Alas we do not, a is a and man is man, he has an identity, that is the given. Surely you don't think this is a handicap though? After all we have a much more powerful tool than the animals, we have our rational mind, our volitional, conceptual consciousness. Besides, Newton discovered the laws of motion long before the hypersensitive instruments we possess today, in fact Newton's discoveries were prerequisites of these instruments.

But actually I suspect you did mean to say "fallible" or "invalid" to describe our perception since this fits much better with your view of reality. You have already denied the evidence of your senses by denying volition so better be consistent and say that the reason you deny the evidence of your senses is because they are fallible. In this view, to paraphrase Ayn Rand: we are blind because we have eyes, deluded because we have a mind, and the things we perceive do not exist, because we perceive them.

If logic is the art of noncontradictory integration of information, then how can anyone integrate free will with physics? It is impossible, and to be honest the only solution I see is a soul or spirit. I reject that possibility immediately, and so I'm left with the determinist position.

Actually logic is the art of noncontradictory identification. So first you must identify what free will and physics are, which you haven't done. Once you've identified them properly, then you would see that if you are to reject one or the other you would have to reject physics since free will is presupposed by the entire field of physics. There is no study of the physical nature of things, delving into various aspects of nature, focusing on certain aspects, abstracting in ways no one has done before -- without volition.

The onus of proof is on you though since by rejecting free will you are denying the evidence of your senses in favor of a completely unfounded supposition. You want us to believe that free will is an illusion and you assert this without evidence.

[eficazpensador]

The moment you start introducing logic and fallacies and making a big deal out of it by responding with similar quantities of words, you're both granting them sanction for creating that verbiage in the first place and also putting yourself on the path to rationalism.

Thank you all for the great discussion. The quote above may be the best advice in this thread.

[nanite1018]

First you have to acknowledge that you do observe this going on, you do observe yourself making choices that could have been otherwise. (There are many ways to confirm this, I suggested one to you in another thread.)

I was not arguing the primacy of consciousness position to respond to an earlier point in your post. My argument is that free will/volition is an example of saying "I observe the Sun moving through the sky, so the Earth is stationary and the Sun is moving." That is obviously not the case, but at first glance it seems to be correct. It is the same thing I refer to later in my post.

I have never observed that I make choices that could have been otherwise given exactly the same conditions. I have never observed that. I have observed myself coming up with some options, and then selecting one of them. When I think back about it, I think "Well I might have done that instead, and then x, y, or z may have happened." But I don't mean that literally. I am saying that before I made my decision, for all anyone, including myself, knew, I could do any of the possible actions. But I have never in my life thought that I could have done something else literally. I just think "well, if you'd thought differently there would have been a different outcome, so try to think that way in the future." I can think of no experiment that would show that I would have made a different decision given exactly the same conditions. That is why I deny that I do so.

Science is the study of cause and effect relationships. We observe the effects and we try to determine what is the cause.

Exactly, and all science has ever found are nonvolitional causes (either stochastic, like quantum mechanics, or deterministic, like newtonian mechanics; I put both under "deterministic" since niethe is volitional in any sense). All the evidence of the physical world suggests every single phenomenon is nonvolitional at the most basic level. Nondeterministic/nonstochastic phenomenon (in the absolute sense) cannot possible arise from deterministic/stochastic phenomenon. The idea that it could is ridiculous. People say that that is the fallacy of composition, but it is not. If every single piece is deterministic, if every interaction is deterministic, then the whole must be deterministic. On the surface it could appear not to be (when you don't know the inner workings well, and haven't been studying it for a sufficient time), but when it comes right down to it, it must be. Determinism is something that must carry over. Its not like "tableness" or "chairness" or "humanness", things which are identifications of the mind about what it sees. That is the issue. Either electrons and quarks have volition, or we don't. Since the former is absurd, the latter must be the case.

When you say that "it is only through science that we can be sure" you intend for us to use our senses to make that determination right? In other words what you are saying is: since our senses are inaccurate, the only way to accurately determine what is going on is to use our inaccurate senses. This is not logical and in fact you have stolen the concept that our senses are infallible in order to show that they are fallible.

Our senses are not perfect. I cannot see an atom with my eyes. In order to do so I have to build instruments and get increasingly accurate equipment, all eventually tied back to man's senses. But the point is that our senses and common sense explanations are often incorrect. My whole purpose is not to say that our senses are fallible (in that they can literally lie), but that our explanations for what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch are often incorrect. The two are intimately related in the subject of free will, to the point where almost everyone blends them together into a single thing. My purpose in pointing to the Sun going round the Earth as an example is that for centuries that was the generallly accepted explanation for the observation, so much so that it was deemed obvious and self-evident. Blending "I see an object called the Sun moving in the sky" with "It must be going round the Earth" is what volitionists do when they say "I observe myself making decisions and choices from various options" and "I must have been able to do something else." They are analogous.

There is no study of the physical nature of things, delving into various aspects of nature, focusing on certain aspects, abstracting in ways no one has done before -- without volition.

The onus of proof is on you though since by rejecting free will you are denying the evidence of your senses in favor of a completely unfounded supposition. You want us to believe that free will is an illusion and you assert this without evidence.

I have described that the method by which you gain knowledge is exactly the same for volitional and nonvolitional conscious entities, that the morality remains the same, etc. I have explained that the appearance of making "free" choices is a case of blending an observation with an explanation so well that the two become virtually identical in everyone's minds. I see no reason to say that you cannot think something new without volition, you are a new entity after all, and will have new thoughts as a result. You are the one who asks me to dismiss all the evidence of science in favor of a gut feeling. I will not do so.

[Grames]

Nondeterministic/nonstochastic phenomenon (in the absolute sense) cannot possible arise from deterministic/stochastic phenomenon. The idea that it could is ridiculous. People say that that is the fallacy of composition, but it is not. If every single piece is deterministic, if every interaction is deterministic, then the whole must be deterministic.

Prove it. Put up or shut up.

[John McVey]

You and every other volitionist rejects that "principle." You fault the fallacy of composition for that?

I have no issue with the fallacy in itself. What I object to those who invoke it to put a chasm between particle behaviour and macroscopic body behaviour and then avoid having to face the consequences of what they accept is the case at the particle level.

***

What I object to with the emergent-property discussion is the attempt to use it to deny the essential determinism at work if that is all there truly is, even despite an express statement of acceptance of at the constituent level. I do understand what is being said by it: the idea of consciousness as a regulatory mechanism where "volitional" consciousness is an extremely complex and advanced one. My point on this matter is that no matter how complex one makes the bells and whistles on that mechanism, if there is nothing but particulate determinism then it is still nothing else other than a mechanism. In that view, then, man is thus nothing more than a hypercomplex CNC machine with a dazzling array of sensors and environmental-condition recognition software. Its "choices" then are no more than instances of running something like decision-tree lines of code, and of no more moral significance than its programming picking between using one procedure versus another after weighing up readings from its sensors and consulting its memory banks on past readings.

It is still a living organism, and values as such are still equally real, because it is still aimed at self-preservation as an end in itself, but that is as far as it goes. Determined still means determined, with everything that implies about knowledge and morality. Be my guest, add in more bells and whistles about built-in firmware as bootstrap programming for loading up later software, with that in turn bootstrapping for later software again ad infinitum, and where there is a wide variety of alternative packages available - but that still must recognise that there is NO choice about which package is loaded. The emergentist position is simultaneously stating that this system exists, but then going on to say that one might as well act as though it were not the case and that we should thus ignore the epistemological and moral implications if it were the only explanation.

I have no problems with accepting that human consciousness operates in such a fashion to a considerable degree. I just don't think it is the only explanation because I am capable of directly observing and recognising the problems that would result, and that I integrate it with that we know there are things going on that are as yet not explainable with the particle physics we know so far. With that I leave it where I should have left it days ago: I have more than enough to accept free will for what it is while simultaneously recognising my consciousness as a definite entity with definite characteristics that no choice of mine can get around, but I'll never know the full answer beyond that so I leave those details to others to consider and just use my consciousness as I judge fit on the basis of what I do in fact know.

JJM

Edited July 7, 2009 by John McVey

[nanite1018]

Prove it. Put up or shut up.

It is obvious. If I have a starting point for my system, a certain set of positions and momentum's for every single individual particle, and a set of physical laws which describe their interactions with full accuracy, and then say "what will it be like at time t?", I will always be able to find the answer. It might not be immediately obvious, but it still is there. The only conceivable problem is if your equations are incapable of handling all the interactions involved (or you don't know how to do the math, etc.), but then you didn't meet the conditions set up in the first place so it really doesn't matter.

This is not to say that I could necessarily predict what will happen. I am also ignoring the effects of imprecise measurement of all the values involved. Chaos theory is the field which describes that. Actually, chaos theory is a good example. Chaos theory is all about what sort of unexpected behavior arises in deterministic systems which are extremely vulnerable to changes in initial conditions. But no one has ever demonstrated a nondeterministic and nonstochastic system ever arising from such a base. The reason is because everything in it is deterministic.

I really don't understand how anyone can think that determinism is not a quality which can exist at the level of the basic constituents of everything in the universe, but then say that the large-scale world is not deterministic. If every single event everywhere in the universe (I am talking about the realm of particles here) is deterministic, then the universe is deterministic. I really don't see how you could think otherwise.

[SuperMetroid]

I really don't understand how anyone can think that determinism is not a quality which can exist at the level of the basic constituents of everything in the universe, but then say that the large-scale world is not deterministic. If every single event everywhere in the universe (I am talking about the realm of particles here) is deterministic, then the universe is deterministic. I really don't see how you could think otherwise.

It's because you're talking with people that honestly have no conception of a complex system, but are arrogant enough to assume that they are qualified to state universal axioms based on their lack of knowledge.

[KurtColville]

I really don't understand how anyone can think that determinism is not a quality which can exist at the level of the basic constituents of everything in the universe, but then say that the large-scale world is not deterministic. If every single event everywhere in the universe (I am talking about the realm of particles here) is deterministic, then the universe is deterministic. I really don't see how you could think otherwise.

Determinism exists where volition doesn't. Whereas the dynamics of particles apart from a volitional entity are deterministic (their actions are necessary), the dynamics of the particles within a volitional entity are governed by its consciousness -- an agent that can tell the particles, "do this, rather than that."

The same brain particles can be taken out of a mind, and they will act deterministically. The difference is the presence of volition. What physiological, particulate agent is responsible for volition? Who knows? Science hasn't figured that out yet. But something is responsible for volition, and that something is in the brain.

[Grames]

It is obvious. If I have a starting point for my system, a certain set of positions and momentum's for every single individual particle, and a set of physical laws which describe their interactions with full accuracy, and then say "what will it be like at time t?", I will always be able to find the answer. It might not be immediately obvious, but it still is there. The only conceivable problem is if your equations are incapable of handling all the interactions involved (or you don't know how to do the math, etc.), but then you didn't meet the conditions set up in the first place so it really doesn't matter.

This is not to say that I could necessarily predict what will happen. I am also ignoring the effects of imprecise measurement of all the values involved. Chaos theory is the field which describes that. Actually, chaos theory is a good example. Chaos theory is all about what sort of unexpected behavior arises in deterministic systems which are extremely vulnerable to changes in initial conditions. But no one has ever demonstrated a nondeterministic and nonstochastic system ever arising from such a base. The reason is because everything in it is deterministic.

I really don't understand how anyone can think that determinism is not a quality which can exist at the level of the basic constituents of everything in the universe, but then say that the large-scale world is not deterministic. If every single event everywhere in the universe (I am talking about the realm of particles here) is deterministic, then the universe is deterministic. I really don't see how you could think otherwise.

This useless hand waving rhetoric doesn't even come close to the form of a proof, it is bald assertion. The hypothetical experiment could never by performed. The initial conditions cannot be measured, the physical laws will never be known to be complete.

Th only thing given by observation and obviously so is the contrary proposition that the volitional consciousness that does in fact exist is compatible with the deterministic parts of which it is comprised.

[SuperMetroid]

Determinism exists where volition doesn't. Whereas the dynamics of particles apart from a volitional entity are deterministic (their actions are necessary), the dynamics of the particles within a volitional entity are governed by its consciousness -- an agent that can tell the particles, "do this, rather than that."

Finally, someone came out and said it. You believe in the magical mind-force.

OK, I get it, you believe in magic. There's not much point in arguing with a mystic, now is there?

Th only thing given by observation and obviously so is the contrary proposition that the volitional consciousness that does in fact exist is compatible with the deterministic parts of which it is comprised.

I've been saying that volitional consciousness exists and is compatible with deterministic physics the whole time.

The only difference is that you insist on the rationalistic concept of multiple possible futures combined with the magical mind-force, in order to satisfy your ignorance as to how volition and consciousness could exist in a deterministic system.

Edited July 7, 2009 by SuperMetroid

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It's because you're talking with people that honestly have no conception of a complex system, but are arrogant enough to assume that they are qualified to state universal axioms based on their lack of knowledge.

The axioms of Objectivism are based upon direct observation of existence understood conceptually; whereas your assertions are based upon rationalistic mind traps. And I observed that I chose to write this reply, as I did, and it wasn't a deterministic blurb. I also choose to post it. If you can't help but post rationalistic replies not based upon observation, then can you choose to post in a forum comprising of other robots?