Lost on the idea of volition

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I don't know that I would characterize physics as an attempt to understand existence apart from human consciousness -- someway other than how we experience existence; it's more of an abstraction. Nonetheless, it is true that physics does not take human consciousness into account. It's not about how you see something, it's about wavelengths; it not about how something feels, it's about temperature and coefficients of friction, etc. Saying it is attempting to understand existence apart from human consciousness is a Kantian approach to understanding existence; however, physics doesn't say anything about human consciousness, so claiming it has insights into how consciousness work it reifying physics beyond its scope, which is the base of physical sciences, not psychology or philosophy. Besides, there is no more fundamental conception that a thing is what it is (the law of identity) aside from existence exists. And we are aware of entities via perception, so there is no need to try to get beneath this, and it can't happen anyhow.

[nanite1018]

To Marc K.:

If espousing a view that is different from Objectivism is against the forum rules, and questioning it makes me an ignoramus or a psychotic, then how do you or anyone else who espouses Objectivism ever hope to make the changes you want to see in the world? This is, as far as I have seen, the most active forum for discussion of Objectivism on the internet. If anyone who isn't an Objectivist or doesn't automatically accept your views on everything to be correct is in violation of ettiquette and the forum rules, then you are setting up a situation which leads to not only stagnation in thought but also a closing off of the philosophy from any debate with someone who disagrees on any point. That makes the community seem hostile and I am sure turns off many who might want to discuss the philosophy. On a different note, I didn't mean my comment as an insult, simply an explanation. It isn't an insult to say that someone was mistaken or imperfect, it is an assessment of them. It doesn't make them evil or reprehensible or disgusting, especially when compared with the vast majority of people (I think Rand was an exemplary thinker and person).

I am currently trying to explain why I think volition in a scientific sense is meaningless but in a philosophic sense is necessary. I understand the process by which you validate volition, but I am not certain that it is air-tight (as in my discussions on knowledge in determinism). However, even accepting that volition is an epistemological requirement, I do not see why the findings of physics that matter behaves deterministically on the most basic of levels has to cause a problem for volition on the level of consciousness, as I am currently discussing with others. I welcome your input.

I don't know that I would characterize physics as an attempt to understand existence apart from human consciousness -- someway other than how we experience existence; it's more of an abstraction. Nonetheless, it is true that physics does not take human consciousness into account. It's not about how you see something, it's about wavelengths; it not about how something feels, it's about temperature and coefficients of friction, etc.

Hm... okay let me try to explain it a bit differently. This may be different than what I have said before, since I am (I think) changing my thinking on the subject (or at least my line of inquiry).

Human consciousness is housed in the brain, every action of consciousness is an action of the brain, right? There are two different ways of looking at human consciousness then, introspectively, and through the physical sciences. One is about consciousness, the other about the brain. So, introspection, the way consciousness perceives the events of the brain (including itself), gives us ideas, beliefs, percepts, concepts, abstractions, induction, logic, etc. Science gives us hormones, neurotransmitters, proteins, amino acids, and electrical currents. Introspection is how we get to science, we have to use those tools of introspection in order to arrive at knowledge and eventually examine and understand how the brain operates. Introspectively, we find that there is a fundamental choice which cannot be ascribed a cause (in terms of consciousness), and that is the choice to focus or not to focus. The only cause we see is that we chose to do one or the other, that is, our act of choice between two possible options (since neither is necessitated) causes it. That is volition. Alright so volition is included necessarily in the basis for all the findings of science. Science examines the workings of the physical world and finds that the basic constituent parts all behave in accordance with certain equations.

How do we reconcile the two is the question, since it seems contradictory at first glance. Well, my thoughts and my consciousness are patterns in material world, patterns of events, or of positions of matter, or whatever. I'm having trouble with this next part but I'll do my best. Alright, the question "does man have volition?" is the same as saying "can this pattern behave in more than one way at any given moment?"

Actually, I can't go any further. At least not now. As far as I can tell, either people's actions are necessitated, or science will never explain the brain and can never do so. And if the latter is the case then I don't see the point in doing anything because the human mind is impotent. Science must be able to in principle explain everything in the universe or else its worthless, by the simple fact that the entire universe is a single unified whole. The only thing I can think of is that at the level of patterns the internal arrangement of the systems is unknown or left out, and as a result on that level of examination certain events are unexplainable (like the choice to focus or not). But I don't see how that rescues volition.

[nanite1018]

Editing my previous post seems silly since this will make it extremely long, so I'm posting another one.

Humans know things because of how it interacts with them. In terms of particles, particles form a model of the particles around them based on the interactions (duh). The brain differentiates the essential characteristics and all the characteristics about the outside world that are available through interactions and the sensitivity it has to those interactions. These patterns are real, they exist, and so there really are cats, dogs, tables, chairs, people. Physics looks at the world in terms of individual particles interacting with other particles, there are no patterns, no structures, just individual things acting according to rules. Consciousness acts in terms of the interactions between massive numbers of particles. There are patterns in those interactions, and that leads to the conception of entities and attributes. When consciousness examines itself, it classifies everything in terms of interactions with other things, but one thing is at the root of all others, it affects all others but none effect it, volition. Volition is the reason why you focus rather than not. What is it in terms of how consciousness interacts with the world? Volition is the result of the nature of consciousness: it depends on interactions. If I interact with a system, I change it in a small (or large way), in order to know more about it in reference to all the other interactions. I cannot know every possible detail all at the same time about the system, its impossible because by interacting with it I change it (and myself) subtly. So when I try to explain why I did one thing rather than another I'm at a loss because of the theoretical limit of my knowledge, the only explanation is "because I did." And the fact that I can decide to focus or not to focus gives me the ability to make sure that my abstraction of all those interactions I have is actually self-consistent and logical. When I look at the processes happening in my brain they all had to be the way they were because of the way things were before, but I can never know everything about the system. So I can never predict what I'll be doing in the future, and at any time all the knowledge anyone can have about a situation allows me to do one thing or another, and until I do one of them, no one can know which it will be. If I go back and ask, "given the exact same conditions could I do something different?" the answer has to be yes, because given as much information as anyone could gather about those conditions I could do a number of things.

Does that make sense? Its basically that the nature of consciousness requires it to have limited knowledge about the exact conditions at any moment, and that necessary limitation is what allows the particles in the brain to do multiple things at any given time, which can be described as "well it was random" on the particle level or "well he chose" on the level of entities and consciousness. Random in science basically means that it happened because it happened that way, and no one can know why it did. Chose means that he did it because he did it, and there is no other explanation other than he did it.

Is that rational and compatible with Objectivism, or no?

[Eiuol]

When consciousness examines itself, it classifies everything in terms of interactions with other things, but one thing is at the root of all others, it affects all others but none effect it, volition. Volition is the reason why you focus rather than not. What is it in terms of how consciousness interacts with the world? Volition is the result of the nature of consciousness: it depends on interactions.

Why do you say volition exists, then deny that it is possible? It doesn't make sense. That volition exists is clearly deterministic; you cannot choose to have it, you always will. From my understanding, volition is just self-causation. Unless I'm misunderstanding your viewpoint, and all you're saying is that volition can only exist in consciousness (of course it can only exist in consciousness), what you're trying to say doesn't make sense.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think it is a really big mistake to try to put everything in terms of physics. The special sciences are delimited as to their scope. As I mentioned before, I have a degree in physics and philosophy, and physics just doesn't discuss things like consciousness or even the broader concept of causality. These may be touched upon in the philosophy of science classes, but physics per se just doesn't have those things as study elements. Physics also works on the assumption of entities that do not deform under forces when calculating things like mass, velocity, and acceleration. I took some master degree courses in mechanical engineering and I was blown away at how different they are. Physics just doesn't get into how a material will deform under forces, like will a bar bend under the forces imposed upon it from the weight of a building and such.

The point is that physics is delimited; it doesn't discuss things like economics or individual rights, or the nature of government, or how consciousness works, etc. So trying to put everything in terms of physics is attempting to broaden physics beyond its scope. And maybe physics in the most advanced courses discusses things like will particles interact in such a way as to have a new entity (i.e table salt versus sodium and chlorine), but it is not a part of the general physics instruction.

Physics is not the most basic science, philosophy is; and philosophy is all about what we observe directly and how consciousness works (epistemology). Later in her life Ayn Rand was going to take some neurology courses and integrate that with epistemology, but she wasn't going to take physics courses and integrate that with epistemology. In other words, those fields still need to be integrated, and since they are not integrated, they have to remain distinct fields until someone does integrate them.

[nanite1018]

Eiuol:

I am trying to work on making sense of volition and tracking it back to how it could arise physically. What I'm trying to say is that the nature of how anything could gain knowledge about anything else, an interaction, inherently limits the amount of information you can have about the conditions of the universe at any given moment in time. Because of that, if you ask "given exactly the same conditions, would he do the same thing?", you have merely a range for the conditions, and so the behavior would be different each time (since the exact conditions would necessarily vary). Physics would look at this effect of the brain as random, since there is no necessitating factor, it is "indeterministic". But if you are examining the system on the level of patterns, if you are looking at an entity not a cloud of particles, then the useful explanation isn't that it was random, but that he chose. If you ask "why did he focus rather than not?", the answer is "because he did", because he chose. If I put volition into physical terms it is randomness, but the two don't conflict because putting it in physical terms leaves out any conception of consciousness, entities (on the macroscopic level), etc. Without those it makes no sense to talk of volition anyway.

Thomas M. Miovas:

I know that physics doesn't talk about a whole lot of things (which to be honest is frustrating, I want to describe real objects, not ridiculous abstraction like unbendable rods and perfectly inelastic cords). You say that philosophy and physics have not yet been integrated. Well, the above description is my attempt to at least partially integrate, enough for me to both accept physics as valid and true and volition as actually existing. I have to integrate them because without that integration than it seems as though there is a contradiction in my understanding of the universe, and I am not going to live with a contradiction.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I wasn't trying to say that physics and philosophy are not integrated, because they are for me, but the integration comes about because I know the limitations of physics and the broader scope of philosophy. I think in terms of the law of identity and the law of causality, which come from philosophy, not physics. Eventually man will know more about the physics of the brain, but none of that knowledge can contradict the fact that he has free will and can direct his own consciousness. Consciousness is fundamentally your awareness of existence and how you can direct your awareness; and awareness is not a physical thing composed of particles; it's an ability we have because we are human. Your memories and thoughts and have to be stored somewhere and they are stored in the brain, but the brain is not the same thing as consciousness. Our brain makes our type of consciousness possible, but awareness is not the same thing as the brain just as seeing is not the same thing as the eyes and optical pathways. Seeing is made possible by the eyes and the optical pathways, but the experience of seeing is not the same thing as those physical attributes.

[nanite1018]

Well you see that's my point Thomas, the actions of the physical systems of your body make up your senses, consciousness, etc. But, when you are discussing things like ideas, beliefs, entities, and volition it isn't useful to think of them in terms of physical systems, it gives you no insight and isn't the proper way of going about it. Those things are about the interactions of those systems, how they interact with each other and most importantly how they "perceive" the interactions. Its the difference between third-person and first-person, they have different consequences and ways of viewing reality, but neither is more "valid" than the other, they are simply different. I'm trying to explain the connection between the two, how one can view it all as the actions of particles obeying certain rules and the other view it as entities making choices. I think the difference lies in the innate restriction on knowledge about reality (you can't know everything, sometimes more knowledge about one necessarily prevents knowledge about another aspect), and difference in viewing something from the outside and the nature of its self-experience. I think I've reconciled the two views to my satisfaction.