Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How do you reject Physics Determinism?

Rate this topic


Amaroq

Recommended Posts

No. Not if choice is an illusion. Then there cannot be one.

All situations.

Stump, what is your point in arguing this if people can't make choices? To play your part in some pre-scripted play so that others will too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the question is WHY and HOW you end up making the decision you're making. And in examining the WHY and the HOW maybe we discover that it's not really volition in it's true sense of the word after all.

There's your answer.

"How do human beings make decision?" By thinking. By considering what the possibilities are, which choice will result in which consequence and which consequence is preferred.

"Why do they make the choices they make?" Because they have a set of values by which they judge possible consequences.

But I think you miss the whole point of volition. It really doesn't matter how or why one makes their choices, as human beings, we cannot do anything without consciously choosing to.

Try this. Sit theire and make one final choice--to never choose anything again. What happens when you do that? Nothing, and if you never make another choice you'll never do another thing and you will die. That's the point of volition.

Everything a human being does they must consciously choose to do. It's up to every human being to discover for themselves why they choose what they choose and how to choose. To the extent they successfully discover how and why to choose, they live successfully. To the extent they do not, they fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I made a decision, then I had a choice between two or more alternatives. Thus volition.

This is a minor addition to the above, but I think it's often overlooked in debates on determinism.

That decision you have made is not made in vacuo. It is a starting point to another, and another, each having alternatives.

Kind of a decision-continuum, that at the end of a year, say, has involved thousands of factors - and taken one to a specific 'place,' and no end in sight.

Like a chess game, with near-endless combinations of moves, from a given position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for volition, you can sense it directly, without it you cannot know if your thought process is correct (and have no way to determine if it is), and free will is compatible with "deterministic" physics because physics is explanatory, and does not command your brain to work the way it does, and the two concern different things (the workings of your mind and the workings of particles, for one thing).

It's obvious you've had some very good answers to your question, but there is one thing no one has mentioned which might help. Most of the answers you've received tend to imply some way has to be worked around the fact physical existence is deterministic. It is deterministic, absolutely, and there is no way to work around that. That fact is, consciousness is not a physical attribute. Why no one mentions that Objectivism does not regard consciousness as physical, I do not know. Perhaps they do not know it, or perhaps they are ashamed of it. Here are some quotes

"Man is an entity of mind and body, an indivisible union of two elements: of consciousness and matter. Matter is that which one perceives, consciousness is that which perceives it." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "14 - Notes While Writing Galt's Speech"]

Notice the two elements are consciousness and matter, meant to identify two unique things. But she is more explicit here:

"Man's consciousness is not material——but neither is it an element opposed to matter." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952"] [Emphasis mine.]

And here:

"Man is a being endowed with consciousness —an attribute which matter does not possess. His consciousness is the free, nonmaterial element in him." [The Letters of Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)," To Nathan Blumenthal, January 13, 1950] [Emphasis mine.]

"Material," is Ayn Rand's word fot the physical, that which we directly perceive.

Rand (and I agree) belived that consciousness is a perfectly natural attribute of existence, but not a physical attribute. There is no hint of mysticism or dualism in this. It only means, that nature has room in it for more attributes than the physical alone can account for.

Now to your original question. How to deal with someone who denies volition, and perhaps consciousness itself. One way that has worked for me, is to ask one simple question.

"Can you see?" "How do you know you can see?" "Can you prove to me you can see, and can you demonstrate to me what you see?"

Of course no one can do that. Our seeing, like all our conscious experience is subjective. What one experiences consciously cannot be demonstrated to anyone else. But science can only deal with what can be demonstrated, that is, what can be directly perceived--by anyone. Science cannot deal with consciousness.

We do not know we can see because we can prove it to someone else, we know we can see because we do it. And we do not know we can consciously choose what we do because we can prove it to anyone else, we know we can consciously choose, because we do it.

If your roommate denies he can see, throw him an eraser or something, and when he catches it, ask him how he did it without seeing it.

It has worked for me in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as human beings, we cannot do anything without consciously choosing to.

I disagree. If you fall in love, there's no conscious choosing involved.

Or if you start daydream.

Or if you get an erection.

Or...

I'd even go so far that people most of the time dont think, and dont consciously choose. Rather they're on autopilot most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a minor addition to the above, but I think it's often overlooked in debates on determinism.

That decision you have made is not made in vacuo. It is a starting point to another, and another, each having alternatives.

Kind of a decision-continuum, that at the end of a year, say, has involved thousands of factors - and taken one to a specific 'place,' and no end in sight.

Like a chess game, with near-endless combinations of moves, from a given position.

If there's precious factors involved that drives the decision then the starting point was before "your" decision making and you didn't create it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Not if choice is an illusion. Then there cannot be one.

As I said in post #6, paraphrased below:

To say that something is an illusion, and that you are being deceived by that illusion, one must accept that you are capable of integrating knowledge and forming judgments and conclusions. In other words, for you to be deceived by something requires that you make the wrong judgment about it, to come to the wrong conclusion. By asserting that you are *making* judgments, that you are *making* conclusions, you must assume that you truly are choosing.

So, you are saying that you are incorrectly judging that you can make judgments. Thus you are employing the axiom in its refutation, and contradicting yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's precious factors involved that drives the decision then the starting point was before "your" decision making and you didn't create it.

That is your arbitrary assertion. Feel free to back it up with evidence. You are affirming a split between the mind and the body - i.e. you are claiming that for the mind to truly "choose" or "decide" anything, it must not be affected at all by the body or by physical reality. On what is this claim based?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is your arbitrary assertion. Feel free to back it up with evidence

If I fall in love with a girl it's not because of a decision it's because, well I just fall in love. There's no starting point, it just happends. I can't MAKE myself love everybody. No matter how hard i choose to think.

If I'm obese it can be because of genetic factors. Or eating habits established as a child. Or my reaction to a depression. Or because I just love food, I didn't one day wake up and decided to love food I just do. Or a bad habit I cannot break because I don't have whatever it takes, to break it. Or maybe, just maybe I CAN break that bad habit... well then it's because I DO have what it takes (but whatever that is, I didn't create so it's no thanks to me...)

If I prefer blondes to brunettes, it's not by choice, it's by preference. Did I create that preference? No. It's just there. In each and everyone of us. No matter if we're objectivists or not.

As we can see there's always a BEFORE reason, something BEFORE we make a decision proving that we dont make a decison ebcause the decision has already been made before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are determined to be determined, then you have already predetermined just how determined you are determined to be.

You have already decided that the decisions have aready been decided for you.

If you have decided to forget that you have decided this, the decision to forget deciding that decision would seem to have been decided for you, decidedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are determined to be determined, then you have already predetermined just how determined you are determined to be.

You have already decided that the decisions have aready been decided for you.

If you have decided to forget that you have decided this, the decision to forget deciding that decision would seem to have been decided for you, decidedly.

If determinism is true there is no "I"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge lack of arguments here. No shortage in personal attacks, both publically and privately though. I guess I hit a nerve. Thats typical for a brute as Ayn Rand would say.

There's a difference between using a personal attack to invalidate someone's argument (ad hominem) and treating others as they deserve to be treated. There have been plenty of arguments in this thread in favor of free will, and your "arguments" against it are ridiculous.

You seem to believe that we are not rational if we don't take your "arguments" seriously and give them a serious, fair hearing. That's like a drinking buddy who tells you that fruit flavored drinks (which you drink because they taste good) are gay and believes you have to drink a beer to be manly.

Just as it is not a virtue to subject yourself to the taste of a disgusting drink, it is not a virtue to subject ourselves to taking ridiculous assertions seriously if we don't want to.

I think I'll enjoy addressing this, however.

If I fall in love with a girl it's not because of a decision it's because, well I just fall in love. There's no starting point, it just happends. I can't MAKE myself love everybody. No matter how hard i choose to think.

If I'm obese it can be because of genetic factors. Or eating habits established as a child. Or my reaction to a depression. Or because I just love food, I didn't one day wake up and decided to love food I just do. Or a bad habit I cannot break because I don't have whatever it takes, to break it. Or maybe, just maybe I CAN break that bad habit... well then it's because I DO have what it takes (but whatever that is, I didn't create so it's no thanks to me...)

If I prefer blondes to brunettes, it's not by choice, it's by preference. Did I create that preference? No. It's just there. In each and everyone of us. No matter if we're objectivists or not.

As we can see there's always a BEFORE reason, something BEFORE we make a decision proving that we dont make a decison ebcause the decision has already been made before us.

Sounds to me like someone's acting on their emotions. I could describe to you the fact that emotions are the result of subconscious value judgments and explain the implications of that. But I won't, because that's not even the point.

Just because you act on your emotions doesn't mean you're determined. It just means you're hedonistic. Whatever temptations you may feel, you still choose whether or not to act on them.

So don't sit there and eat chocolate cakes all day and mumble, cake crumbs falling out of your frosting-smeared, obese mouth, that it's not your fault that you're eating all of the cake. It is your fault. Choose to stop eating the goddamned cake. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you act on your emotions doesn't mean you're determined. It just means you're hedonistic. Whatever temptations you may feel, you still choose whether or not to act on them.

So don't sit there and eat chocolate cakes all day and mumble, cake crumbs falling out of your frosting-smeared, obese mouth, that it's not your fault that you're eating all of the cake. It is your fault. Choose to stop eating the goddamned cake.

I guess you've never fallen in love then if you think it's a rational thing that you decide upon, or not.

How do you know if people can choose to stop eating cake or not? How could you possibly know if it's possible, you don't have their set of genes, experiences, upbringing, habits etc. if it's as simple as to choose or not to choose, how come they don't choose? There's plenty of people that would want nothing more than to choose not to, millions. Yet they don't.

Same with smoking. Some people find it easy to quit so they think it's easy just because it's easy for them, but they fail to see that people are different. Just like you fail to see that people are different. What's easy for you is hard to impossible for someone else.

Edited by stump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, believe me, I've fallen in love. And many times not had the feeling returned by the one I fell in love with. The emotions associated with that can be powerful and they can make you suffer a lot. But even then, it's possible to think rationally and overrule them if you put forth the mental effort to do so.

The same applies to those other examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is possible to control emotions, but the question is why is it possible. What makes it possible. Will power? Where does will power come from? Is it something we all have to various degrees? If so thats not very fair is it. And it's not up to us is it. How can we take credit for something that a) we're born with and b- wether we use it or not and to what degrees and success, again depends on our born with abilities.

There's countless millions of people that struggle and fail to control their emotions. Free will doesn't help them a whole lot now does it?

Edited by stump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question makes no sense. The fact that people struggle to control their behavior does not negate free will. In fact it affirms it. Or do you think the term "will power" is meaningless? Were not "meat in motion". I think all of this has been answered already with regard to consciousness having identity, and rejecting the mind body problem, but perhaps someone has the patience to explain that making choices requires having a standard of value. Whether that standard is rational or not determines the course of our lives. But Im sure that youll just ask why we choose one course over another, and choose life as the standard instead of death, or stagnation perhaps. In which case I would refer you to "The Objectivist Ethics" because you wont learn it on a discussion forum. At that point the choice is yours.

And you should stop using terms like "decision" and "choice" and "struggle" and "control" and "think".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I will ask you to 1) define volition, and 2) point to its referents (i.e. examples of it in reality).

Was this an unreasonable request?

we'll find out that whatever choice we end up making was already being made before we were presented with the alternatives.

Thus, there really is no choice, there is no volition.

How is this a definition?

Then you are using the word "choice" to refer to two different things. Can you give examples where people do have choice, and examples where people don't have choice, but think they do?

If there is no choice, then how do you propose to validate your usage of the concept?

No. Not if choice is an illusion. Then there cannot be one.

All situations.

Did you choose to define choice as an illusion, or are you still evading the request to define volition?

Stump, what is your point in arguing this if people can't make choices? To play your part in some pre-scripted play so that others will too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I fall in love with a girl it's not because of a decision it's because, well I just fall in love. There's no starting point, it just happends. I can't MAKE myself love everybody. No matter how hard i choose to think.

If I'm obese it can be because of genetic factors. Or eating habits established as a child. Or my reaction to a depression. Or because I just love food, I didn't one day wake up and decided to love food I just do. Or a bad habit I cannot break because I don't have whatever it takes, to break it. Or maybe, just maybe I CAN break that bad habit... well then it's because I DO have what it takes (but whatever that is, I didn't create so it's no thanks to me...)

If I prefer blondes to brunettes, it's not by choice, it's by preference. Did I create that preference? No. It's just there. In each and everyone of us. No matter if we're objectivists or not.

As we can see there's always a BEFORE reason, something BEFORE we make a decision proving that we dont make a decison ebcause the decision has already been made before us.

You're confusing preferences and emotions with choices. We cannot chose our preferences, they simply are what they are. We can affect them over time (for example, I have acquired a taste for coffee through drinking it often enough) but it's true, we can't choose them. However, that's irrelevant to the question of whether we can freely chose anything at all. Humans make choices, plain and simple, about many of the actions that they take. Preferences and desires do not determine a man's actions, because he can always defy them. We all have personal experiences with this, I should hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is possible to control emotions, but the question is why is it possible. What makes it possible. Will power? Where does will power come from? Is it something we all have to various degrees? If so thats not very fair is it. And it's not up to us is it. How can we take credit for something that a) we're born with and b- wether we use it or not and to what degrees and success, again depends on our born with abilities.

There's countless millions of people that struggle and fail to control their emotions. Free will doesn't help them a whole lot now does it?

Now you're bundling up questions of whether or not we have free will with how much credit we deserve for acting in a certain way, whether or not the involuntary aspects of our characters are distributed "fairly," etc. The simple fact which is pertinent to this thread is: we can all choose our actions, regardless of how easy or hard it is for us to defy our inclinations, and regardless of how much moral praise or blame we deserve for acting in a certain way. All of those questions come later, after we've settled the current question in favor of free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

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...