Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Buridan's Ass

Rate this topic


Leonid

Recommended Posts

Ayn Rand used the indestructible robot to raise a contrast not available in nature. She didn't draw her conclusion from the example, she constructed the example to augment and clarify her conclusion.

 

On one other point, since free will is a pre-requisite of proof, wouldn't the attempt to prove free-will be self-refuting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calzonie

 

 

My hat is off to you.  That is the most perfect thought experiment I have ever seen or heard of.  It was a privilege to experience it in my mind.

Did you miss the punchline? That post was making fun of the thought experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol:

 

 

Calzonie was not making fun, was he?... if so that kind of humor is too subtle for my intellect...

 

I suppose you would never miss something like that.... ever... 

 

 

Do I need to come have a chat with you too at our next Rationalism meeting?  Is it this Tuesday or Thursday? 

 

 

Yours truly,

SL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand used the indestructible robot to raise a contrast not available in nature. She didn't draw her conclusion from the example, she constructed the example to augment and clarify her conclusion.

 

On one other point, since free will is a pre-requisite of proof, wouldn't the attempt to prove free-will be self-refuting?

No, Free will doesn't require proof in the sense of chain of logical conclusions based on observation. It's a first person self-evident experience.

However it's possible to bring up an ostensive proof, which I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dearest Leonid, Regarding your assertion, "4. Free Will is volition on conceptual level." : if you'd please remember that Miss Rand clearly proved that Free Will is the choice to think or not or not to think. It's pre-conceptual. And I'm surprised that you would cite Miss Rand's indestructible robot to lend validity to the ass. The ass is an arbitrary assertion taken as fact when it's not a sure thing that the ass wouldn't simply ignore the irrelevant things like equal distances while selecting a relevant value, food. Left or right, who cares. The doesn't . It wouldn't be a random selection. It's selecting a specific value. Us humans can trip on the irrelevant issues of equal distance. The ass would be eating hay while we insist it's not possible. The though experiment is arbitrary and therefore, invalid. BUT WAIT, DEAREST LEONID, I APPRECIATE THE DEEP THOUGHT OF WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO: you are basically trying to prove that free will exists in humans by saying that random choices prove free will exists in humans. You are inferring free will, then, doesn't exist in animals because they can't make random choices. I struggled with the question of whether or not free will exists, for a long time, many years ago, before Miss Rand proved to me that free will is simply the choice to think or not. The spark plug. No randomness or concept formation will have even occurred yet at that point. So sir, you're wrong and Miss Rand was right. You can't both be right on this. I'm not implying you're not an Objectivist; maybe you forgot a few lines of all the many books you've read by Miss Rand (& Professor Peikoff) and I'm glad I got to remind you. It makes me look smart on this site full of super smart people like you. They put "novice" on my photo. It's actually pronounced No Vice. Like I said I struggled with this issue before reading Miss Rand: BF Skinner asserted that free will doesn't exist (it's all just reflexes to the internal and external, he claimed). Gosh how I battled that alone. Miss ran solved it. There's no need to revisit the issue (unless you doubt her on that, which I'm not implying). There's important issues that need solving, based on our principles, so please, lend your time and great mind to those issues (help my economics forum!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dearest Leonid, Regarding your assertion, "4. Free Will is volition on conceptual level." : if you'd please remember that Miss Rand clearly proved that Free Will is the choice to think or not or not to think. It's pre-conceptual. And I'm surprised that you would cite Miss Rand's indestructible robot to lend validity to the ass. The ass is an arbitrary assertion taken as fact when it's not a sure thing that the ass wouldn't simply ignore the irrelevant things like equal distances while selecting a relevant value, food. Left or right, who cares. The doesn't . It wouldn't be a random selection. It's selecting a specific value. Us humans can trip on the irrelevant issues of equal distance. The ass would be eating hay while we insist it's not possible. The though experiment is arbitrary and therefore, invalid. BUT WAIT, DEAREST LEONID, I APPRECIATE THE DEEP THOUGHT OF WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO: you are basically trying to prove that free will exists in humans by saying that random choices prove free will exists in humans. You are inferring free will, then, doesn't exist in animals because they can't make random choices. I struggled with the question of whether or not free will exists, for a long time, many years ago, before Miss Rand proved to me that free will is simply the choice to think or not. The spark plug. No randomness or concept formation will have even occurred yet at that point. So sir, you're wrong and Miss Rand was right. You can't both be right on this. I'm not implying you're not an Objectivist; maybe you forgot a few lines of all the many books you've read by Miss Rand (& Professor Peikoff) and I'm glad I got to remind you. It makes me look smart on this site full of super smart people like you. They put "novice" on my photo. It's actually pronounced No Vice. Like I said I struggled with this issue before reading Miss Rand: BF Skinner asserted that free will doesn't exist (it's all just reflexes to the internal and external, he claimed). Gosh how I battled that alone. Miss ran solved it. There's no need to revisit the issue (unless you doubt her on that, which I'm not implying). There's important issues that need solving, based on our principles, so please, lend your time and great mind to those issues (help my economics forum!).

Of course I know Ayn Rand position's on Free Will. But this is a summary, a bottom line. Free Will expresses itself in myriad ways, from the choice of ice cream to the choice not to think . And yes, volition as such is pre-conceptual, it even exists on the concrete-bound, animal level, since animals clearly demonstrate the ability to choose. A random choice however is an exclusively  property of human volition because it requires self-awareness. Animals cannot flop the coin. It has to be a conscious decision.  What I'm after is the origin of free Will and its evolution. Ayn Rand never addressed this issue. However Free Will is a biological phenomenon, it didn't appear out of the thin air, but developed from the animal ability to make choices. Maybe the better definition of Free Will would be volition on the level of self-awareness. Nobody yet denied existence of Free Will in the small children who don't make a choice to think or not,  but possess self-awareness and clearly make conscious choices. Paraphrasing Ayn Rand - In order to say " I want "X" one should be able to say "I" first. BTW, I'm not so sure about ass. I observed humans who have been paralyzed by variety of choices.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miss Rand DID address free will. You are mistaken. Free will is the choice to think or not. Included in the word not is the famous blank outs in gaults speech, among other chosen mental evasions. You are onto something important. You just misused some concepts, no biggie. Remember how Miss Rand said we are the only animal that can choose to act as its own destroyer? I suspect it's along those lines youre seeking an insight just out of reach. I can randomly choose to jump out of this penthouse. An ass cannot. That one of the exciting things of a conceptual consciousness. Remember, Leonid, Miss Rand spoke about this in ITOE, & mentioned similar things on occasions I'm unable to cite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you've already concluded that human volition exists, & the philosophies insisting on the validity of determinism are wrong. You've simply made a few errors in your assertions by accepting flawed premises. Check your premises. And then please reread ITOE and properly define the terms: free will, & volition. It would help. Thanks. I hope there are no hard feelings for my criticizms. You are very smart. And I think you are onto something profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand never defined volition as pre-conceptual. To the contrary, she wrote " The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." ( FTNI, 14). But on this we both disagree with her. As you said "if you'd please remember that Miss Rand clearly proved that Free Will is the choice to think or not or not to think. It's pre-conceptual."  Animals and small children possess volition but don't construct syllogisms. I don't deny that Free Will includes choice to thinks. It includes all choices including irrational thinking, choice of mystical standard of value and many other things. Exactly because man has Free Will he can act as his own destroyer. Free Will also includes an ability of random choice which animals don't have. And this is the only choice which could be demonstrated in the controlled experiment. That why I choose the Buridan's ass as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand never defined volition as pre-conceptual. To the contrary, she wrote " The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." ( FTNI, 14). But on this we both disagree with her. As you said "if you'd please remember that Miss Rand clearly proved that Free Will is the choice to think or not or not to think. It's pre-conceptual."  Animals and small children possess volition but don't construct syllogisms. I don't deny that Free Will includes choice to thinks. It includes all choices including irrational thinking, choice of mystical standard of value and many other things. Exactly because man has Free Will he can act as his own destroyer. Free Will also includes an ability of random choice which animals don't have. And this is the only choice which could be demonstrated in the controlled experiment. That why I choose the Buridan's ass as an example. The obvious question is why Free Will developed during the evolutionary process if it allows a self-destructive behavior? How that could be an evolutionary advantage? My answer is that an ability of random choice is a huge advantage. It allows to humans to act in the situations where an animal would be paralyzed by inability to choose. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL. Please reread my above text (the one I begin with Dearest Leonid). You are misrepresenting me and worse, Miss Rand. And you've implied that Schroedingers Cat (metaphysical-subjectivist nonsense) and your arbitrary ass assertion (less arbitrarily, one could assert the ass would choose one of the two by ignoring the irrelevant that some of us humans find difficult to ignore, and accept that as a premise). are on equal footing with Miss Rand immortal robot. They're not. Only her's is valid, obviously. Please not misrepresent what I type. Go on, please, look up my text, and if you apologize, I you will earn some of my respect, as a man who can readily admit when he's made an error. Thank you, Dearest Leonid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL."- but it's simply wrong. Ayn Rand claimed exactly the opposite. She said "The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional". See the quotation above. it's from Lexicon. Of course there is a difference between volition and Free Will. Volition is simply an ability to choose. All living organisms have such an ability on different levels. The mechanism of such a choice is or inherent or acquired from the experience and training. Such a mechanism doesn't allow choices which are detrimental to life or random choices. This is the reason that an animal is unable to make any selection in the case where no alternative good-bad/life-death exists.  Free Will however is a conscious choice. It requires an existence of self-awareness. It is a person who makes choices and he's aware of the fact he makes them. That why man can select randomly from two or more equal items or situations. His choice is really free, not bounded by any condition. Free will requires explicit awareness of desire.. More than that, Free Will allows a projection of the such a desire into the future which become a source of self-initiated action, that is-self causation. For example a person's desire to be a doctor drives him to study medicine for 6 years. 

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand never defined volition as pre-conceptual. To the contrary, she wrote " The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." ( FTNI, 14). But on this we both disagree with her. As you said "if you'd please remember that Miss Rand clearly proved that Free Will is the choice to think or not or not to think. It's pre-conceptual."  Animals and small children possess volition but don't construct syllogisms. I don't deny that Free Will includes choice to thinks. It includes all choices including irrational thinking, choice of mystical standard of value and many other things. Exactly because man has Free Will he can act as his own destroyer. Free Will also includes an ability of random choice which animals don't have. And this is the only choice which could be demonstrated in the controlled experiment. That why I choose the Buridan's ass as an example. The obvious question is why Free Will developed during the evolutionary process if it allows a self-destructive behavior? How that could be an evolutionary advantage? My answer is that an ability of random choice is a huge advantage. It allows to humans to act in the situations where an animal would be paralyzed by inability to choose. 

You're still misquoting me! I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual. Look anywhere in my text! I said FREE WILL IS PRE-CONCEPTUAL!!!! And above you said, "But on this we both disagree with her." (meaning you and I.) WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! I DON'T DISAGREE WITH HER  (I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SHE SAID BECAUSE SHE PROVED IT. AND PLEASE DON'T SPEAK FOR ME. You've still got free will and volition and conceptual consciousness mixed up. And when you said (above text): "I don't deny that Free Will includes choice to thinks," you then went on to imply that concepts are included. Free Will is pre-conceptual. It's the choice to think or not. All that other stuff you included, like ,"choice of mystical standard of value and many other things," is wrong, Dearest Leonid.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt's Speech, FNI 127 [the bold underlining is theestevearnold's doing]: "That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."

 

theestevearnold: Free will does not have to do with the content of thought, as you said above, e.g.: "---choice of mystical standard of value and many other things." A mystical standard of value requires concept formation, which free will presuposes.

 

Leonard Peikoff, the Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 3: "'Volitional' means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstance, the difference being made by the individual's decision, which could have been otherwise."

 

theestevearnold: Volition is clearly a general term that can include all the things you, Dearest Leonid, wrongly attributed to free will. Free will is the freedom to ignite the spark plug that gets the engine of thinking running, or not, depending on the individual's choice.  Do you disagree with Galt and Peikoff, too? I don't. Exactly which specific assertion of Miss Rand's philosophy are you trying to disprove?. I'm surrounded on all sides, all day, with an earfull from non-Objectivists. I'm on this site to share an Oasis for men and women who have also had proven to them that Objectivism is correct, and discuss ideas, clarify ambiguities, and debate implementation, etc. I've read posts from some great thinkers. What else about Miss Rand's flawless philosophy do you disagree with? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual ... I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL."

"The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." - Rand, in Galt's speech.

There is no difference between volition and free will. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't refer to the same concept. Rand uses the terms interchangeably, using free will in metaphorical contexts, but volition when not metaphorical. Saying the two are different is to be wayyyyyyy too literal. Notice the scare quotes of the quote you selected - it implies criticism of a free will that has no physical instantiation or limitation. In any case, Rand doesn't have a quote that says "free will is preconceptual", so there's no reason to suspect she made any distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual ... I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL."

"The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." - Rand, in Galt's speech.

There is no difference between volition and free will. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't refer to the same concept. Rand uses the terms interchangeably, using free will in metaphorical contexts, but volition when not metaphorical. Saying the two are different is to be wayyyyyyy too literal. Notice the scare quotes of the quote you selected - it implies criticism of a free will that has no physical instantiation or limitation. In any case, Rand doesn't have a quote that says "free will is preconceptual", so there's no reason to suspect she made any distinction.

Yes, I know that Ayn Rand used volition and Free Will interchangeably. However animals clearly demonstrate the ability to choose.I use "volition" to describe this faculty for the want of better term as opposed to Free Will, that is-volition on the level of self-awareness.  I view animal volition as a precursor of human Free Will. There is a lot misunderstanding about quotes . Theestevearnold first says "I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL" #41 than he says "I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual." #44. Maybe you can make any sense out of this.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that Ayn Rand used volition and Free Will interchangeably. However animals clearly demonstrate the ability to choose.I use "volition" to describe this faculty for the want of better term as opposed to Free Will, that is-volition on the level of self-awareness.  I view animal volition as a precursor of human Free Will. There is a lot misunderstanding about quotes . Theestevearnold first says "I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL" #41 than he says "I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual." #44. Maybe you can make any sense out of this.

I didn't contradict myself. I'm purposely not using the terms interchangeably because this discussion requires precision of definitions. Eiuol, I agree that they are interchangeable, but I submit that not always, in all contexts, like this discussion, due to Dearest Leonid convoluting them in a futile attempt to prove that Miss Rand's theory was wrong. I'll address where I think you're going with that, Dearest Leonid, because it's a valid point of confusion that I too need help with. Eiuol, I agree that free will and volition are interchangeable in instances where everybody knows what the speaker is referring to, and being wayyyyy to literal would slow discourse. But please recognize that sometimes being literal is necessary when dealing with people who are setting up straw man (intentional or not, Dearest Leonid). This instance calls for clarity. I'm purposely being literal, using a specific definition, that I accept as valid, from mind's Galt's Speech FNI 127 : "--'free will' is your freedom to think or not."  Would you interchange volition with free will in that sentence and declare that you've properly defined volition? Is that all a volitional act can be defined as? Choosing to think, or not? I think not. Of course free will is an act of volition.  And of course an act of volition, like choosing the brown suit instead of the blue, has the implicit concept of free will in it. But free will is a very important concept when refuting people who declare that free will doesn't exist. Giving an example that I can choose one of two (or more) suits doesn't prove free will. Miss Rand proved it when she specifically defined it in Galt's speech, and later, she or Dr. Peikoff gave an analogy to the effect that the existence of free will is like the existence of a spark plug in me, that I can choose to ignite my thinking processes, or not. A volitional act  can obviously include more than choosing to think or not, according to Leonard Peikoff in the Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series, Lecture 3: "'Volitional means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstance, the difference being made by the individuals decision, which could've been otherwise." This definition shows the generality of the term, which can apply to much more than free will. As if free will means baseball, but volition means ball. Interchangeable yes but, for times where specificity is required, ball could be too general and baseball, while yes, a ball, isn't all balls. I forgive you Dearest Leonid for misquoting me because you probably thought I was using the two as interchangeable in that context. I wasn't. Sometimes I do, but this discussion required precise definitions of terms because you are obviously in disagreement with Miss Rand. But I didn't appreciate you implying that I also disagreed with her. I don't disagree with her on any issue. I always find that with a little research and rereading and pausing to think about the last paragraph or whatever, proves the validity of Miss Rand's philosophy. But I do share some of your confusion on this and now I've got this glorious site to get help. I didn't have any Objectivists to communicate with before; and you guys are supersmart.  Eiuol, maybe you, or anybody, could help me, because I am in confusion here and I do need clarification. I read Peikoff's definition of volition, but I know that an animal or a baby-that hasn't-formed-concepts-yet can value, and select one of two values. So is it because the concept "value" is implicit in the action that makes it not pre-conceptual? In Galt's Speech, he said, "The pre-conceptual consciousness is non-volitional; volition begins with the first syllogism." Bu he never said every volitional act is conceptual, though it's heavily implied, so I dunno. I'm not trying to stretch here to save face. I'm confused. maybe Galt defines syllogism as the process of selecting among choices, making not all volitional acts necessarily a conceptual process (and that wouldn't contradict the first half of the sentence.) So here's the big question, right, Dearest Leonid?......... Does a volitional act require a conceptual consciousness?..........theestevearnold will owe you one if you give me the answer.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Steve. Who gave to you an idea that I think Ayn Rand is wrong? Not me, anyway.I think you missed the whole point by 5 miles. I don't even discuss here the nature of Free Will to which your post and quotations refer. My inquiry is not what Free Will is but how it came to be. In other words  its origin and evolution. If you have anything to contribute to this topic, please do it. Your input is welcomed.

 

"Leonard Peikoff in the Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series, Lecture 3: "'Volitional means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstance, the difference being made by the individuals decision, which could've been otherwise."

 

 Animals evidently able to select from two or more alternatives and therefore possess some equivalent of human volition. Since I have have no term for that  I call it animal volition, but you can call it as you wish, say animolition. My claim that this faculty  which exist in all living beings expresses itself on the cognitive level of self-awareness as Free Will. The difference between animolition and Free Will is that self-awareness makes this ability to select really free, not determined by the ultimate life-death alternative. Man could make any choices he wishes including choice not to live or just random choices. The experiment I quoted demonstrates a huge evolutionary advantage of Free Will compared with animolition. This is in my view is the reason why we developed Free Will. Now if you have any objections or criticism in regard to subject matter I'd like to hear it. But please stop your straw man beating exercises, it's boring.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Steve. Who gave to you an idea that I think Ayn Rand is wrong? Not me, anyway.I think you missed the whole point by 5 miles. I don't even discuss here the nature of Free Will to which your post and quotations refer. My inquiry is not what Free Will is but how it came to be. In other words  its origin and evolution. If you have anything to contribute to this topic, please do it. Your input is welcomed.

 

"Leonard Peikoff in the Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series, Lecture 3: "'Volitional means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstance, the difference being made by the individuals decision, which could've been otherwise."

 

 Animals evidently able to select from two or more alternatives and therefore possess some equivalent of human volition. Since I have have no term for that  I call it animal volition, but you can call it as you wish, say animolition. My claim that this faculty  which exist in all living beings expresses itself on the cognitive level of self-awareness as Free Will. The difference between animolition and Free Will is that self-awareness makes this ability to select really free, not determined by the ultimate life-death alternative. Man could make any choices he wishes including choice not to live or just random choices. The experiment I quoted demonstrates a huge evolutionary advantage of Free Will compared with animolition. This is in my view is the reason why we developed Free Will. Now if you have any objections or criticism in regard to subject matter I'd like to hear it. But please stop your straw man beating exercises, it's boring.

On Post # 39 you quoted Miss Rand, then said, "On this we both disagree with her." Scroll up, it's there, Dearest Leonid. Maybe you mis-typed; you meant to say agree, not disagree?  Anyway, I'm glad you created a new word, "animolition," to help describe what you are trying to prove (or figure out). Can I include an infant (who is still on the pre-conceptual level) in animolition?

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...