Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On the question of free-will vs. determinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What do you mean when you refer to man's "nature"? From my readings of Rand, I was under the impression that she believed the nature of man was "A rational being with volition". You do not appear to agree with this, (as otherwise your point that "man's choices are determined by his nature" reduces to "man's choices are determined by him having free will" which is either trivially true or nonsensical, depending on how you view it), so what are you using the term to mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Are the actions of a man determined by His nature?

Ie, does Man obey the law of causlity which states that the actions of entities are solely determined by the nature of the entities engaged in the action?

You incorrectly claim that Objectivism denies this. According to Objectivism, man does obey the law of causality. His nature, which he obeys, is that of a volitional being with a primary choice of whether to focus or not to focus.

For example, as a result of being a normal adult human, you have a choice of whether to think or evade. However, the result of that choice is not determined by the fact that you are human - it is determined by your *particular* nature.

This is where you go wrong and actually seem to deny free will. For, if the outcome of the primary choice is determined by one's particular nature, one really has no choice. If the result of the choice is determined, how can you even call it a choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For, if the outcome of the primary choice is determined by one's particular nature, one really has no choice.

Daniel,

Is an entity equal to the sum of its attributes?

(I believe that Rand's answer is in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It's "Yes.")

Think about the answer to that question, then ask whether "Determined by my nature" and "determined by me" are semantically different statements. If they're not, then how could one be "free" and the other "not free." That would be a case of A=!A.

Would it be correct to say this?

I have free will.

I determine my actions. 

My actions are determined by me.

What am I if not the sum of my attributes? In this context, "nature" means "the sum of the attributes of a given entity."

What do you mean when you refer to man's "nature"? From my readings of Rand, I was under the impression that she believed the nature of man was "A rational being with volition".
It is important to distinguish between "Man's Nature" and a particular man's nature. For example, as a result of being a normal adult human, you have a choice of whether to think or evade. However, the result of that choice is not determined by the fact that you are human - it is determined by your *particular* nature.
"A rational being with volition" is certainly a succinct way to sum up the nature of the class of things called "Man." That is the definition of the concept, the way in which you differentiate it from all other entities and integrate the class under a single word. However, if I say, "Bob is 6' tall," I'm clearly not saying anything about "Man," though I'm certainly saying something about Bob. Many attributes of any given person are not "inherited" from the "Man" class.

You know, every day I notice a little more that computer-ese creeps into my speech...

I'm turning into an android, I swear :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A rational being with volition" is certainly a succinct way to sum up the nature of the class of things called "Man."  That is the definition of the concept, the way in which you differentiate it from all other entities and integrate the class under a single word.  However, if I say, "Bob is 6' tall," I'm clearly not saying anything about "Man," though I'm certainly saying something about Bob.  Many attributes of any given person are not "inherited" from the "Man" class.

You know, every day I notice a little more that computer-ese creeps into my speech...

I'm turning into an android, I swear :)

In that case I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean. What 'is' an individual man's nature? How can you determine it or decide to what extent its influencing his actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poohat,

An entity is the sum of its attributes.

In other words,

An entity is its nature.

That is aristotelian metaphysics in a nutshell. An entity is its nature. A thing is the sum of its attributes. That's the first implication of the law of identity.

An "invidual man's nature" is the sum of attributes of the individual man. It is shorthand for saying "what he is, including all aspects, known and unknown."

I would like for someone to explain how "my nature" and "me" are semantically different, and how they can reconcile that with the law of identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your nature and you aren't different, they're the same, and what your nature determines that you do is to certain circumstances *choose* -- i.e., to cause action in a certain uniquely human way that is not predetermined.
Leave aside for a moment "in a certain uniquely human way that is not predetermined," since that's what we're trying to become clear on. First, I want to make sure that we know what we mean by "to cause action," so as not to get in deeper before laying the proper groundwork.

What is choosing? Me, or my nature?

What is causing the action? Me, or my nature?

What determines the outcomes of my choices? Me, or my nature?

Remember, you said that they are the same thing. So all of these are trick questions. What you really said in that quote is this:

You and you aren't different, they're the same, and you determine that you, in certain circumstances, *choose* -- i.e., cause an action.
or, equally...
Your nature and your nature aren't different, they're the same, and your nature determines that your nature, in certain circumstances, *choose* -- i.e., cause an action.
Observe how silly the world is when you accept an Aristotelian metaphysics halfway, and still try to split an entity from its nature, talking about the two concepts as if they're two separate things.

It my nature does not determine the outcome of some event, then how could I have had any choice regarding that event? If an action was caused by me, then wasn't it caused by my nature? If not, then we're hypothesizing that I can violate the law of identity, by affecting an event without any means of doing so (for a means would entail having some property, which would be a part of my nature.)

Do any of you take issue with this much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep on regretting putting my two cents into these threads. I keep thinking that I can make a brief helpful comment, but inevitably I end up getting drawn into a debate. So this will be my last post here for a while.

All causality is an entity causing itself to do something, so it is not surprising that Isaac can reformulate causal statements to bring that point out.

However, some of his specific reformulations rest on confusions. The concept "nature" conceptualizes an entity from a certain perspective (viz. as a metaphysically-given cause of actions). It is not valid to simply substitute "my nature" for "me" in sentences, just as it is not valid to substitute "my existence" or "my identity" for "me" into sentences. You can't say, for example, "My nature gave my existence's girlfriend's being the actuality of a card that said 'Be my unity's valentine'". The problem with that isn't just that this sentence is cumbersome. It is a misuse of all the metaphysical jargon I threw in there. It is true that existence is identity and identity is nature. But that does not make the concepts equivalent. Each concept gives a different perspective. And that perspective is necessary and valid only in certain contexts.

(Incidentally, in 99 out of 100 cases, if you're tempted to write an equal sign between two concepts, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking.)

Now human beings cause actions in a special way that is not predetermined by past events. Not all aspects of all of our actions are metaphysically given. So it is wrong to say that, in a case where we have a choice, our nature determines the action. That would obliterate the concept "choice" altogether. If you want to use the language of "nature", the proper formulation would be that our nature determines *that* we will choose but not *what* we will choose. What we choose is caused by *us* in a *different way*. It is precisely this different type of causation that gives rise to the need for the concept "choice".

Now when I say what we choose is caused by *us* rather than our natures, what exactly does this mean? The nature of a thing is that thing *qua* necessitator of actions. But what we choose is caused by us *qua* *chooser* of actions.

Now, if this all seems convoluted, it's because, it's because it is designed to make a very simple point accessible from within a warped rationalistic context. The direct way to come at the issue is just to notice that we can choose and that causing something by choice is different from causing it in some other way. For example, choosing to blink is different from blinking automatically (e.g., when dust enters your eye), though both are caused by you. That difference is self-evident and, in the end, that is all that the issue of freewill vs. determinism turns on.

Isaac claims that the law of causality (or the concept of nature, or whatever) rules out the possibility of (non-predetermined) choice. But what's the basis for this claim? Where does he get his (overly narrow) conception of causality? Where does he get the concept "nature"? The argument is nothing but a string of words.

If we detach our concepts from the facts that give rise to the need for them and write them neatly on pieces of paper in strings with equal signs and arrows, we can create all sorts of very rigorous feeling proofs, but it's all meaningless and it just leads to confusion. Parmenides, for example, "proved" in this way that motion and plurality were impossible, inaugurating two centuries of vexed absurdity. All of this was solved when Aristotle simply (but brilliantly) turned his attention to the facts that gave rise to the relevant concepts, at which point all the tangled webs of pseudo-logic dissolved making progress possible. Let's follow his example in philosophy rather than tying our minds in knots by emptying his concepts of meaning and playing word-games with their carcasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isaac, given your comments on "becoming an android," the following might help:

An inanimate object's actions at a given point in time--A(t)--are a function of the influences it has received from other objects up to that time--i(t):

A(t) = f ( i(t) )

Here, f embodies the object's nature. As you can see, the object is simply reacting to outside influences.

In the case of a human, f has an additional input, which is the human's volitional "attitude" at the given point in time, i.e. to focus or not to focus:

A(t) = f ( v(t), i(t) )

f is still the human's nature, but in this case, f is such that f and i(t) are not enough to determine the human's action. One more variable is needed, and f "obtains" the value of that variable by consulting the human's volitional consciousness. We know that this is true because we can observe our nature "asking" us what to do all the time. So in the end it is f and v(t) that determine the human's reaction to i(t), and indirectly the human's future nature. If v(t) has the wrong value, f might become such that

A(t) = f ( i(t) )

which means that the human has died. And that is what we--i.e. those of us who have the right v(t)--want to avoid, so our A(t) is to seek some philosophical i(t) that will hopefully keep it from happening.

B)

But I agree with GCS that we should follow Aristotle's example of paying attention to the relevant facts rather than play silly word-games. The above should serve as a way for an "android-minded" B) person to satisfy himself that what we are doing is indeed exact science, but for Earthlings, it makes more sense to simply just recognize the fact that we are constantly making choices--and pursue philosophy so we can make the best possible choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all are making this way more complicated than it has to be. I suppose I've been helping with that, too ;)

If *I* cause something, then it must depend on some (or all) of the attributes that I posess.

Now, that's certainly not to say that you can take some arbitrary string of known events and say what I'll do. But it does imply that my actions depend upon ME.

What we choose is caused by *us* in a *different way*.
A way that's different from being caused by the some or all of the attributes that I posess?

Are you saying that something can be caused by me, yet not affected by any attribute that I posess? Or, I suppose you could be saying that I cause something, yet it is affected by attributes that I don't posess... but then I wouldn't really be the only cause, would I? Or maybe that it's just not caused by anything in particular? (*see footnote)

It's as if you're saying that "the sum of Isaac's attributes" is a bunch of mechanistic cogs, and there's a magical ghost named "Isaac" riding along with it. The cogs force the ghost to choose, but it's up to the ghost to make the choice. Excuse me, but that's just silly.

We all know that we do make choices, and that we determine the outcome of our choices. Which means that all or most of the factor(s) that affect the outcomes of our choices must be attributes that we posess.

(By the way, I'd love to see a rebuttal that can resolve this discrepancy without using this non-argument: "Our nature doesn't determine our choices because man has a particular nature of a certain sort that makes him non-predetermined." EVERYTHING has a "particular nature of a certain sort." That's fancy philosobabble for "our choices aren't determined by our nature because man is a thing that's a thing that's not predetermined.")

  I keep on regretting putting my two cents into these threads. I keep thinking that I can make a brief helpful comment, but inevitably I end up getting drawn into a debate.
I believe I know how you feel. I keep trying to think of other ways to put this more simply. I really don't see why everyone has such a big problem with this, when it seems so obvious to me. It's almost like objectivists get offended at the idea of predetermination, start throwing around the qua's like nobody's business ;) But I mean, your nature is whatever you choose to make it; it's not like this has to be so darn controversial.

I too feel boredom coming on.

*footnote: This last one is more or less exactly what Peikoff describes in OPAR. He says that the existence of the choice is determined by a man's nature, but the outcome is not determined - by anything in particular. But it is determined by the Man himself - but not any of his attributes... That's like saying that a chicken lays an egg, but it's neither brittle nor hard, dark nor light, etc. Just nothing in particular. In creating the choice, you MAKE the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that we do make choices, and that we determine the outcome of our choices.  Which means that all or most of the factor(s) that affect the outcomes of our choices must be attributes that we posess.

(emphasis mine)

Yes. But you say it's all and we say it's most. You say that our genes, our memories, our sense perceptions etc. fully determine the outcome of the "choice." We (or at least I) say that these things--let's call them outside influences--combine to determine the state of your consciousness, but then it is up to you to choose your reaction to them.

"Up to you," "choose," "will," "initiative," and "power" are all ways to express an idea that is a primary concept only to be found in humans and not elsewhere, so it isn't possible to find even an analogy for it in the natural world. It is the premise that humans are just like everything else, only in different shapes, that makes you unable to "model" the process of volition in your mind.

The cogs force the ghost to choose, but it's up to the ghost to make the choice. Excuse me, but that's just silly.

There was a time when a man who said the Earth was spherical would get the response "Excuse me, but that's just silly." Why? Because people found it difficult or even impossible to imagine the Earth being anything other than flat, so they would assume that someone who came up with such a proposition must be deranged.

But it happened to turn out that the idea of the Earth being flat contradicts reality, while the idea of the Earth being similar to a sphere is consistent with reality. The proper measure for judging a proposition is its relation to reality, not its relation to the pre-existing models of reality in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But you say it's all and we say it's most. You say that our genes, our memories, our sense perceptions etc. fully determine the outcome of the "choice." We (or at least I) say that these things--let's call them outside influences--combine to determine the state of your consciousness, but then it is up to you to choose your reaction to them.
When you say that "most" of the factors that determine the outcome of your choice are attributes that you posess, but not all of them, then you're saying that there are factors affecting the outcome of the choice that do not have anything to do with you. They would be attributes that you do not posess - i.e., outside factors.

For example, if a rational man is drunk, then he will still be rational, for the most part. At the very least, he will recognize his intoxication, and will avoid doing anything that requires a great deal of focus. If, however, in his state, he avoids thinking about a particular topic, or says something that he normally wouldn't, it may be correct to say that the alcohol has something to do with that choice. It's still mostly under his control, but not totally under his control, because he is intoxicated, and this outside factor affects his judgement. (Even still, all the choices of a drunk man are nonetheless determined by his nature at that moment - which includes the attribute of intoxication. But it's not typical of him. I'm more inclined to take the strong stance, and say that all the choices of all humans are always determined only by their nature - i.e., are chosen - but this kind of statement generally opens the door for annoying rationalistic hair-splitting.)

Let me say this again, even though I feel like I'm getting repetitive:

I am NOT saying that your genes determine your choices.

I am NOT saying that "outside influences" determine your choices.

I am NOT saying that the choices of any given man may be predicted perfectly by plugging some variables into any equation.

I am saying that I determine the outcome of my choices. I am also saying, however, that this means that the attributes posessed by me determine the outcome of my choices and that it's the same thing, because an entity is the sum of its attributes.

If you don't understand this, and/or you think that I've just contradicted myself, then check your premises, and re-read what I've posted to this thread. Everyone, please stop telling me that I'm saying things that I'm clearly not saying.

How can "my memories," and "my sense perceptions" possibly be considered "outside" influences? Outside of what, exactly?

CapForever, in your response to my ghost/cog example, you seem to be saying that you do support that version of the mind/body dichotomy, and that it is irrational of me to doubt it. Am I understanding you correctly, or was the whole round earth thing just a non sequitur?

The only relevant parts of the "model of reality that exists in my mind" are that an entity is the sum of its attributes, that a thing cannot both posess and lack the same attribute at the same time at the same respect, and that the actions of an entity are caused by the nature of the entity that acts. Existence, identity, and causality. Are these facts mistaken? Are they not "consistent with reality"? (Funny, I thought they were axiomatic...)

This whole conversation reminds me a lot of James Taggart's "just love me for me" whine. As if you could love someone for themselves, but not for anything about them, as if their "self" was not the sum of their attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little note Isaac,

Man's nature does NOT determine the outcome (i.e., result) of his choice. It determines only THAT he choose. The outcome of his choice is determined by the nature of ALL the entities involved in his choice. If he chooses to drop a glass on the floor, that the glass will break is not determined by the fact that he is a man, but because the glass IS fragile, and the floor IS hard and solid, etc, and the earth is massive enough to accelerated the glass towards it, and so on...

Basically, your point is (and correct me if I'm wrong)

If entity A does action T, and entity A is the sum of all the attributes of entity A, then the sum of all the attributes of entity A does action T.

One thing that Ayn Rand warned in ITOE is to not take "sum" literally. You can't "add" attributes together and get an entity (see p. 264-268 in ITOE).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outcome of his choice is determined by the nature of ALL the entities involved in his choice
True dat, Tom. But in the choice of whether and how to think, the only entity involved is oneself, no? (Actually, in the case of the glass breaking, I'd say that one has no choice as to whether or not glass breaks upon sudden impact - that is metaphysically given. But you may have a choice about whether or not you drop it. One ultimately only has choices regarding one's own actions - you only have choices about other things to the extent that your own actions affect those other things.)

I will check the passage that you referenced when I get home, and either show that it's not relevant, that it supports my position, that it is incorrect, or I will change my position in light of new information. Thank you very much for adding some new content to this discussion, Tom. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CapForever, in your response to my ghost/cog example, you seem to be saying that you do support that version of the mind/body dichotomy, and that it is irrational of me to doubt it.  Am I understanding you correctly, or was the whole round earth thing just a non sequitur?

What I do support is not a mind-body dichotomy, but a dichotomy between what you have control over and what you don't. A dichotomy between you and the rest of the world. Your genes, for example, belong to the "rest of the world" in this respect. So does the culture you were born into, your family, the weather, etc.

All of these things have an influence on the attributes you will possess, and therefore on your actions. But they are not all the influence on them. You can influence your attributes and actions too.

So what I am saying is that there is an entity called "you" that is distinct from the rest of the world. This entity is conscious and has the power to determine some of its attributes, and thus, indirectly, many of its actions. The fact that it is conscious and has a will means that it has spiritual aspects, i.e. it is not purely material. But it has material aspects too, and it performs its actions on other entities via these material aspects (i.e. your body).

Yes, it is the sum of its attributes at any given time, but it can influence the way these attributes develop over time. Again, the meaning of "can" in this sentence is something you will only understand if you grasp the concept of volition. Inanimate objects don't "can" ; they just "do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been some discussion here about free will and it

touched a raw nerve in me for I have had similar conversations

when I get in a philosophical mood . The conversation usually

centers on the question of whether Homo Sapiens has Free Will

or not. Few ask what is meant by the term. I suppose they think

it's so obvious so self explanatory that it's not worth talking or

even thinking about.

The discussion invariably ends with a demonstration. Someone

picks up an object and drops it from one hand to the other and

says "This proves I have Free Will, I can hold it in my hand or

I can drop it. If I drop it it's not because anything made me,

in fact I could have held on to it but I just didn't feel like it".

When asked why he didn't feel like it the only answer your

likely to get is "I just didn't!" as if that explained everything.

If I point out that I was the cause of the demonstration by bringing

up the subject in the first place, anger sometimes results.

To say "I can do anything I want to" is not an expression of absolute

freedom but a severe restriction on it for the clear implication is

"I can do nothing I don't want to".

We feel certain that we are totally in control of our actions

yet when someone acts in a way we don't understand we still ask

"Why did you do that?" by which we mean what CAUSED you to

do it. At the same time we pretend that our will is completely

independent of external factors as if our behavior has no cause

although if this was true our conduct would be totally random.

No concept in Philosophy has been analyzed as poorly or has

greater practical implications.

This confusion largely stems from the enormously powerful

intuitive feeling that we are not robots and that our minds are

not deterministic. Indeed modern Physics has shown, by way of

Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Inequality, that

some things happen for no reason, in other words they are truly

accidental. No one has shown that this element of chance extends

to the workings of the mind but it seems likely that at least to

some degree that it does. I maintain that randomness, whether it

exists in the human brain or not, has much to do with the

question of determinism but nothing to do with volition.

Intuition should not be dismissed lightly especially when it's

almost universally held. But what is this intuition trying to tell us?

People differ greatly over this but I think we can find a minimal

definition of free will that almost everyone can agree on ;

and that is a feeling of choice. This sensation of autonomy

is a crucial aspect of our internal life so any successful

theory of the Will must explain the source of this emotion.

Let's simplify things to their essentials. Imagine a world in

which the environment was so simple it could be predicted with

complete accuracy. Doubtless we would find such a place boring

and unpleasant but I don't think we would feel like robots.

Thus the origin of the sensation of autonomy can not be external.

What does it mean to "feel like a robot"? I think that if you

could always forecast your own behavior and thoughts with

complete accuracy then you would feel like a robot. Uncertainty

is at the root of freedom and choice. I hope to show that even

in a predictable habitat and even ignoring whatever effects

quantum uncertainty has on the macro-world, it is impossible,

even in theory, to entirely foresee ones own conduct.

For the mind to totally understand itself it must form a perfect

internal model of itself. The model must not only describe the

rest of the mind in every detail but it must also depict the

model itself with a micro model. This micro model must represent

the rest of the brain and the micro model itself with a micro

micro model. This path leads to an impossible infinite regress.

Both the brain and the model must be made up of a finite number

of elements. If we are not to lose accuracy the components of

the brain must have a one to one correspondence with the elements

of the model. But this is impossible because the brain as a whole

must have more members than the part that is just the model.

This argument does not hold if the mind is infinite, that is if

it has an infinite number of segments. It would be possible to

find a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of itself;

for example you CAN find a one to one correspondence between the

set of odd integers with the set of all integers. Thus an

infinite intellect could predict all its actions without error.

So we are lead to the interesting conclusion that man has free will

but GOD if SHE exists does not.

Let me suggest a thought experiment; a man is walking down a

road and spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of

advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if

he will go right or left, he hadn't decided. Now imagine a

powerful demon able to look into the man's head and quickly

deduce that he would eventually choose to go to the left.

Meanwhile the man, whose mind works much more slowly than the

demon's, hasn't completed the thought process yet. He might be

saying to himself I haven't decided I'll have to think about it,

I'm free to go either way. From his point of view he is in a

sense correct, even a robot does not feel like a robot but from

the demon's viewpoint it's a different matter, he simply deduced

a purely mechanical operation that can have only one outcome.

But is it really a purely mechanical operation, what about the

uncertainty principal? I don't see how it effects matters one

way or another. It says that some things can happen for no cause

and thus are truly random, but happenstance is the very opposite

of intelligence and even emotion.

Things either happen because of cause and effect or they don't

and if they don't then they are by definition random and have

nothing to due with volition. Those who claim that this is the

source of the will must also believe that a nickel has free will

when you flip it. This topic muddies the question but does

not change it.

In my example the demon did not tell the man of his prediction,

but now lets pretend he did. Suppose also that the man, being of

an argumentative nature, was determined to do the exact opposite

of what the demon predicted. Now our poor demon would be in a

familiar predicament. Because the demon's decision influences

the man's actions the demon must forecast his own behavior, but

he will have no better luck in this regard than the man did and

for the same reasons. What we would need in a situation like

this is a mega-demon able to look into the demon's head. Now the

mega-demon would have the problem.

As a final variation let's make our demon have an infinite mind.

Now our demon would be able to have full self knowledge yet

because of the man's decision to be contrary he still can not

say what he will do, even if he knows what it is. So under

certain circumstances there are some things that even a limitless

mind can not do, it can not communicate with us freely.

Perhaps we should return to earth now because unlike some

esoteric controversies in philosophy this topic has some

practical applications. Don't worry that a duplicate of you will

not REALLY be you because the copy will feel like a robot, he won't.

If the copy thinks you have survived, then you have. Also,

in the matter of criminal law the general public and lawyers in

particular have some strange ideas about the purpose of

punishment. They seem to feel that if someone has derived

pleasure in a evil way, it is the law's duty to somehow balance

the books by making the lawbreaker suffer. The cliche about

man being responsible for his own actions is merely a

rationalization for sadism. This leads to endless convoluted

irrelevant arguments reminiscent of the medieval one about pins

and dancing angles. What was the mental state of the lawbreaker?

Did he grow up in a good home as a child? Did he undergo a lot

of strain as a adult? Is there anything physically wrong with

his brain? Was he in full control of his faculties? And even a

question that philosophers fight about to this day "does he know

the difference between right and wrong?". Little wonder that the

legal system is hopelessly backlogged.

The only logical or moral reason for punishing a wrongdoer is to

prevent a similar crime from happening; it's the difference between

justice and vengeance. Making an evil person suffer just for the

fun of seeing him in pain is pointless and cruel, after all a

bad man suffers just as intensely as a good man.

It would seem to me that everything, and I mean absolutely

everything, happens because of cause and effect OR it does not

happen because of cause and effect. If it is the first then it’s

mechanistic and if it’s the second then it is by definition random,

I don’t see any third possibility. So if people have “Free Will”

then so does a cuckoo clock or a pair of dice. Actually I think

Free Will is one of those ideas that is so bad it’s not even wrong.

John K Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, capforever, there are certainly some attributes that I posess that I do not control. I cannot choose to be 3' tall (at least, not without a leg-ectomy!) and it is reasonable to conclude that my height has nothing to do with my ability to choose to think or evade, or the outcome of that choice. This is the argument for saying that not all of a man's attributes or characteristics affect the outcome of his choices. Everyone has a lot of characteristics that are inessential in the context of a discussion of volition.

The problem that causes most determinists to go off course is that they try to say "These attributes (genes, +/- reinforcement, childhood, take your pick) cause a man to think or not." It is clear that we do not know enough about how the human mind works to say specifically which attribute(s) cause one's choice to go one way or the other. In fact, since so much of the brain's activity is on a microscopic - even subatomic - level, it seems to me that the limits set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle imply that it is impossible to ever say exactly what those characteristics are. We don't even have words to describe them. (After all, without a means of measuring something, at least implicitly, how could you possibly form a concept?) Our best means of understanding the inner workings of the human mind continues to be introspection and inferrence from observation. And, since you can't "get outside your mind and take a look around," it makes sense that the choice of whether or not to think is irreducible, at least in practice. Nevertheless, if I make a choice (as I know that I do through direct introspective observation,) then the outcome is determined by me. Since I am my attributes, the outcome of the choice is determined by my attributes, whatever they may be. Since I cannot both have and lack the same attribute at the same time in the same respect, I know that my choices are predetermined, just like everything else in the universe.

(John: Despite the mystics in modern physics, the HUP does NOT show that things ever happen for no reason. That was Heisenberg's interpretation of his principle. The principle is true - his interpretation is invalid. It states that we are incapable of measuring them, as doing so by any means known to us would disturb them significantly. If you smack an electron with a photon to take a snapshot of it, you push it away from where it was. Just the way of things. This isn't an exception from the law of identity, merely a limitation of beings of our size looking at very small things. Do not be so arrogant as to confuse an epistemological limitation with a metaphysical fact. "If I can't learn it, then it must not exist"? Come on.)

Nonetheless, Identity tells us that these attributes, whatever they may be, are something and not nothing. At any given time, man will either have or lack any of these attributes, and not both.

Yes, it is the sum of its attributes at any given time, but it can influence the way these attributes develop over time.
Yes, indeed! That's what's so unique and cool about life, isn't it?

Inanimate objects may change over time (in fact, all of them do, tho they may do so very slowly - entropy says so.) Only living entities change in a specific goal-directed manner - generally towards preserving their lives. (Hence "life is self-generated, self-sustaining action.") Conscious living organisms (from slugs to humans) take this to another level. Not only do they change in this self-sustaining manner, they also respond to information in order to do so, and have some sort of consistent "map of the world" that they use in this process. Granted, for a slug, the "map of the world" is hardcoded in their nervous system and instincts, created purely through evolution's great heuristic. For a dog, it is a little different, and one could argue that a dog's mental picture is a response to experience as much as it is a result of instinct, but still, it's not anywhere near being what we would call "volitional."

Man, in processing information about the world, is able to also change the information processing mechanism to a very significant degree. We can cast our mental gaze upon our "map of the world," thus making the map itself something else that affects how we build the map. We can thus change our attributes (at least, those that are relevant to this discussion,) and thus learn from experiences in a way completely unlike a dog - because we can learn from the experience of learning, and thus aim our changes in the direction that we think they should go.

Just because we cannot predict something does not mean that it is not predetermined. Even if something changes over time, it still is what it is at every moment. (This is why there is no "change" apart from a "changing entity." Metaphysically, there is just an entity. At another point in time, there is a different entity. "Change" is our epistemological way of "connecting the dots," - but what exists at any moment is the entity, and it always is what it is.)

Far from implying that man is a powerless pawn to outside factors, these facts imply that a man has nearly total control over his life, his character, and his choices. (After all, these things are determined by his attributes, and he IS his attributes.) This implies the need for moral accountability (since man is resposible for his choices, and cannot blame them on other factors,) for rationality (the need of a chosen method of thinking,) and for independence (our basic nature demands that we take responsibility for our lives if they are to continue,) and all that other good stuff in philosophy. It follows from the axioms of identity and existence that man has volition, and yet also is a predetermined (though not always predictable) entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus an infinite intellect could predict all its actions without error. So we are lead to the interesting conclusion that man has free will but GOD if SHE exists does not.

Well, I don't know whom you got your definition of free will from, but the inability to predict one's actions is certainly not what Objectivists call free will. A bottle of water cannot predict its own actions, but that doesn't mean it has free will.

Free will (and this is my definition) is when a conscious, intelligent entity defines certain aspects of its own nature independently, on its own initiative. In other words, when an entity acts not as a mere agent of the rules of physics, but on its own behalf.

Note that both versions of this definition require you to abandon your (I take it) materialist view of the world. You have to think about the meaning of words like "conscious," "intelligent," "define," "independently," "initiative," as well as the ones I mentioned earlier on this thread: "power," "control," and "can." These words do not make sense in a materialistic, physics-only world. In fact, in a purely material world, you wouldn't even be conscious of my writing these things to you, because the very definition of the spiritual is "that which is related to consciousness." But yet, people do use these words and they do seem to have definite meanings which everyone apparently understands. Why is that?

(As an aside, may I ask if you are a feminist?)

Don't worry that a duplicate of you will not REALLY be you because the copy will feel like a robot, he won't. If the copy thinks you have survived, then you have.

Fine, then I'll just clone you and kill you. I'll give the clone twenty bucks for your letting me do this. Is that a deal?

(Before you make your decision, talk to some identical twins.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well, I don't know whom you got your definition of free will from"

I made it up.

"the inability to predict one's actions is certainly not what Objectivists call free will. A bottle of water cannot predict its own actions, but that doesn't mean it has free will."

Why not? By my definition a bottle of water does have fre will, I don’t claim my definition is terribly useful but at least it’s concrete, consistent and is not a hindrance to productive thought, something no other definition of the term has.

"Free will (and this is my definition) is when a conscious, intelligent entity defines certain aspects of its own nature independently, on its own initiative. In other words, when an entity acts not as a mere agent of the rules of physics, but on its own behalf."

On my own behalf, of my own free will, I consciously decide to go to a restaurant.

Why?

Because I want to.

Why ?

Because I want to eat.

Why?

Because I'm hungry?

Why ?

Because lack of food triggered nerve impulses in my stomach, my brain

interpreted these signals as pain, I can only stand so much before I try to

stop it.

Why?

Because I don't like pain.

Why?

Because that's the way my brain is constructed.

Why?

Because my body and the hardware of my brain were made from the information

in my genetic code (lets see, 6 billion base pairs 2 bits per base pairs 8 bits per byte that comes out to about 1.5 geg, compress it into a zip file and you could burn it on to a CD). The programming of my brain came from the

environment, add a little quantum randomness perhaps and of my own free will

I consciously decide to go to a restaurant.

"Note that both versions of this definition require you to abandon your (I take it) materialist view of the world. You have to think about the meaning of words like "conscious," "intelligent," "define," "independently," "initiative," as well as the ones I mentioned earlier on this thread: "power," "control," and "can." These words do not make sense in a materialistic, physics-only world. In fact, in a purely material world, you wouldn't even be conscious of my writing these things to you, because the very definition of the spiritual is "that which is related to consciousness." But yet, people do use these words and they do seem to have definite meanings which everyone apparently understands. Why is that?"

Conscious" and "intelligent" have a lot of meaning for me, independently," and "initiative” a bit less, “free will” none at all. And asking for a definition of definition makes no sense at all, if you can understand the question you don’t need at ask it.

"then I'll just clone you and kill you. I'll give the clone twenty bucks for your letting me do this. Is that a deal? (Before you make your decision, talk to some identical twins.)"

A clone (a twin is just a natural clone) is not good enough because it would not have any of my memories, but if you have a matter duplication machine that can record the position and momentum of every atom in my body to the accuracy allowed by the uncertainty principle and then use generic atoms to build a copy of me then yes, it’s a deal, give me 20 bucks and you can kill the original. As a matter of fact for all I know you may have already done so last night.

"As an aside, may I ask if you are a feminist?

No.

John K Clark [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonkc, do not confuse free will with "ability to do anything, including actions contrary to one's nature". Just because I can't hold my breath long enough to kill myself or flap my arms and fly, it does not mean I don't have free will. Free will is simply the ability to choose among alternative courses of actions.

Let's use that absurd example of yours:

I'm going to the restaurant.

Why?

Because I'm hungry.

No, that's not the right answer. One's hunger doesn't determine one's action of going to the restaurant. Millions in third world countries go hungry every year. Do they go to the restaurant?

No. Not if they couldn't.

Alright, then, WHY are you going to the restaurant?

Because I want to eat.

Wrong, again. Millions in the past wanted to eat but starved, did they go the restaurant?

No.

Answer the question!

Because I feel a pain called "hunger", meaning my body needs more food.

Didn't you understand my previous examples? Again, WHY ARE YOU GOING TO THE RESTAURANT!?

Because I choose to!!!

Why?

Because I'm hungry.

Wrong. Hunger does not compel one to--in particular--go to the restaurant. Hunger compels one to seek food, but not necessarily to go to a restaurant.

Why a RESTAURANT? Why not your own KITCHEN, a GROCERY STORE, or any other kind of store that sells food?

Why not STEAL a food? Why not GROW your own food?

Why not any other act that can get you food?

BLANK OUT.

POINT: hunger compels one to seek food. How you do it, when you do it, where you do it, from whom or from what you obtain it, with what means you do it, and so on, THOSE ARE UP TO YOU!!! *YOU* CHOOSE among ALL the nearly infinite alternatives when it comes to getting food.

In fact, you can even choose not to seek food despite your hunger. You can end that pain by killing yourself.

THAT is an example of free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? By my definition a bottle of water does have fre will, I don’t claim my definition is terribly useful but at least it’s concrete, consistent and is not a hindrance to productive thought, something no other definition of the term has.

Since when is a definition that is (by its author's own admission) "not terribly useful" simultaneously "not a hindrance to productive thought?" If it could be used in productive thought, then it would be useful, would it not?

This conversation has just gotten absurd. A rational person should have just dropped out as soon as it was stated that the conclusion that "GOD if SHE exists cannot" make choices was an "interesting" one to reach--how is it interesting when it is arbitrary and meaningless?--and probably sooner.

Because ultimately, arguing with any committed determinist, even if he tries to claim he isn't one by putting a prefix in front of it, is a waste of time. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it [my definition of free will] could be used in productive thought, then it would be useful, would it not?

Traditional ideas about free will are not true but they’re not false either, they’re just gibberish. It’s true, my definition doesn’t generate a lot of productive thought but at least it is not contradictory and does not send the brain into an endless loop. Best to just call it a bad job and stick the entire free will thing

(calling it an idea would give it far too much credit) into the trash can.

ultimately, arguing with any committed determinist, even if he tries to claim he isn't one by putting a prefix in front of it, is a waste of time.

I am not ashamed of my views, if I was a determinist I would not hesitate to say so in a loud clear voice, the reason you have not heard me say so is I don’t believe it is true. I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, and indeed modern physics tells us that some things have no cause; the word for such things is “random”.

This conversation has just gotten absurd. […] how is it interesting when it is arbitrary and meaningless?

It is my experience that nobody gets mad when they are winning an argument.

John K Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do not confuse free will with "ability to do anything

I don’t, It’s very simple, I say free will is the inability to always know what you will do next even in a simple predictable environment.

I'm going to the restaurant.

Why?

Why indeed. I’ll bet sometime in your life you’ve gone into a restaurant and I wouldn’t be too surprised if at least once somebody asked you why you went into that particular restaurant, did you have an answer for them? Usually when somebody is unable to give a reason for why they acted the way they did we take it as a sign of insanity, or at least irrationality.

John K Clark [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ultimately, arguing with any committed determinist, even if he tries to claim he isn't one by putting a prefix in front of it, is a waste of time.

I am not ashamed of my views, if I was a determinist I would not hesitate to say so in a loud clear voice, the reason you have not heard me say so is I don’t believe it is true. I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, and indeed modern physics tells us that some things have no cause; the word for such things is “random”.

Just for the sake of clarification, this was in reference to Isaac, not John. I am very well that John is not a determinist at all, but an indeterminist (which is even worse).

This conversation has just gotten absurd. […] how is it interesting when it is arbitrary and meaningless?

It is my experience that nobody gets mad when they are winning an argument.

John K Clark

And for the record, I was neither mad at (just slightly amused/irritated/bored) nor arguing with John (as I clearly didn't directly address his main arguments but rather just pointed out the irrationality of his whole approach in order to indicate that arguing with him is pointless). So I guess that doesn't overturn his past experience on either count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AshRyan,

You're right, things got silly right at the goddess mention.

Jon KC has coopted this thread. Can one of you sharp objectivists please respond to my last post? This thread was just starting to get good, and has taken a serious turn in the wrong direction. I believe that this is indicative of what's wrong here:

It is my experience that nobody gets mad when they are winning an argument.

Jon, an argument is a search for the truth. There are either two winners or two losers. You seem to be out to make sure that the other guy loses. Some of what you say may be true, or false, but you and everyone else will never know, because your approach is very confrontational and you sieze on the tiniest points to attack. Rather than try to lure your so-called opponents to your point of view by looking for common ground and points of agreement, you bring in many more disagreements with each sentence you write. You aren't arguing, Jon, you're just bickering with big words. A rational and honest man, when arguing, honestly wants the truth to be found. He wants to either find the way to convince his opponent that he is correct, or he wants to be convinced of his opponent's point of view, but he knows that the truth, properly approached and verbalized, will speak for itself. As long as you're thinking about who's winning and who's losing, well, Jon, it's clear that you win. Mark this on your scorecard, and kindly let us get back to actually discussing the topic. Thanks.

I was hoping that this wouldn't happen, that your posts would be disregarded as rationalistic bickering, and that the rest of us could continue our argument. Jon, if you have a problem with what I've said here, please respond via email - [email protected]. I'm not going to bother reading or replying to anything in this thread that doesn't have to do with Volition.

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...