On the question of free-will vs. determinism

[Capitalism Forever]

Effectively there is no "mind"

So how do you explain your consciousness?

[AisA]

Young, you are claiming to know for a fact that you have no control over your mind. Then how do you know that its content is valid?

[Richard_Halley]

Young... you are still assuming that nothing may act without cause. This is a contradiction, and one which I have pointed out to you MANY times.

Also, AisA is right, if one has no control over the content of their mind, than there is no way to argue that the content of ones mind is valid/invalid.

[Young]

Alright, do address your first point, how and why do you propose to differentiate choice as acting without cause?

Secondly, again, what makes you certain that you have "control" over your "mind", it undergoes many changes the likes of which you can't fathom or expound, yet because you assign logical names to it like "hunger" or "desire" you are certain that you own them.

[AisA]

Let me state it a different way. Implicit in any claim to knowledge, is the claim to have control over one's mind. Therefor, the claim to "know" that determinism is true is self-contradictory.

[Richard_Halley]

Young:

Your entire theory is based on the concept that all actions are effects. I have already shown that, since effect implies cause, this is not possible.

The questions you ask require me to admit legitimacy of your theory--which I already disproved--and I am unwilling to do so. I don't have to differentiate choice because I have already shown that it need not be different.

As for my reason for believing in my own volition: I demonstrate it constantly, and I may observe it (in fact, the fact that I observe anything is, again, evidence of it). Also, I may ignore my "hunger" and "desires," or commit suicide; these are only a few of the things which human beings do, and other animals do not.

it undergoes many changes the likes of which you can't fathom or expound

Firstly, you have given no evidence for this, and, indeed, cannot give any evidence of this--since any evidence would be proof that I can fathom them--so I will just ignore it.

Secondly, the concept of fathoming (which means, to come to an understanding) presupposes volition, i.e. it is contrary to determinism.

Now your second point is twice nullified.

On a side note, your previous post dealt with neither of the statements made in my previous post. As such, your attempts to make it appear as though it did are either dishonest or simply idiotic. Either way, I don’t appreciate it.

[Socionomer]

Young,

You answered your own request the moment you made it by asking for an Objectivist argument against determinism. Consciousness is axiomatic. You acknowledge that just by recognizing determinism as a distinct theory.

[Young]

Whether Consciousness is to be taken as a wordly truth does not negate the possibility of previous events dictating the future. That you are conscious about an event does not necessitate that you have control over it, mere awareness does not mean control.

On a somewhat irrelevant sidenote, animals have all the abilities noted, the only thing stopping you from acknowledging their "volition" is their inability for as complex thought as you and linguistic barrier, which is some cases can be broken.

[Richard_Halley]

You are still evading, read my previous post for evidence.

On a somewhat irrelevant sidenote, animals have all the abilities noted...

I hope you are ready to provide evidence of this. I, for one, have never heard of an animal deciding it was not worth and killing itself.

[Young]

Animals have been shown to "commit suicide" in various situation, from the puzzling behavior of lemmings to experiments in which under extremely stressful situations animals may seemingly stop their vitals with little explanation. While this does not fall into the category of determining one's worth as much as one's inability to deal with seemingly unbearable stress (also the source of human suicides), animals typically base their role in life on their immediate situation.

[student]

I have stated that I agree with most of what Miss Rand has written. It is with the issue of free will that I have my singular most difficult problem. Are we not in some ways limited by our genetic heritage and our experiences? If so, does that not mean that our will cannot be completely free? Is there a difference in kind between our entirely biological brains, subject to the limitations of all physical things, and our will, which to be entirely free in the truest sense must have no limitations at all?

Am I missing some important distinction in Miss Rands idea of 'free' as regards free will?

I'm sure you have discussed this before so I appreciate your humoring me since I am new here.

Thanks.

[Skywalker]

Hi Student, I'm in about the same place as you with my study of Ayn Rand. But let me take a stab at your question. Modern science has advanced the notion that "nature" - genetic heritage - and "nuture" - experiential learning - play a major role in who we become. This does not necessarily mean determinism - it's obvious that we have genetic limitations and predispositions. No matter how much basketball I played, I could never be as good as Michael Jordan. Similarly, I have been able to figure out music by ear for a long time - I know musicians who haven't developed this ability anywhere near as well. Despite this, we can make our own decisions. Even if one is born into a poor environment, one can typically rise above above these circumstances through determination. The classic objectivist example of this is Rand herself, who escaped from the giant prison that was Russia despite the abject poverty the Communist revolution threw her family into.

The only questions I can see about free will are in cases of mental insanity, or, as odd as it may sound, pre-menstrual syndrome. I can't count the number of times a female friend has told me they wouldn't have done something, had they not been experiencing PMS. Hormone surges and drops seem to have an affect on one's mind during that time. Both of those cases, however, are exceptions to the norm. When in normal physical circumstances, people can make their own choices and are free to use reason. This of course begs the question: why do most people choose NOT to use it? I don't think most objectivists would accept the idea of a genetic predisposition toward rationality, but it certainly seems like some people come to reason much more easily.

Anyway, I think the best summation I can give you is that our ability to choose remains free despite the obvious physical or experiential limitations we may be born into, and that is the conception of free will that is in concert with reality.

[Capitalism Forever]

When in normal physical circumstances, people can make their own choices and are free to use reason. This of course begs the question: why do most people choose NOT to use it?

The chosen--in the ultimate sense of the word--is that which you cannot reduce to another cause. IOW, there is no "why" for a choice.

[Betsy]

Are we not in some ways limited by our genetic heritage and our experiences?  If so, does that not mean that our will cannot be completely free?  Is there a difference in kind between our entirely biological brains, subject to the limitations of all physical things, and our will, which to be entirely free in the truest sense must have no limitations at all?

Am I missing some important distinction in Miss Rands idea of 'free' as regards free will?

Of course we have physical and psychological limits. The only thing that is volitional is human consciousness, and not all of human consciousness at that. Perception is automatic and mechanical. Emotions are automatic reactions based on our value premises. Memory and perceptual associations are automatic too.

The only part of consciousness which is volitional is that part only human beings have: our conceptual faculty. We can select if and what aspects of reality we consciously focus on and think about. Reasoning is a self-directed process and everything else people do is either automatic or follows inevitably from the volitional, self-directed process of reasoning.

[stephen_speicher]

I have stated that I agree with most of what Miss Rand has written.  It is with the issue of free will that I have my singular most difficult problem.  Are we not in some ways limited by our genetic heritage and our experiences?  If so, does that not mean that our will cannot be completely free?  Is there a difference in kind between our entirely biological brains, subject to the limitations of all physical things, and our will, which to be entirely free in the truest sense must have no limitations at all?

Am I missing some important distinction in Miss Rands idea of 'free' as regards free will?

I'm sure you have discussed this before so I appreciate your humoring me since I am new here.

Thanks.

We need to be clear about what we mean by free will. Volition, in its most fundamental sense, refers to the single action of choice . But, we are not disembodied spirits, nor do we possess the godly power of omnipotence. Our physical body is part of what defines our nature -- our genetic makeup is part of our identity -- and our nature delimits the actions which we are capable of performing. Likewise our experience and knowledge provide the mental context which helps to shape our views and decisions. What we choose is constrained by all of the relevant facts of reality -- physical and mental -- but the fact of choosing is the inescapable action that we as volitional beings perform. To have "no limitations at all" is, in effect, to have no identity. It is in our nature to choose, but having a nature means that we have an identity, both physical and mental characteristics which make us what we are.

[y_feldblum]

Ie, we cannot do anything and everything - but among the things that we can do, we must choose which one of them to do.

[Skywalker]

Student, as you can see by now, Rand attempted to reconcile our genetic and environmental influences with our ability to still choose our actions. Your confusion seems to be due to your contention that "to be entirely free (our will) must have no limitations at all." Rand advanced the idea that we maintain the facility of volition despite the "limitations" of our nature. Perhaps free will isn't the right term to use, and volition is better. Does this hopefully answer your question?

[Richard_Halley]

Perhaps free will isn't the right term to use, and volition is better. Does this hopefully answer your question?

Free will is a perfectly fine term. You seem to be agreeing that being "free" means being "unimposed upon by reality and its laws." This is not so.

[student]

I want to thank those of you that have helped clear this up, but I am as yet unsure of something.

Yes, as I understand Miss Rands opinion of free will, it is the ability to decide whether or not to think, in and of itself; to be the rational being that we as humans uniquely are capable of being, or not to be. But I can't help but see the issue as one of blame. In other words she seems to be saying that those that have choose not to think are somehow uniquely to blame, as if they choose wrong. But this ability to choose; to think rationally is something that I can't help but see as fundamentally imposed. I can tell you that I truly believe that were I to try not to think (assuming I am able, of course), that I would be unsuccessful. I don't believe I can choose not to be rational. Try it. See what I mean. And my experience has always been that for most of the people that I believe don't think, they really aren’t capable. Some people are just born stupid or sheepish.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying this issue.

Does anyone have an example someone choosing not to be rational? I am reminded of the railway employee or security guy in Atlas Shrugged that Dagny shot in the heart because he didn't think. Well, I'm sure she was right to shoot him, but he seemed to me like just another dumb lug of a human being, fundamentally unable to think for himself. And I always thought Ayn was trying to somehow justify the killing by implying that he had "intentionally" forgone his volition, and as such deserved his fate. Is there not a paradox in that?

Thanks again Skywalker and others.

[Betsy]

Yes, as I understand Miss Rands opinion of free will, it is the ability to decide whether or not to think, in and of itself; to be the rational being that we as humans uniquely are capable of being, or not to be.  But I can't help but see the issue as one of blame.

Maybe that's because you've only been exposed to philosophies that stress the negative that way. Most moralities are impossible to practice and just blame people, put them down, and make them feel guilty.

While it is true that holding someone morally responsible for his actions follows from the fact of free will, the most important thing for an Objectivist is practicing rationality himself and and admiring, trusting, respecting, and dealing with people who think and act properly.

But this ability to choose; to think rationally is something that I can't help but see as fundamentally imposed.  I can tell you that I truly believe that were I to try not to think (assuming I am able, of course), that I would be unsuccessful.  I don't believe I can choose not to be rational.  Try it.  See what I mean.  And my experience has always been that for most of the people that I believe don't think, they really aren’t capable. 

Some people are just born stupid or sheepish. 

Rationality has little to do with intelligence and more to do with the answers to questions like:

Do you distinguish between what you think and what you feel?

Are you clear about what you have inconclusive evidence for and what you know with certainty?

When your conclusions clash with those of your friends and authority figures, do you give in to social pressure?

If you find a contradiction in your thinking, do you ignore it?

How much mental effort are you willing to spend to understand the things which are most important to you?

===

Those are fundamental choices everyone has to make and everyone is capable of making, regardless of his level of intelligence.

[stephen_speicher]

"Student," what you are saying, in essence, is that some people are born with the ability to think and be rational, and some not. When put that way, it is clear why you are having difficulty grasping the role of volition; you have already assumed the premise that we are not volitional, that we act the way we are already programmed to do. It is that premise which you need to root out, in light of careful consideration of the how a volitional consciousness actually works.

You cannot get directly into the mind of others, so rather than exploring your notion that some people are "just born stupid or sheepish," explore the thought which you have that your own rationality is just built-in. That you can do first-hand.

The primary choice which is open to you at any given moment, is not the complex statement "I will be rational in thinking about this," but rather the choice to focus your mind, or not. Or, more precisely, the form that such a choice takes is to either raise or lower the level of your focus. The basic premise here is that, you are volitionally in control of establishing your mental apparatus at a level appropriate to the task at hand.

For instance, when confronted with a difficult problem, you can choose to raise the level of your conscious awareness. Note that this is entirely different from the process of thinking. Thinking is a complex logical process extending over a period of time, but focus is the mental state chosen as a precondition to thinking. Note also that focus is different from concentration. Concentration also presupposes an already existing level of focus, and is itself a narrowing of one's awareness to give attention to some facts, to the exclusion of others.

Harry Binswanger has characterized focus as a choice to "be in control of and monitor" one's mental state. This is saying, in effect, that the primary volitional choice that we make is the choice to manage our mind, or not. Now, we certainly continue to make choices all along our higher-level thought processes, guiding our minds to arrive at a reasonable result for our effort. And, we should pride ourselves and take credit for our proper exercise of the entire thinking process. Nevertheless, all thinking and concentration has a more primary choice which underlies it, and that is the primary choice to focus, or not. This is the fundamental volitional choice we all make. That is what is provided by our nature -- an escapable requirement of our conscious activity -- and how we exercise that primary choice sets the stage for all the thinking that follows, or the lack thereof.

I would suggest to "student" that he purposively monitor his own mental processes and try to identify in his own consciousness the sort of distinctions which I have drawn. I would also recommend many of Harry Binswanger's lectures on consciousness, and Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," both of which discuss in more detail the sort of ideas which I have presented here. The lectures and books are all available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore, online at http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/

[kesg]

Rationality has little to do with intelligence...

This statement isn't entirely accurate, although you are certainly correct in saying that the two are different. I have in mind a statement that I recently read somewhere -- I think in ITOE, but I'm not sure -- to the effect that intelligence is essentially the ability to deal with abstractions. The broader the range of abstractions, the greater the intelligence.

Rationality enables one not only to deal with abstractions, but to do so correctly and to automatize their correct use in daily life. Intelligence expands as we identify, integrate, and automatize an ever expanding range of abstractions. In other words, anyone with a normal healthy brain can literally get smarter by practicing rational thinking methods and making them a permanent way of life.

[student]

Thanks again people, it's clear you are trying to help.

Maybe that's because you've only been exposed to philosophies that stress the negative that way.

Christianity.

While it is true that holding someone morally responsible for his actions follows from the fact of free will, the most important thing for an Objectivist is practicing rationality himself...

Yes, this is it. The idea that somehow by doing what is considered irrational by Objectivist standards, one is somehow "morally wrong" in some greater sense over and above the obvious penalties of behaving stupidly and making errors. It's as if Miss Rand is trying to use the tried and true Christian model of placing some "higher" type blame on those that don't see it her way, I have always thought. To be in error has it's own heavy price, but by saying it's not only your fault, but also that you "deserve" the consequences has always been what I thought the point of free will was always about. Yes, you didn't plan for winter and today you starve, but also that you deserve to starve because you didn't "choose" to plan. Sort of redundant really, I guess, but I never understood the point, unless it's to make the ones that "choose" correctly feel less obligation to those that don't. Am I making any sense?

If you find a contradiction in your thinking, do you ignore it?

Yes, this is a great example of rational thinking, but I confess that I have always thought that those willing to harbor contradictions in their philosophies were more likely intellectual cowards than people breaking some important "moral" code.

Those are fundamental choices everyone has to make and everyone is capable of making, regardless of his level of intelligence.

Then we could get into the slippery slope or what Miss Rand I believe called the "life boat scenario", where clearly some people are incapable of making choices, the brain dead, ect.., then to babies and on to severely mentally retarded, and then to mystics and on to Democrats and there to idiots and then morons, all the way up to the lesser primates and on then to students like myself and on to the simple and so on till one gets to the philosophers. Somewhere in there is a line, is there not, of blame? It so reminds me of the Christian idea of innocent until one has heard the "word", after which one is guilty of infidelity for noncompliance. At what point in this slippery slope do we declare 'they have heard the word'? At what point do we say guilty?

I will answer Stephen's post presently. I don't want this post to be too long.

[MinorityOfOne]

The idea that somehow by doing what is considered irrational by Objectivist standards, one is somehow "morally wrong" in some greater sense over and above the obvious penalties of behaving stupidly and making errors. It's as if Miss Rand is trying to use the tried and true Christian model of placing some "higher" type blame on those that don't see it her way, I have always thought.

Well, it sounds like you need to work toward understanding Objectivism more clearly. Rand was always adamant about the distinction between errors of knowledge and immorality. One can come to the wrong conclusion while being totally honest -- people are, after all, fallible.

There does come a point where you just can't give somebody the benefit of the doubt. That's something you have to judge, generally, on a case-by-case basis. You have to consider how much they know, how much thought they've given it (or ought to have given it), what they *really* believe as against what they *claim* to believe... there are a ton of issues involved, and evaluating intellectual honesty is usually not at all easy.

If you want to see how Rand dealt with disagreement, check out her published letters. (Available from aynrandbookstore.com.) You seem to think she would have jumped on anyone who disagreed with her and beat them over the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged, but that's not at all the case.

[stephen_speicher]

If you want to see how Rand dealt with disagreement, check out her published letters.  (Available from aynrandbookstore.com.)  You seem to think she would have jumped on anyone who disagreed with her and beat them over the head with a copy of Atlas Shrugged, but that's not at all the case.

I second that, and even third it!

The letters give a wonderful view of the personal style of Ayn Rand, a total antithesis of the stereotypical image by which she is portrayed by her detractors. The love of life, the joy of friends, the care and attention for doing things right, and the patience to explain to those with whom she disagreed, yet valued. A thoroughly enjoyable read.