Betsy Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 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. That's true. Rationality enables one not only to deal with abstractions, but to do so correctly and to automatize their correct use in daily life.That's true too. 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. Actually, I think it is more the case that rationality can help you make better use of the inteligence you have, but it can't actually increase your intelligence. Eddie Willers was as rational -- and as moral -- as John Galt, but they varied widely in inteligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowDog Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 Free Will implies a break in causality, does it not? If I decide to move my arm from left to right, then somehow I'm changing physical properties in a way that the determinism of causality would not allow. Otherwise, there would be no free-will. We would be simply bound by the physical laws as is every other inanimate object in the Universe. It's sort of a mystery, isn't it? Sincerely, Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 Free Will implies a break in causality, does it not? Not if you define "causality" as an Objectivist (or Aristotle) does. The Objectivist view is that causality is the law of identity applied to actions and that the cause for an action is contained in the nature (identity) of the entity that acts. The cause of the oak tree is the acorn which had the potentiality to become an oak tree (under certain conditions). The Objectivist view of free will follows from that. The nature of human beings is that they have free will which consists only of the ability to self-regulate the conceptual functioning of their own minds. This conceptual functioning directs their other choices and actions. Thus, man's conceptual faculty CAUSES free will. For more details, read Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR), especially the section "Human Actions, Mental and Physical, as Both Caused and Free" beginning on P. 62 and the discussions of existence, consciousness, identity, and causality in the preceding pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laure Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Regarding whether people can actually "choose to be irrational", the examples I can come up with are cases in which a person either decides not to think too hard about something, because of social consequences, or decides to be dishonest in order to go along with a group. Example: "I don't know if I really believe in God or not, but I'd rather not think about it and take the heat from my family." Another example is a psychological experiment I've read about. There's a "subject" and a group of volunteers. They put them all in a room, and ask them "which line is longer, Line A or Line B?" Line A is really longer, but the volunteers have agreed in advance to all answer "Line B." Most times, the "subject" will say "Line B" to go along. (I find this horrifying, but I have read that it is the case!) As for definitions, I think free will encompasses our ability to choose. The most important choice is to think or not. But there are plenty of choices that have nothing to do with thinking. (Gasp!) Example: Will it be vanilla or chocolate ice cream today? (Is either choice "irrational"?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 The most important choice is to think or not. But there are plenty of choices that have nothing to do with thinking. (Gasp!) Example: Will it be vanilla or chocolate ice cream today? (Is either choice "irrational"?) That depends on the facts and your context of knowledge. If you know you are fatally allergic to chocolate, choosing chocolate is irrational. If you are trying to lose weight, eating any flavor ice cream may not be a good idea. If there is no good reason why you shouldn't have one rather than the other, then the only rational consideration left is which one would give you the most pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 If you know you are fatally allergic to chocolate ... then what's the point of living? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 ... then what's the point of living? So true! (Though I've actually known people like that, and they seem to get by somehow.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F*ckCommunism Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 "Tha only way to remove the harmful effects of agency is to remove agency"... Neal A Maxwell Whenever I have used this quote with friends, they immediately think i am for the removal of choices and freedoms. When i was very religious, it was a way for me to convince myself why god allowed bad things to happen to good people... i no longer believe in a supreme god-being, yet still this quote stays with me and i think of it daily... it reminds me that my actions have consequences, and whether i like it or not those consequences effect others. whether or not i agree with others choices, with their agency, i know that whatever consequences it has on me, i cannot remove their agency, their choice... For example, the local provincial government wants to pass a law prohibiting smoking in all public places. sounds great, right? no second hand smoke, smokers have a toiugher time getting their fix, cleaner restaurants, lower healthc are costs, right? i don't agree... i don't see the difference between the gov. making it illegal to smoke in public places and them making it illegal to smoke altogether (i do not smoke cigarettes)... or the gov. then taking away my right to drink alcohol, or eat too much, or other things detrimental to my health... or anyone elses right to choose whether or not to do these things... yes, i might get cancer, or liver disease, or heart diesease, or too fat, or any manner of sickness... but those are effects, consequences, or MY choices, and i whether they are harmful or not i do not want them taken away... I do not like the term 'free agency' or 'free will' because all choices we make have consequences, and therefore are not 'free'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyKD Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 I do not like the term 'free agency' or 'free will' because all choices we make have consequences, and therefore are not 'free'... Are you saying that free will is applicable only to actions without consequences, to causes without effects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Are you saying that free will is applicable only to actions without consequences, to causes without effects? I do not want to speak for him, but I think he was using "free" in a different sense than "free will" as volition. I think he meant "free" to be opposed to "cost," which could be a consequence of our actions. If this is how "free" was meant, than I would agree that there are more unequivocal ways to make the point, but I think he was striving for a good point. If I am wrong as to his intention, then I am sure he can correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 This thread is centered more on causality as it relates the human mind than with actions which have no effect. Laws may deter you from thinking in one way or engaging in some behavior, but they do not have the power of determinism to say exactly what you are going to do. To return you to spirit of the thread I ask the question, Can the fact that this smoking law is in effect really stop you from choosing to obey it or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 no it cant stop me, but i dont think that was the point of the thread either. The objectivist morality can be viewed as this concerning free will: You always have a choice, coercion and other factors may make it seem as if you dont have a choice, but that choice is always there. You are free to choose whatever you want, but as it is in reality, there are effects/consequences for that action. By objectivist standards the wrong choice is the immoral choice. What does that mean? Well, there is no eternal being to "double jeopardy" you. You dont die from the wrong choice then get morally punished. your moral punishment was death or any consequence that came from your action. Others including objectivist may look down upon you or choose not to associate with you if you make an immoral choice like believing in god, but you shouldnt care what they think. As Rand herself said "morality is a choice" You are free to choose the morality that suits you, but if you choose the wrong morality and make poor choices because of it, reality will punish you. Does this help, student? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 To return you to spirit of the thread I ask the question, Can the fact that this smoking law is in effect really stop you from choosing to obey it or not? Of course not. But, there are many facts of physical reality which limit my possibility of action independent of my choice; I can choose to rigorously flap my arms but that will not enable me to soar like an eagle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Yes, no matter how "hard" you choose not to die, it is a physical impossibility at this point not to. The real question of free will though is "what events can cause a choice?", not whether that choice is definitive of what will actually happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimble Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Of course not. But, there are many facts of physical reality which limit my possibility of action independent of my choice; I can choose to rigorously flap my arms but that will not enable me to soar like an eagle. Effects of choice do not warrant or prove that free will doesnt exist. The choice is yours to flap your arms, if you die then Darwin would be proud. Remember free-will is choice not effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 The real question of free will though is "what events can cause a choice?" ... I have no idea what this means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Effects of choice do not warrant or prove that free will doesnt exist. Did someone say otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 I have no idea what this means. Ok, the question "what causes you to choose" assumes that something can in fact affect your choice, so, taking a step back: Can something external affect your choices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 By objectivist standards the wrong choice is the immoral choice. Not always. A wrong choice could also be due to an honest error of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkusH Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Neurosophist, is what you're really after the impact that the existence of antecedent factors has on the concept of free will? While antecedent events (from the "outside") certainly affect what actions are available at any given point in time, an individual may 1) focus and rationally choose between those options, or 2) let loose the autopilot. As I see it, the ability to make that choice is the essence of free will. Of course, I await correction if required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 It seems that there are various definitions of free will, dependent on the argument at hand. In an argument with a determinist Free Will means that which has no causes, no antecedents. When debating the morality of one's actions it has to do with the difference between internal or some say psychological factors, and external or enviornmental ones. While those internal factors comprise a debate in themselves, what is basically proposed is that the innate factor of volition is found within human beings in their rational minds. However, this seems rather difficult to reduce any further except that since it is experienced by humans, choice must exist. In response to your situation, I think, again, the relevant question which exists is whether either option is in fact accurate. To clarify, our concept of "autopilot" is a mode of existence in which we express some underlying non-volitional nature, basically reverting to instinct or pre-patterns or what have you. A plane's autopilot is basically to continue out the same course it was running until some end point, when the pilot decides to take the autopilot off again. However, that analogy would imply that there is a voltional conscious still present to continuously choose to turn on and off the plane's innate behavior, so at all times the pilot is choosing not to be flying the plane. In other words, the pilot is not avoiding choice but merely choosing ignorance or inactivity. On the other hand, to say that the antecedent factors did in fact bring the agent to a point in time where it was up to them to determine which option was best also seems problematic. For instance, you are given a lecture before your flight about what the conditions will be takeoff, etc. These are the antecedent factors informing you of your options, in the hypothetical prechoice moments, before you decide to fly or not. Now let us suppose that it is mentioned that there will be cumulonimbus clouds out today, and another antecedent factor, your deadly fear of rain, informs you that it would be entirely unadvisable to fly today, in the form of continuous vomiting which prevents you from ever getting on the plane. You are robbed of your choice, the moment has passed and you cannot fly. The point to be illustrated here is that you have a distinct nature, which must be made amenable to cause and effect. You heard about rain, thus you became ill, such a response is entirely conceivable from a neurological or psychological standpoint, and easily replaced with more everyday occurrences, active schemas responding to a particular situation or neurons firing in your occipital lobe when recognizing a face, which comprise our conceptual and rational faculties. I believe we would agree that we are all the products of past events, or else we must resort to that position the determinist accuses us of in which our nature has no relation to any sort of external physical reality whatsoever and we are merely chaos incorporated. It seems that once have admitted that our choices are related to antecedent forces, there must be some prime explanation of the mechanism by which we can ignore what causality would say all factors would tell us to do and thus engage in behavior which no one, no matter how knowledgeable, could ever predict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Ok, the question "what causes you to choose" assumes that something can in fact affect your choice, The statements "causes you to choose" and "affect your choice" are two completely different statements. There are lots of things which can "affect your choice" -- things which you take under consideration -- but that does not mean that those things "causes you to choose." so, taking a step back: Can something external affect your choices? Obviously so. I choose to walk around the table because I realize that I cannot walk through it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 It seems that there are various definitions of free will ... Free will means a volitional consciousness, a consciousness with the ability to make a fundamental choice -- to focus your mind. That choice is an irreducible primary, not capable of being explained by anything more fundamental. The rest of the stuff is a waste of time, pseudo-philosophical/psychological mind games by others. By introspection look inside your own mind and see the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurosophist Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Why is it an irreducible primary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Why is it an irreducible primary? In the context of our discussion, it is just what I said in my post: "not capable of being explained by anything more fundamental." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.