On the question of free-will vs. determinism

[Fred Weiss]

Speicher, I simply cannot conceive of a third alternative to determinism and randomness.  Nothing else makes sense. ..

But it does make sense to you that either you were determined to utter those particular words or they came out of your mouth for no reason whatever????

Fred Weiss

[stephen_speicher]

Speicher, I simply cannot conceive of a third alternative to determinism and randomness. 

Sure you can. Information about the volitional aspect of your consciousness is directly accessible to you through introspection, in a similar manner and with the same validity that extrospection provides you with information about the external world. To be completely consistent, if you deny volition you might as well deny the existence of the external world. But, based on what you have said in several posts, I suspect that you deny volition because you have painted yourself into an intellectual hole from which you cannot get out. I think you just need to step back a bit, and look at the situation with a fresh perspective.

On a personal note, I never had any difficulty understanding the subtleties involved with causality and consciousness, but several Objectivists whom I hold in high esteem have told me that volition was among the last of the issues that they fully grasped. There are subtleties involved, but I think most intellectually honest people who have difficulty with this issue do so because of how they set up the problem.

You say that consciousness causes our choices.

That is not precisely what I said. The primary choice -- to focus our mind, or not -- is caused and necessitated by the nature of man (his brain) and the nature of the consciousness which depends of the brain for its existence. On the primary level, we are hard-wired, so to speak, to choose. Independent of the content of our choice, we must choose. But that act of choosing itself, what we choose, is entirely volitional. We can choose to focus, or not.

When you want to understand a cause, you look to the nature of the entity that acts. It is by virtue of identifying the specific characteristics and attributes of an entity that we can grasp the causal meaning of its actions. The volitional aspect of consciousness as a primary choice is irreducible -- not explainable in terms of antecedent factors -- but our thinking process, what Peikoff refers to as the "higher-level choices," is reducible, i.e., it is explainable in terms of the specific knowledge, specific values, and the overall psycho-epistemology of that consciousness.

I agree—but I can only understand that as consciousness determines our actions.

But that is true, at least insofar as those actions that are directly controllable by the volitional aspects of our consciousness.

I know that is not what you or Ayn Rand intend to say.

I do not want to speak directly for Ayn Rand, but that is exactly how I think and exactly how I understand the Objectivist view. What makes you think otherwise?

It is not that I don’t understand Ayn Rand; it’s that I don’t agree with her.  How does consciousness cause your choices, without causing the specific choice you make?  If it doesn’t, how can it cause your choices in the first place?  When a bat hits a baseball, the identities of the objects in question necessitate a certain end.  Based on the angle, force, direction, etc., the ball *must* go in one direct and one direction only.

And based on the nature of consciousness and the brain we must choose, and the content of our choice is among two alternatives -- to focus, or not. And, once all of our choices are made, the physical action that results from those choices "*must* go in one direct[ion] and one direction only."

Likewise, I can only understand the causal relationship between consciousness and human action as consciousness necessitating the specific action.

That depends on what you mean by 'necessitated.' If you mean the physical action itself, once consciousness has acted, then yes, the physical action is 'necessitated' in the sense that all physical actions are completely deterministic processes. But, if you take as a single unit the mental and physical action, then the human action could have been otherwise, because we are volitional and we could have chosen otherwise.

I believe we will simply have to agree to disagree because I know that I am right, and I am rather certain you will not agree with me.

I am not sure how much you even agree with yourself.

As I said at the beginning, I think a major part of your confusion is how you are setting up the issue in the first place. I think you are in more agreement with the Objectivist view on this than you realize. Take the time to think a bit about what I wrote, and see if you perhaps start to get a glimmer of a different perspective.

[RationalBiker]

Rational Cop, I don’t accept that man cannot use his imagination to consider events that are not yet real.

I didn't say you couldn't use your imagination, I simply said any conclusions would be pointless until the actual imagined scenario can be accomplished. Or in other words, when you can reverse time, that scenario may have some meaning. But until then, it does not. When you design a scenario out of an unrealistic context, you can basically come to ANY conclusion you wish because it cannot be tested or challenged through reality. You have no boundaries or physics to worry about, other than those you construct.

For instance, you assume that a reversal of time would have a reverse everything. What if it only reverses actions and events external to consciousness, but consciousness and thought remain unaffected? The new "past" decision will still be a "new" decision as opposed to a repeat of the original decision because it will have the benefit of the future knowledge of original decision. Or, perhaps if you reverse time you will cause some major disruption of physics that will destroy the universe. Shall I keep inventing imaginary effects for you imaginary proposition?

When construct a scenario out of the context of reality, anything goes.

Also, the fact that in the past some things turned out to possible that were previously thought impossible, does not imply that anything that can be thought can actually be possible.

It sounds like your saying simply believing something or conceiving the possibility of something makes it valid. I disagee.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

I didn't say you couldn't use your imagination, I simply said any conclusions would be pointless until the actual imagined scenario can be accomplished. Or in other words, when you can reverse time, that scenario may have some meaning. But until then, it does not.

To be fair to hippie, I think you are taking his little scenario too literally. He made what I think to be a harmless thought experiment to illustrate his concern in regard to determinism. I think his scenario was useful since it revealed, at least to me, where his thinking was going wrong about volition and determinism.

Now, in another of his posts there is a valid criticism that can be made against hippie in his description of time in the context of quantum mechanics (he really meant general relativity). But even there he is just speaking from ignorance, and he honestly said "all of which, I assume, is based on factual information."

It sounds like your saying simply believing something or conceiving the possibility of something makes it valid.  I disagee.

I really do not think that that is what he was saying.

[Bowzer]

Information about the volitional aspect of your consciousness is directly accessible to you through introspection, in a similar manner and with the same validity that extrospection provides you with information about the external world.

Well put. It's been my experience that the self-evident isn't always the easily grasped. This is especially true for students of philosophy who have been steeped in wrong views of what free will is.

A simple example to introspect is the difference between your autonomic breathing (what you have hopefully been doing while you have been reading this) and holding your breath by an act of will. The act of stopping your breath is the exercise of the volitional aspect of your mind. On the other hand, when you are not focusing your mind on controlling your breath, it occurs automatically. Thus, the same process can be observed as it occurs automatically and then under volitional control.

[AshRyan]

I must warn you all that you are wasting your time arguing with Hippie (at least on this topic). He has shown himself to be incredibly dishonest in arguments on other message boards. He routinely ignores arguments provided to him for the Objectivist position, and rehashes his straw men against it over and over and over. Unfortunately, most of the thread in which we previously encountered each other, and he was at his most dishonest, is gone along with the board it was on. But it spilled over onto the new board, so I invite you all to take a look at the tail end of it at least before you continue to debate with him here. You can view it here.

If you still choose to debate with him here, don't say I didn't warn you.

(And again, as on the other board, I just have to mention the irony of Hippie's signature quote, which is bursting with language implying free will, given his bizarre denial of it. One has to wonder why he would come to this board and pick the same fight, when he refuses to listen to arguments about it elsewhere.)

[stephen_speicher]

I must warn you all that you are wasting your time arguing with Hippie (at least on this topic).  He has shown himself to be incredibly dishonest in arguments on other message boards.  He routinely ignores arguments provided to him for the Objectivist position, and rehashes his straw men against it over and over and over.  Unfortunately, most of the thread in which we previously encountered each other, and he was at his most dishonest, is gone along with the board it was on.  But it spilled over onto the new board, so I invite you all to take a look at the tail end of it at least before you continue to debate with him here.  You can view it here.

I hardly have time to read this forum, much less to start with another one.

I respect whatever personal experiences you have had -- god knows I have spent inordinate amounts of time with those who have turned out not to be worthy of the effort -- and I will mentally file your comments away. But so far hippie has been pretty straight with me about his views. I know he is mistaken, and I have presented arguments that explain why, so for now I will judge him by the responses he makes.

If you still choose to debate with him here, don't say I didn't warn you.

I really do appreciate your concern, and I will be the first to acknowledge what you said if that turns out to be my experience. But I do know that this volition-determinism issue is a difficult one for some to grasp, and I will give hippie the benefit of any doubt as long as, and to the extent that, he rationally deals with my arguments.

[RationalBiker]

To be fair to hippie, I think you are taking his little scenario too literally.

I stand by my earlier statements.

VES

[AshRyan]

I hardly have time to read this forum, much less to start with another one. 

I respect whatever personal experiences you have had -- god knows I have spent inordinate amounts of time with those who have turned out not to be worthy of the effort -- and I will mentally file your comments away. But so far hippie has been pretty straight with me about his views. I know he is mistaken, and I have presented arguments that explain why, so for now I will judge him by the responses he makes.

He has rehashed the same arguments several times before, and ignored all of my explanations of the Objectivist position, but you're welcome to try as well. I hope that you have better luck arguing with him than I have.

[stephen_speicher]

He has rehashed the same arguments several times before, and ignored all of my explanations of the Objectivist position, but you're welcome to try as well.  I hope that you have better luck arguing with him than I have.

I am awaiting his arguments, so we shall see.

And, again, I do appreciate that you must have good reasons for the conclusion you have drawn, and your reasons may very well be accurate. And, if I were at the very start of a discussion I probably would have taken them to heart and refrained from posting. But, we did already have an interchange going, and I cannot ignore that.

[BrentRolfe]

Historically, there have been several mystical views of consciousness, but they all fail to make the identification that consciousness is axiomatic, a primary, not matter, nor reducible to matter, yet dependent upon functioning brain matter for its existence. The typical mystical view is to assert consciousness as having an independent existence, not dependent on matter, something just temporarily trapped inside a body, like a religious-type soul.

Oh bugger!

I followed this thread all the way through and thought I was getting somewhere, I was actually understanding the discussion and anticipating many of the points and counter-points......and then we got to the mystical and it all fell apart.

Can I summarise and wouild you let me know if I am understanding this:

where C=consciousness

1. Man has (posseses?) C

2. Only man has C.....(or only man has volitional C?)

3. C is volitional

4. C exists in discreet units such that:

5. One man posseses only one unit of C and

6. Only one unit of C exists in each man

7. C is not physical

8. C is an entity/an existent

OK marks out of 8 so far?

Now, stephen, would it be accurate to say C is dependent upon brain matter for its expression or is C really dependent upon brain matter for its existence? These seem to me to be different but I am not sure.

If brain matter is only required as the neurological medium through which C acts to direct the body.....then where does C "reside"? If it "resides" in, but is somehow seperate from the physical brain, how does it act on the brain?

Next, how does all this tie in with the virtue of independence, which is defined as "one's acceptance of the responsibility (A) of forming one's own judgements and by living by the work( of one's own mind..."

"A" seems to imply that we have a responsibiblity to "direct" the formation of our judgements

"B" seems to imply that we then "cause" our bodies to follow the direction that our mind (which we directed) sets out.

That is, where do we get and how do we use the responsibility to form/make up our own minds.....that is, how do we act on our C.

Do we act on (i.e. cause) our C, or does our C act on us?.....or option 3....did I get this all wrong?!

Brent

[Bowzer]

Brent,

If you are seeking a deductive proof/validation of volition and/or consciousness, I'm sorry to say that you will never find it.

[AwakeAndFree]

Consciousness does not necessitate volition. Even flies have some form of limited consciousness - but they operate in a completely automatic way.

The concept "instinct" means that higher animals, like dogs, cats, and elephants, have no volition regarding certain aspects of their behaviour.

[BrentRolfe]

Brent,

If you are seeking a deductive proof/validation of volition and/or consciousness, I'm sorry to say that you will never find it.

Bowzer,

No I am not looking for a deductive proof of the existence either volition or consciousness.

I didn't express myself very well if that is the impression that my post gave.

I understand that C exists and accept that it is axiomatic.

It is becoming clear to me from this thread that I don't understand the concept of volitional consciousness.

Peikoff writes [OPAR pp48-49]:

"C - any C of any species- is what it is. It is limited, finite, lawful. It is a faculty with a nature, which includes specific instrumentalities that enable it to acheive awareness."

So, C in itself is deterministic (I think?), it obeys laws. But, in as much as man's C is also volitional it also has an ability to chose. I assume that this is one of its "instrumentalities"?

OR, is it "man" that has the ability to direct his consciousness to focus and therefore to chose?

I think the confusion of one or two of us in this thread is along the lines of:

1) what is the nature of the choice?....who/what is doing the chosing, why, when, in response to what stimuli

2) where is the existent(?) of choice located?....in the matter of the brain, in the non-matter of C

When volitional C and free will start to get banded around I (for one) get very confused. For free will to "exist" (which I take to mean.....for free will to have any affect on matter......for free will to make anything happen) it must be excercised by man. If we excercise our free will, then we are causing a series of events......e.g. an arm to be raised that otherwise would have done only what an unconscious arm would automatically do given its nature and circumstances.......but who or what are causing that series of events.

Given any set of stimuli in 1) above the Objectivist would chose that set of actions which maximised his self-interest......but that asssumes that the Objectivist is directing the C.

If we say that the Objectivist choses (merely) to focus his C on the choices available, or focus on the stimuli at hand........and that this choice to focus or not is the extent of his free will.....then what is making the decision between the competing choices available?

I am now getting giddy....any help in slowing the carousal wouldbe greatly appreciated.

Brent

[BrentRolfe]

erandror,

agreed

Brent

[stephen_speicher]

Can I summarise and wouild you let me know if I am understanding this:

where C=consciousness

1. Man has (posseses?) C

I sure hope so!

2. Only man has C.....(or only man has volitional C?)

3. C is volitional

Many animals possess a consciousness but, as far as we know, man is the only animal who has a volitional consciousness.

4. C exists in discreet units such that:

5. One man posseses only one unit of C and

6. Only one unit of C exists in each man

That language is a bit strange for this discussion but, yes, each individual man has his own unique consciousness, just like each individual man has his own unique body.

7. C is not physical

Correct.

8. C is an entity/an existent

Consciousness exists. So, of course, it is an existent, since an existent is something that exists. But, as far as consciousness being an entity, that depends upon how you define "entity." If by "entity" you mean an independent, self-contained form of existence, then no, consciousness is not an entity. Consciousness is an attribute, or faculty of an entity. But, using "entity" in a more metaphorical sense, we can speak of consciousness as an entity in that it is some thing that exists. This is fine as long as it is clear that consciousness does not have an existence independent of the brain and body in which it resides.

Now, stephen, would it be accurate to say C is dependent upon brain matter for its expression or is C really dependent upon brain matter for its existence? These seem to me to be different but I am not sure.

That depends upon what you mean by "expression." It is clear that neural processes of the brain accompany conscious processes, but that does not mean that they are the same thing. If by "express" you mean that neurons act and the result is a specific conscious process, then most certainly no, that is not correct. A volitional consciousness can act by choice and is not determined by the actions of neural processes. But if by "express" you mean that the brain gives rise to consciousness or that neural processes accompany conscious states, then yes, in that sense I would accept the word "express."

If brain matter is only required as the neurological medium through which C acts to direct the body.....then where does C "reside"? If it "resides" in, but is somehow seperate from the physical brain, how does it act on the brain?

Since consciousness is not physical we can only use "reside" in a metaphorical sense, and in that sense we say that consciousness resides in the brain. But, be careful when you say "separate from the physical brain" since that is the sort of terminology the mystics use to characterize consciousness as an independent entity only trapped within a body, yearning to be set free. Consciousness is "separate" from the brain in that conscious processes are clearly different in kind from the neural processes which accompany them, yet consciousness depends upon the brain for its existence.

As to "how does [consciousness] act on the brain?": Well, that is, as they say, the million dollar question. With all the marvelous accomplishments in discovery of the physical processes in neurophysiology, the true consciousness side of the study is still in its infancy, if even recognized at all. Since a good deal of those in the cognitive sciences are fundamentally nativists -- those who attribute to innate functions that which does not belong -- they simply to not even seek answers to the right the questions in regard to consciousness. But, regardless, whatever the means of consciousness, the fact that consciousness has causal efficacy over your brain, and by extention causal efficacy over your body, is a fact directly accessible to you by introspection. When I discover the exact means by which the causal efficacy of consciousness works, I will be most happy to tell you. But, until then, do not fret too much over the issue: enjoy your life and enjoy the causal efficacy of your consciousness.

Next, how does all this tie in with the virtue of independence, which is defined as "one's acceptance of the responsibility (A) of forming one's own judgements and by living by the work( of one's own mind..."

A" seems to imply that we have a responsibiblity to "direct" the formation of our judgements

"B" seems to imply that we then "cause" our bodies to follow the direction that our mind (which we directed) sets out.

That is, where do we get and how do we use the responsibility to form/make up our own minds.....that is, how do we act on our C.

Do we act on (i.e. cause) our C, or does our C act on us?.....or option 3....did I get this all wrong?!

I think you may be complicating this too much, and thereby confusing yourself. A few simple facts: We possess a consciousness and it is volitional, and thereby we control and direct our thinking processess. The actions of our consciousness have causal efficacy within our body so we then control and direct the physical actions we take (or, at least, those physical actions that are under direct conscious control). Therefore, we are responsible for both our mental and physical actions, all this because we are, in fact, volitonal beings.

[stephen_speicher]

So, C in itself is deterministic (I think?)

No. All physical processes are deterministic, but conscious processes (in man) are volitional, and therefore not determinsitic.

I think the confusion of one or two of us in this thread is along the lines of:

1) what is the nature of the choice?....who/what is doing the chosing, why, when, in response to what stimuli

This has been discussed so many times in the past several weeks, in several different threads, so please search for the details there, or read OPAR. But, in essence, there exists a primary choice -- to focus, or not -- that is caused and necessitated by the nature of man and the nature of his consciousness. We must choose to focus, or not, but the content of that choice is entirely volitional. The choices involve in the thinking process itself -- what Peikoff refers to as higher-level choices -- are caused but not necessitated, since the choices could have been otherwise.

I stopped reading the rest of the post since I think your further confusions are predicated on your earlier ones. Read my previous response to you in which I answer a lot of your questions and then, if any questions remain, ask them separately.

[BrentRolfe]

 

That depends upon what you mean by "expression." It is clear that neural processes of the brain accompany conscious processes, but that does not mean that they are the same thing. If by "express" you mean that neurons act and the result is a specific conscious process, then most certainly no, that is not correct. A volitional consciousness can act by choice and is not determined by the actions of neural processes. But if by "express" you mean that the brain gives rise to consciousness or that neural processes accompany conscious states, then yes, in that sense I would accept the word "express."

Weeeehaaa! I feel ilke the ape with the bone in 2001!

"I think you might be complicating things too much, and thereby confusing yourself"

No kidding!

Through introspection, I am even conscious of doing exactly that!Through lack of enough knowledge (a temporary condition) I am unable to stop doing it (but only for the time being!)

However, at the risk of thread merging, I am currently confused on the two aspects of volition about which you have written.

V(1)= the choice to focus......an irreducible primary

V(2)= volition as a "guiding process".....not irreducible

Can you direct me to where I can find this in the Objectivist literature? I don't want to wear out my welcome asking all this basic stuff here. You have all been quite patient enough already.

Thanks,

Brent

[stephen_speicher]

However, at the risk of thread merging, I am currently confused on the two aspects of volition about which you have written.

V(1)= the choice to focus......an irreducible primary

V(2)= volition as a "guiding process".....not irreducible

Can you direct me to where I can find this in the Objectivist literature? I don't want to wear out my welcome asking all this basic stuff here. You have all been quite patient enough already.

This place is for discussion of these sort of issues, so feel free to ask any follow-up questions here. Probably the best single place to find discussion of this is in Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I think the entirety of Chapter 2, "Sense Perception and Volition," will be helpful to you as it will give you a fuller context in which to understand what you seek. But, if you just want to go directly to the relevant part of the discussion, read pp. 62-69.

[BrentRolfe]

This place is for discussion of these sort of issues, so feel free to ask any follow-up questions here. Probably the best single place to find discussion of this is in Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I think the entirety of Chapter 2, "Sense Perception and Volition," will be helpful to you as it will give you a fuller context in which to understand what you seek. But, if you just want to go directly to the relevant part of the discussion, read pp. 62-69.

stephen,

Thank you for the reference.

I am still confused.

Item 1:

V1 is the decision to focus. This is an irreducible primary. It obeys the law of causality because the action of choosing to focus or not (V1) is necessitated by the nature of "me" as an entity.

So....."I" cause the need for a decision, to focus or not , due to the nature of me.

But "me" is a volitional being.......this seems circular......I cause myself to be volitional because I am volitional?

Item 2:

V1 is the primary decision to focus or not.

V2 seems to me to be (merely?) the ongoing decision(s) to remain focussed (or to reaffirm my focus) at every stage in the process of a mental or physical action.

So.....V2 seems to be an ongoing V1?

Help!

Brent

[Betsy]

Item 1:

V1 is the decision to focus. This is an irreducible primary. It obeys the law of causality because the action of choosing to focus or not (V1) is  necessitated by the nature of "me" as an entity.

So....."I" cause the need for a decision, to focus or not , due to the nature of me.

But "me" is a volitional being.......this seems circular......I cause myself to be volitional because I am volitional?

No, you "don't cause yourself to be volitional." You ARE volitional -- because you ARE volitional. A is A.

Item 2:

V1 is the primary decision to focus or not.

V2 seems to me to be (merely?) the ongoing decision(s) to remain focussed (or to reaffirm my focus) at every stage in the  process of a mental or physical action.

So.....V2 seems to be an ongoing V1?

It is.

[BrentRolfe]

Betsy,

One outa two ain't bad for me at this stage in my learning!

I will think about the other one.

Thanks.

Brent

[stephen_speicher]

stephen,

Thank you for the reference.

I am still confused.

That's okay, but did you read the reference?

Item 1:

V1 is the decision to focus. This is an irreducible primary. It obeys the law of causality because the action of choosing to focus or not (V1) is  necessitated by the nature of "me" as an entity.

So....."I" cause the need for a decision, to focus or not , due to the nature of me.

But "me" is a volitional being.......this seems circular......I cause myself to be volitional because I am volitional?

I do not get your concern. Do you question the fact that you breathe? Are you concerned about breathing because it is part of your nature? If you do not have such concerns, then what is your difficulty in accepting the fact, introspectively given, that you are a volitional being and that is a part of your nature?

Item 2:

V1 is the primary decision to focus or not.

V2 seems to me to be (merely?) the ongoing decision(s) to remain focussed (or to reaffirm my focus) at every stage in the  process of a mental or physical action.

So.....V2 seems to be an ongoing V1?

It sounds like you have not done the suggested reading. Or, if you have done the reading, then you seem to have missed the very nice examples Peikoff uses in order to illustrate the process.

So, let me briefly answer in my own words. One of the reasons for calling the primary choice "primary" is because it sets the stage for the other choices that follow. If you choose to focus your mind you are then open to more relevant facts and knowledge than you would be if you chose a lesser degree of focus. In effect, by properly exercising your primary choice -- by choosing to heighten your awareness -- you are then better equipped to identify and grasp whatever are the issues that currently confront you. By improperly exercising your primary choice -- by choosing to lessen your awareness -- you are then less equipped to identify and grasp whatever are the issues that currently confront you.

Now, the exercise of this choice is a continual process; it is not as if you just turn on the switch and the light will shine every moment for a month. But, granted that you continue to choose to be in full focus, you also then volitionally make an endless series of choices in guiding your entire thinking process. In essence, you are constantly, and volitionally, directing your mind and choosing among alternatives. These are the "higher-level choices" mentioned earlier.

I strongly suggest that you do read that entire chapter in OPAR, or, at a minimum, at least the pages that I gave you. You can follow Peikoff along where he gives plenty of concrete examples that illustrate the process. In addition, I would also strongly suggest that you work harder on your own introspection in order to identify for yourself these processes of which we speak.

[BrentRolfe]

I am still confused.

That's okay, but did you read the reference?

Yes, I did.

I do not get your concern. Do you question the fact that you breathe? Are you concerned about breathing because it is part of your nature? If you do not have such concerns, then what is your difficulty in accepting the fact, introspectively given, that you are a volitional being and that is a part of your nature?

1) I thought breathing was an automatic bodily function, not a volitional activity?

2) Yes, I AM concerned about breathing even though it is part of my nature.....if I don't do it I don't feel well.

"It sounds like you have not done the suggested reading. Or, if you have done the reading, then you seem to have missed the very nice examples Peikoff uses in order to illustrate the process."

I did do the reading.....'onest injun. I didn't miss the examples. I didn't think that they were that good.

"So, let me briefly answer in my own words. One of the reasons for calling the primary choice "primary" is because it sets the stage for the other choices that follow. If you choose to focus your mind you are then open to more relevant facts and knowledge than you would be if you chose a lesser degree of focus. In effect, by properly exercising your primary choice -- by choosing to heighten your awareness -- you are then better equipped to identify and grasp whatever are the issues that currently confront you. By improperly exercising your primary choice -- by choosing to lessen your awareness -- you are then less equipped to identify and grasp whatever are the issues that currently confront you."

I understand this.

"Now, the exercise of this choice is a continual process; it is not as if you just turn on the switch and the light will shine every moment for a month. But, granted that you continue to choose to be in full focus, you also then volitionally make an endless series of choices in guiding your entire thinking process. In essence, you are constantly, and volitionally, directing your mind and choosing among alternatives. These are the "higher-level choices" mentioned earlier."

I understand that the excercise of this choice is a continual (volitional)process.

In my terminology then; there is an optional V1 preceding every V2?

However, after several re-readings it seems to me that.....the "higher-level choices" (V2s) are specifically NOT volitionally chosen as you seem to be saying above.

According to Peikoff:

"These higher level choices, as we may call them, are not irreducible." (emphasis added)........these higher level choices are caused (i.e. they are determined even though they are not necessitated).

Perhaps this is where my confusion lies.

Is it correct to say that they (V2s) are caused (by my nature as a volitional consciousness) but they are not deterministically predictible (because my volitional consciousness.....and subsequently all of the factors that my focused mind brings in to play.....are not identified prior to V1 having been decided?I

strongly suggest that you do read that entire chapter in OPAR, or, at a minimum, at least the pages that I gave you. You can follow Peikoff along where he gives plenty of concrete examples that illustrate the process. In addition, I would also strongly suggest that you work harder on your own introspection in order to identify for yourself these processes of which we speak.

So having worked on my introspection let me summarise:

1) I have a continual (volitional) choice to make as to whether to be focussed or not......whether to think or act while connected to reality or not.

2) This choice is an irreducible primary, there is no "cause" associated with this choice, it is part of the nature of me as an entity.

2) This choice is made, or not, antecedent to (potentially) every thought or act.

3) Once this primary choice is made many other factors will become part of the decision as to which track my thoughts or actions follow including; accumulated knowledge, values, interests etc. etc.

Thanks,Brent

[stephen_speicher]

I thought breathing was an automatic bodily function, not a volitional activity?

Actually, breathing is the only function of our autonomic nervous system that can be volitionally controlled. But, regardless, you missed the point. The point was that you seem to accept breathing as part of your nature, but you do not do the same in regard to your volition. Both breathing and volition are two functional processes that are a fundamental part of your nature, as simple awareness and introspection will reveal.

However, after several re-readings it seems to me that.....the "higher-level choices" (V2s) are specifically NOT volitionally chosen as you seem to be saying above.

If you have read what I asked you to read then I do not know how you could have missed such an essential, and quite emphasized, point. Let me highlight Peikoff's words in this regard, leaving out the details. On page 63 [Emphasis mine]:

"Let me illustrate the wealth of human choices ... To begin with, you must choose the problem ... you must then decide (usually in stages) on the method of attacking it ... You must decide the sub-questions ... Will you concentrate on the similarities ... do you decide that it is too much work ... The concretes themselves will not decide such matters; the choices are yours to make."

That is just a small sampling. There is much more if you follow Peikoff's example. How could you conclude from this that higher-level choices are not volitional?

According to Peikoff:

"These higher level choices, as we may call them, are not irreducible." (emphasis added)........these higher level choices are caused (i.e. they are determined even though they are not necessitated).

Perhaps this is where my confusion lies.

Is it correct to say that they (V2s) are caused (by my nature as a volitional consciousness) but they are not deterministically predictible (because my volitional consciousness.....and subsequently all of the factors that my focused mind brings in to play.....are not identified prior to V1 having been decided?

On page 65 Peikoff makes a most beautifully succinct answer to what you question.

"To say that a higher-level choice was caused is to say: there was a reason behind it, but other reasons were possible under the circumstances, and the individual himself made the selection among them."

So having worked on my introspection let me summarise:

1) I have a continual (volitional) choice to make as to whether to be focussed or not......whether to think or act while connected to reality or not.

2) This choice is an irreducible primary, there is no "cause" associated with this choice, it is part of the nature of me as an entity.

As Peikoff makes clear on the pages I suggested that you read, and as I have said repeatedly, even the primary choice is caused, in the sense that the fact that we must choose is caused by the nature of man and the nature of his consciousness.

2) This choice is made, or not, antecedent to (potentially) every thought or act.

The choice is always made, but the content of that choice, whether to be in focus, or not, is determined volitionally.

3) Once this primary choice is made many other factors will become part of the decision as to which track my thoughts or actions follow including; accumulated knowledge, values, interests etc. etc.

And, in addition, you continue to make the higher-level choices that take into consideration your knowledge, values, etc. At any step along the way you can choose to disregard what you know and value, and act on something else instead. Whether or not you do so, is a matter of your volition.

p.s. Brent, your quoting from previous posts is not very clear or consistent. I think it is about time you learn how to use the standard quoting procedures used around here. I am sure if you ask in the "About the Website" forum someone would be glad to explain how to use quoting functions.