Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On the question of free-will vs. determinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Guest jrshep

By our nature (the cause), we have the faculty of consciousness. Consciousness is not just passive awareness, but includes the awareness that we have to choose among alternatives (alternatives which we are aware of existing), alternatives including the fact that we have to choose to focus (an alternative that we are aware of existing - not an alternative of moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, but of moving from a low level of awareness, passive awareness, to active, focused awareness). Without that fundamental choice to focus, to engage our consciousness, consciously we remain passive.

Edited by jrshep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesnt make sense. If atoms in the brain behave the same as elsewhere the consciousness does not have casual efficacy. The 2 claims are contradictory - consicousness cannot both influence matter and not influence matter. If matter in the brain 'does what it does' without being affected in any way by consciousness, then your consciousness obviously plays no casual role whatsoever in your arm raising. The raising of the arm is caused by signals transmitted from the brain, and consciousness would not play a role in generating these signals.

Oh, well if you define "behaves the same way" as "not influenced by consciousness" then of course that's true. But that's not what you said. You said, "If experiments showed that the atoms inside a person's head behaved in the exact same way as anywhere else, would this refute the claim that consciousness has causual eficacy?"

Now it appears you're really asking, "What if science discovers that consciousness doesn't affect the brain?" Well, it can't discover that, because it isn't so. That's like saying, "What if science discovers that existence doesn't exist?"

So here's my question for you: Why are concerned that science will discover what it can't possibily discover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By our nature (the cause), we have the faculty of consciousness. Consciousness is not just passive awareness, but includes the awareness that we have to choose among alternatives - that we are aware of existing, even that we have to choose to focus - an alternative that we are aware of existing - not an alternative of moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, but of moving from a low level of awareness, passive awareness, to active, focused awareness. Without that fundamental choice to focus, to engage our consciousness, consciously we remain passive.

This is all true, but the choice to focus is at some stage going to have to affect physical matter. When I choose to move my arm, my arm moves - consciousness is in some way going to have to cause atoms to move, in a way that cannot be explained by simple interaction of atoms (in the way we explain the movement of atoms in a table or chair for example). Also, it seems that conservation of energy isn't going to hold inside the human head either, since (I assume) the energy required to move atoms is going to have to come from somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, well if you define "behaves the same way" as "not influenced by consciousness" then of course that's true.  But that's not what you said.  You said, "If experiments showed that the atoms inside a person's head behaved in the exact same way as anywhere else, would this refute the claim that consciousness has causual eficacy?" 
If atoms in the human head are behaving in the _exact_ same way as atoms composing a substance without volitional consciousness, then the volitional consciousness is obviously having no effect or influence on them.

Now it appears you're really asking, "What if science discovers that consciousness doesn't affect the brain?" Well, it can't discover that, because it isn't so. That's like saying, "What if science discovers that existence doesn't exist?"

This is an empirical prediction. If science discovers that atoms in the brain behave in the same way as atoms anywhere, then it does seem to have shown that consciousness doesnt affect the brain (or anything else for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep

If one can choose to move one's arm, isn't it obvious that one's choice has to effect the means of transforming that choice from a conscious action (a choice) to a physical action ( the moving of one's arm)?

One's arm is not disconnected, as it were, from one's consciousness, one's arm is "told" by the brain to move because we choose to move it, and the brain (and all else involved) forms the chain of causes moving from our choice to our arm's motion. How could one choose to move one's arm without affecting the biological means of affecting that motion, without affecting the "atom" involved?

That we can choose to move our arm is self-evidently true, so there's nothing to doubt as to our consciousness having causal efficacy.

[sorry about editing my previous post in the middle of a discussion. I only edited it to make it clear as my first post, on rereading it, seemed ambiguous.]

Edited by jrshep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atoms in the human head are behaving in the _exact_ same way as atoms composing a substance without volitional consciousness, then the volitional consciousness is obviously having no effect or influence on them.

It depends on what you mean. If I kick a ball and it bounces off a wall, and then I take it home and kick it down the street, is it behaving in exactly the same way? Well, yes and no. It is acting as it must, but because it is interacting with different objects, what it "must" do under one set of conditions is different from what it must do under another. Or, to give another example: do the atoms in a nuclear bomb behave the same way as atoms in a vibrator? It depends on which perspective you take.

So, in one sense we know that the atoms in our head do not behave exactly like the atoms outside our head - they are interacting with different objects and forces and thus act differently. But that's true about all atoms - they all act as they must given their nature and their surrounding conditions.

The point is, your question is unclear. Here is a version of your question that is clear: "Can empirical evidence lead to a conclusion that contradicts self-evident truths?" The answer to that is: no.

This is an empirical prediction. If science discovers that atoms in the brain behave in the same way as atoms anywhere, then it does seem to have shown that consciousness doesnt affect the brain (or anything else for that matter).

Okay, let's stipulate that, even though, as I've explained, it really isn't a meaningful statement. Let's stipulate that there is an experiment you could perform wherein one set of results would demonstrate that consciousness doesn't affect matter. In that case, that set of results would never turn up because the conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That we can choose to move our arm is self-evidently true, so there's nothing to doubt as to our consciousness having causal efficacy.

That's exactly right, and really that's all that need be said. But I'm still not sure whether Spearmint just doesn't get it, or whether he's sincere in his confusion. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I think I've made this issue pretty clear and thus that benefit will not last too much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atoms in the brain behave the same as elsewhere the consciousness does not have casual efficacy. The 2 claims are contradictory - consicousness cannot both influence matter and not influence matter.

In the broadest sense all atoms act the same in that they are physically deterministic in behavior. But in the practical sense, clearly different arrangements of atoms make for disparate behavior and properties. Changing the crystal structure of a material can give rise to different physical properties. But we can also change properties or behavior without ever changing the atomic structure. Piece together into a square a series of objects all made of the same material, and the resulting object will not roll down an incline. But piece them together so that the resulting object is curved, and voila, it rolls down an incline.

Somehow the human brain gives rise to a volitional consciousness, but the fact that the brain is composed out of particles no different in nature than those of other objects does not contradict the existence of consciousness. Some think of consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, much like rolling was an emergent property of a particular combination of other objects. Personally, I do not think that the notion of an emergent property actually adds much to the issue, because regardless, we are left with the fact that consciousness exists and acts as it does.

At this stage in physics and neural science, how consciousness is able to have causal efficacy over the brain and the body upon which it depends, is highly speculative and is itself a matter for specialists in both fields. But the fact that consciousness does have such causal efficacy is an indisputable fact and is not in any way contradicted by the existence of inanimate objects. Life itself is an emergent property that is reducible to biochemical processes, but consciousness is not reducible to the neural processes that accompany conscious actions. The starting point for a successful physical understanding of the processes is in the recogition and acknowledgement of volitional consciousness as has already been done by Ayn Rand in Objectivism. Once consciousness is given its due by those in the field, then real progress can made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atoms in the human head are behaving in the _exact_ same way as atoms composing a substance without volitional consciousness, then the volitional consciousness is obviously having no effect or influence on them.

Well for one thing, most physicists won't even admit that they can predict the behaviour of particles not in the brain. I think they're probably wrong, but that's beyond this topic. Either way, currently, there is no evidence for what you propose. When (if) scientists discover what you propose, then we can talk about it, until then it's just imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only skimmed this thread, but as best I can tell the disagreement between Matt and Stephen is, at least in part (and especially in respect to accounting for the Ayn Rand quote from the epistemology workshop that Stephen cited), a result of equivocation. Matt rightly claims that PARTICULAR choices do not cause particular actions. Stephen, in pointing to the Ayn Rand quote, only observes that the FACULTY of choice causes human actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only skimmed this thread, but as best I can tell the disagreement between Matt and Stephen is, at least in part (and especially in respect to accounting for the Ayn Rand quote from the epistemology workshop that Stephen cited), a result of equivocation. Matt rightly claims that PARTICULAR choices do not cause particular actions. Stephen, in pointing to the Ayn Rand quote, only observes that the FACULTY of choice causes human actions.

Let me get this straight. In principle you accept the faculty of choice as causal, but not the exercise thereof? :dough:

p.s Who is "Matt?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight. In principle you accept the faculty of choice as causal, but not the exercise thereof?  :confused:

p.s Who is "Matt?"

I suppose you could put it that way. And my reason is that the faculty of choice is a property of an entity, while the exercise thereof is an action of an entity. And only entities (and their properties) are causes, not actions.

Matt is minorityofone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could put it that way. And my reason is that the faculty of choice is a property of an entity, while the exercise thereof is an action of an entity. And only entities (and their properties) are causes, not actions.

But I am not talking about some disembodied action. Even in the physical example I gave, it was the entity acting, the "rolling ball" being the cause. There cannot be action without an entity, and there cannot be causality without action. When Peikoff says (OPAR, p. 64.):

"Often, the cause involves several factors, including the individual's values and interests, his knowledge of a given subject ..."

he does not mean that "values," "interests," and "knowledge" are to be taken as causes without the individual, just as "my choice to raise my arm caused my arm to raise" is not to be taken as a cause without the individual who acts.

Matt is minorityofone.

Is there a last name to go along with "Matt?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he does not mean that "values," "interests," and "knowledge" are to be taken as causes without the individual, just as "my choice to raise my arm caused my arm to raise" is not to be taken as a cause without the individual who acts. 

Is there a last name to go along with "Matt?"

But values, interests, and knowledge are properties, not actions.

I've leave it up to Matt whether he wants to share his name with people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But values, interests, and knowledge are properties, not actions.

That is not relevant to my point. Here is Miss Rand saying the same thing. Do you also think that she is using disembodied actions?

"If he believes that the human benefit or injury caused by such actions is of no significance ..." (CUI, p. 22.)

I've leave it up to Matt whether he wants to share his name with people.

That's fine with me, but note that you already called him "Matt," which is why I asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A choice cannot be the cause of further effects if it has no control on anything; But by definition it is then not a choice.

Choice necessitates 1) input - that is a range of possible choices 2) output - ability to be effective, or be the cause of that which you have chosen.

So choice necessitates physical reality.

You can choose not to choose (evade responsibility for yourself) but even that has an effect (albeit negative). Thus we cant escape choice. We cannot escape reality.

------

A consequence for religion: Freewill = Identity = You, Identity requires Reality, You cannot move onto an afterlife. Contradiction in terms.

Felt compelled to add that: I have a number of old friends and a brother who are all theists - and it drives me nuts that even this spelt out has no effect on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I missed this post yesterday.

Stephen, for the record, that wasn't intended as an accusation or insult. 

I did not take your comments that way, but thanks for mentioning it. The curtness of my reply was of frustration; you seemed to think I "changed the topic" when I have not. My statements are all consistent, with the proper understanding. I do not sunder actions from the entities that perform them, nor do I grant causal efficacy to disembodied actions. With that in mind, there is nothing wrong with Ayn Rand saying that government spending causes inflation, or with me saying that my choice to do so causes my arm to raise.

Just an observation (which I stand by).  Since you don't seem to want to discuss this topic further, I'll leave it at that.

Okay. For me it is just that saying anything more will just be repetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A choice cannot be the cause of further effects if it has no control on anything ...

Ayn Rand, in a manner similar to, but not the same as, Aristotle, differentiated the concept of final cause from efficient cause. An efficient cause would be lighting a match to a piece of paper, and the paper burning. The lighting of the match is the efficient cause of the effect, the paper burning. The concept of a final cause means the end result, the purpose, and final cause properly pertains only to consciousness. It is the final cause that knits together a chain of actions, a causal chain integrated by a purpose. If each step along the way, each choice, was unrelated to the prior chain, there would be no purpose being performed. It is in that sense that efficent causes do have further effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Charles @ Aug 1 2004, 09:35 AM)

A choice cannot be the cause of further effects if it has no control on anything ...

I think you've misunderstood me Stephen, and I apologise if what I have said is unclear. The choice I refer to does not include the action it pertains to. I am refering to the intention. If one intends something, that intention is not a choice unless one actually does something; i.e. causes something else to happen. This may seem pointlessly tautologous but Im stating it in light of minorityofone's earlier comments - and as I add immediatly after that "But by definition it is then not a choice"

stephen_speicher "It is the final cause that knits together a chain of actions, a causal chain integrated by a purpose....It is in that sense that efficent causes do have further effects."

So a purpose is a final cause? i.e. looking back up a chain of causes one finds purpose in any being consciously making choices, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
A consequence for religion: Freewill = Identity = You, Identity requires Reality, You cannot move onto an afterlife. Contradiction in terms.

Felt compelled to add that: I have a number of old friends and a brother who are all theists - and it drives me nuts that even this spelt out has no effect on them.

Why on Earth (literally), would you expect it to change their minds? The religious mind holds an irrational metaphysics via an irrational epistemology, not because they are rationally certain of their views, but because they want to hold their views. Pointing out any facts of reality is futile because it's not facts of reality (other than wishful thinking, "Primacy of Consciousness," whim) that give rise to their "convictions." It's Faith.

You cannot change someone's "convictions" by reason if reason is not why they hold them.

I mentioned an article, George H. Smith's "How to Defend Atheism," on another thread. Perhaps you'll find it helpful in lowering your frustration in dealing with theists.

The article is a transcript (with many typos) of a lecture that Mr. Smith's gave in 1976. To view it, Click Here

I hope it helps. I know the frustration you speak of.

I've got a neighbor who told me that he had gotten a bit of metal, a splinter, in his eye at work, that he prayed to God for help, and about fifteen minutes later the splinter of metal came out of his eye. He said that he wished that he had saved that piece of metal, a simple proof of God's existence. I wish he had too. Nothing like real proof! Throughout history men have longed for proof of God, and he simply lost it. Sad day for mankind.

When they had a stopped up sewage system, they prayed for God's assistance. The man opened the system up and sought out the problem, figured it out and cleared the clog. By their math, God probably helped about 50%.

What can one honestly say to such that would change their minds? If the arbitrary is in, it's truly deuces wild.

Edited by jrshep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a purpose is a final cause?

Something specific is a final cause, something which you have as your purpose.

i.e. looking back up a chain of causes one finds purpose in any being consciously making choices, right?

Hopefully! :D

It is the purpose, the final cause, which should determine the chain of causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link John. I liked his response to Pascal's wager:

George H. Smith's "How to Defend Atheism" :

1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.

2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people

My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism.If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.

jrshep "You cannot change someone's "convictions" by reason if reason is not why they hold them"

Quite, and I by and large I now try not to enter into issue based discussions with such people - certainly not for the purpose of constructive exchange of views.

One other thing Mr Smith mentioned was the difficulty in cultivating reason - getting into the habit of recognizing each part of your life as a conscious decision rather than a continuation of whimiscal habit/natural prejudice. I agree.

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...