Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On the question of free-will vs. determinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Young, the problem with your view is that it rejects the concept of causes, and says all things are effects. You talk about a primary cause and than says that this is only the primary cause because it is hard to figure out what caused it (i.e. it is not actually a cause but just another effect). Your “proof” suggests that physical laws outlaw causes and only allow an endless string of effects.

But the Objectivist view of causality does not describe the relationship between any two acting entities, but the identity of each entity.

Feldblum, causality is derived from identity and closely related to it. However, the law of causality is different from that of identity in that it deals specifically with actions. Particularly, it applies identity to the relationships between actions and their results.

The way you state it, causality is merely a restatment of identity. In reality, causality is identity applied to actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard_Halley -

I meant "does not only describe ... but also and more fundamentally ...." Moreover, I meant "the identity of each entity - specifically, how it acts." Sorry about that.

However, I take issue with: "Particularly, it applies identity to the relationships between actions and their results." Causality, Objectivism-style, applies identity to the relationship between entities and their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right in saying that my previous statment was wrong.

Causality, Objectivism-style, applies identity to the relationship between entities and their actions.

More specifically, causality does apply identity to actions and their results, rather it does so to actions and their causes. So, it deals with forces effecting the acting object as well as that objects nature, and the relationship between these two things which leads to the object's actions.

How is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you correctly identified, my view does not account for Causes which are not themselves Effects. Causes all seem empirically to have been caused. Can you come up with a reasonable example of such an identity, one which was not initially affected by another identity but still effects change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that forces are not the primaries; entities - independent existents - are.

I think a further explicit implication of Causality is: the relationships between any two entities do not contradict their identities.

The fundamental law is an axiom, not a description of how things operate. Meaning, in order to describe how entities act and how they affect each other, you have to accept the axioms. But the statement "existence exists" - and all axioms like it - isn't going to tell you any more than that.

Essentially, both identity and its corrolary causality only affirm the principle of non-contradiction and no more. It's up to you (general case), your perceptions, and your volitional consciousness to fill in the rest (everything).

As such, the axiom of causality says nothing about what causes what and how and so on. It only says, if A can't cause B, then it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example to the negative of that statement:

I initially posted

You saw the post and posted as well

I am now posting in response

Here we see that your identity reacted in response to my identity (cause)

Your response in turn triggered the reaction of my identity

(effect)

Your identity will now react to all relevant identities to determine what your next action, there will be no mystical event in which your identity asks you for your opinion, some point at which you are considered the "unmovable mover", there will be one logical reaction that can be taken and so it will be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh... but I could have easily decided that you were an annoying troll and decided not to respond to you at all. Here's how it really went.

I saw your post.

I decided to read your post.

I decided to consider the implications of the meaning of your post.

I decided that you might be honestly asking questions.

I decided that I should respond to your questions.

I posted.

The only effect my seeing your post had was that I was put in a position where I had to make a decision.

And you are STILL ignoring the fact that effect implies cause, as a result I am getting closer to deciding that you are an annoying troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for bringing this to the biological level but you really couldn't have decided anything that wasn't already going to happen...

Your eyes received the light from the screen in front of you (not decision)

They transferred electrical charge to your occipital lobe (vision perception) as well as your centers for language and comprehension (again, not decision, what we call "reading")

Your emotional centers interpreted the meaning of those words to have a certain significance, the content of the post to be meaningful in a certain way, a way determined by your previous brain development reflected by your biology (no choice yet)

Those centers relayed electrical signals to certain neurons in your frontal lobe responsible for planning the next action to be undertaken, here is where you would say you are making a choice, however because the signals MUST react according to physical laws they will travel to the correct neurons for specific actions (unless there is some abnormality in your brain, which would also be controlled by physical laws) and cause those actions to occur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard_Halley -

"effect implies cause"

That's not strictly right (in Objectivese). Action implies acting entity. Action-relationships between two entities implies both of them. But action does not necessarily imply prior action. Volition is an action whose cause is an entity called human being. There is no prior action causing volition, but there is an assumed entity. Nothing caused your response, but his post prodded you to respond. Focus on the entities that are acting, not the actions themselves, is the key.

Other than that, have at it in defense of the existence of volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feldblum: Effect does imply cause, action does not. The mistake you accuse me of making is precisly the one which Young has made; the one that the statment, "effect implies cause," points out.

Young says that all actions are effects, and none may be anything else. Existing, however, is an action, and nothing may do anything (be affected by anything) before existing. So, in a world following Young's rules, nothing may exist.

The statment, "effect implies cause," is actually proof that action does not equal effect.

Since Young's last post still ignores this, I won't even waste my time responding to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young, Richard_Halley -

All entities act. Whether they act in accordance with or in contradiction to their identities is governed by Causality. How they act, if it is true that they act only in accordance with their identities, is governed by their identities - and we can discover the rules by science.

Existing is not an action; it is the precondition for acting. To exist is to act, however: an entity cannot exist without having identity, nor can it exist without acting; existence implies both identity and action. Existence is action; it is not an action.

Acting is not an interaction between two identities (ie, two entities); acting is the precondition for an interaction between two entities.

Richard_Halley -

Action does imply cause: the actor, the entity acting.

Effect implies, at root, the entity that caused it, as opposed to an action disconnected from the acting entity. Effect [ie, result] does imply the causing action - but it does not ignore the causing entity which acted.

I know you're not arguing Young's position. From what I can tell, you're arguing that the result of an action implies that action - that a relationship between two entities based on a certain action necessarily implies that action - assuming that action implies an actor. That is an important part of Causality; Objectivism is among the few to insist and make explicit that that assumption is the key to Causality. Causality at root deals with a single entity and its action, and extends that to include a second entity, its causal relationship with the first, and its reaction.

How the second entity acts must not be in contradiction with its own identity, the identity and action of the first entity, and the causal relationship between them.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm not saying you're contradicting Objectivist Causality (though you are very nicely contradicting nonsensical causality). I'm saying that what you say resembles what others think causality is and it is on that point, which is in form similar to what you're saying, that many people stumble. I'm saying you're focusing on the action and assuming the acting entity; make that acting entity explicit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feldblum, I will state my claims precisly for clarity.

A REACTION implies a previous action as well as the now acting object (and, for clairty its identity).

An ACTION implies the acting object and its identity.

Objectivism realizes that a reaction is determined by both the first action and the reacting object's identity. And it recognizes that not all actions are reactions.

I'm saying you're focusing on the action and assuming the acting entity; make that acting entity explicit.
I am not doing that... in my first definition of causality, in my first post, I said that an a reaction depends on the reacting object's identity.

I'm saying that what you say resembles what others think causality

If by "resembles" you mean that I use similar terminology to what they use, yes.

But I do this for a reason: to make it clear exactly where Young's point gos wrong. I tell him where he is right, using his own terms, and then include the clauses and implications which he misses in his own view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard_Halley -

"I will state my claims precisly for clarity."

I have no more argument, except one thing. I would like to add to your precisely stated claims, particularly to the definition of "reaction," this: it also implies a (causal) relationship between the two entities.

"If by 'resembles' you mean that I use similar terminology to what they use, yes."

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. To clarify why I said it, my objection was that their terminology neglects entities and affirms only action, and therefore neglects the axiom of identity, and using their terminology alone makes it difficult to affirm the entity as the primary, though in the right context it's obviously implied.

"But I do this for a reason: to make it clear exactly where Young's point gos [sic] wrong. I tell him where he is right, using his own terms, and then include the clauses and implications which he misses in his own view."

But showing internal contradictions spawned by the wrong terminology is an excellent way to go. In truth, I didn't quite understand your strategy, so thanks for clarifying.

Why, you devious little :ph34r: ....

Young -

Why do you assume that the existence of an acting entity by definition implies the existence of another acting entity? What specifically is that assumption, that premise?

Edited by y_feldblum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young, here is my two cents worth:

If man is determined, then the content of one's mind is determined. This means that one's advocacy of determinism may be the result of a rigorous process of thought governed by logic -- or it may be the result of evasions and equivocations -- it just depends on which way the determining forces steered you. One would have no way of knowing. You cannot claim that you watched your own mental process and therefore know it to be valid, because that belief is also determined. Maybe you were committing every logical error in the book but the forces of determinism put false observations into your mind.

Either you have control over your mind or you don’t. If you don’t, you cannot make any statement about the validity of its content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to get accept eventualities in which we doubt the very content of our minds than we're going to have to rule out logic altogether. Your claim is just as valid to a mind which believes it has choice, how does it know it has choice?

In short, instead of saying "how do we know we know" I'd appreciate proof more of a refutation of how a neuron's identity can be negated in order to propagate your assumed identity of the "mind".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes down to the inability of a neuron to respond in a different manner than its nature dictates, when presented with a situation a neuron will react exactly according to what it is, as well as the structure of the brain. Effectively there is no "mind", no intangible force which we can not track, had I complete knowledge of the structure of your brain, and could control a situation presented to you, I could beforehand know precisely know exactly what you would do, there would be no possibility of you acting otherwise.

Similarly in someone who is not receptive to your chosen philosophy it is useless to blame them for what they think or say, there brain itself has not been "wired" correctly to respond to what you will do or say in the way that you want them to. It's basically like telling a rock to stop being a rock.

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...