Things I've taken for granted in the O'ist Ethics.

[crizon]

Just to be clear, what Objectivism is talking about here is the choice to think. One's consciousness has the ability to think about something or not to, to evaluate something or to ignore it, to think about X rather than about Y... and so on. Something in the make-up of human consciousness allows it (you, me) to decide where to shine its torch. That is a ability that is called "free will".

I don't think that must be true. We know that we do "shine the torch" at something, we focus on something. What we don't know is, if that was a free choice. How could we?

Trebor:

I think you are right in some sense.. I didn't really make myself clear if I in fact promote a deterministic view. That is not really true.

I tried to convey the fact, that we can't really know if our mind works deterministic or indeterministic (a true random generator).. I think we both agree that a mystic alternative can be neglected.

Either statement ("our mind works in/deterministic") would be an assumption with no basis.

I'm curious, why then are you presenting your "views" here on this forum? It is almost as though you hold the view that by arguing or thinking you might change your view or the views of others here?

Very interesting. Why would you hold the "view" that such is possible?

Oops. I forgot. You can't help but hold such a view. I guess, as well, that you can't help but take the time to state it on this forum. You're simply driven by inexplicable forces beyond your control.

What is your point there? The fact that free will is not self-evident and can't be taken as a fact has terrible consequences and must therefore be refused (even if you accept the statement as true)?

Something like "if free will does not exist we are merely robots.. that can't be right!". for me, that is not rational whatsoever and is simply based on strong dismissive feelings.

I think our illusion of free will is maybe the strongest feeling that we posses. It never changes, you always feel that you are in control of your actions, that you are truly responsible for what you do, but as with all feelings: They are not rational.

The fact that free will is not self-evident causes ethical and moral problems changes nothing.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

A very big mistake I see happening regarding the issue of free will is two-fold: 1) people who are against it are against observation as a primary, and 2) they have a conception of causality that is not focused on the nature of the entity, and that an entity acts according to its nature.

What you observe is reality, and observation includes the functioning of your consciousness. Introspection is as valid as extrospection; that is one can be aware of one's own mind and what is going on with it. In fact, this is crucial for a rational ethics, for if we were not aware of our own minds, we couldn't be aware that we were not focused on reality instead of being focused on something that is on our mind. The validity of free will is done in a similar manner; you observe that you make choices -- such as choosing to post or choosing to do something else. And that is all the validation that is necessary to identify an aspect of one's own consciousness. By comparison, one can say that a rock does not have a choice, but we certainly do when we decide to pick it up and to throw it or just leave it on the ground.

The option here are not just "causality" or randomness or magic to explain how this ability comes about. I put "causality" in quotes because most people think of causality as meaning an antecedent action occurring to an entity leading to that entity moving or changing. However, Objectivism fundamentally rejects this deterministic or antecedent view of causation. An entity is what it is and does what it does because it is what it is. To put this in a nut shell, an egg breaks because it is an egg and is fragile, so that when it is hit, that is the action that takes place.

To integrate these to positions, man has certain abilities because he is a man. These abilities come about not because something antecedent happened to the man, but because man has the capability to be a prime mover, in the sense of directing himself to do certain things, like thinking or not thinking. This ability does not come about because of an antecedent action occurring to the man, but rather the man himself decides to operate his own mind or he doesn't -- and that is his fundamental choice. And this is not magic and it is not randomness, but rather it is causation. A man is such that he has the capacity or the ability to direct his own mind. This is what Objectivism refers to as free will.

How this ability came about is more of a scientific issue rather than a philosophical issue; but by simple introspective observation, it is clear that we do have that ability. Denying it is also a function of free will, as you can freely chose to ignore your observations -- there isn't anything about the human consciousness that will compel you to go by the facts as opposed to going by some theory (such as determinism) that you have chosen to accept. In other words, those who accept determinism have done so of their own free will -- they have willfully decided to try to integrate their mind to a theory, one that is refuted by observation; and they willfully decide to ignore the observations of how their own mind works.

[kainscalia]

If it were not in man's nature to be rational, then being rational would be impossible for him, as it would be outside of the limits of his nature. However, it is not an automatic feature--- rationality is not on the same level of functioning as some of the biological automated functions such as breathing and cardiac muscular control. The main feature of what makes a human a human is his volitional nature- he has a choice to be rational, or to forego reason. You cannot say, for example, that man's nature is that of being incapable of communication, since he has to learn a language and so it doesn't come imprinted immediately into his subconscious from birth. The definition of rational has already been addressed.

My friend brought up a Nozickian critique that says to claim your own life as the goal is subjective. Basically, what objective reason do you have to value your life?

If you are bereft of life, are any values possible to you at all?

There you have your answer to your friend.

If he insists that yes, they are possible in that situation, invite him to demonstrate with himself.

Lastly, I was wondering why Objectivists put any emphasis on the determinist/Free will debate.

Volition in itself implies the ability to choose. If there is no free will, there is no volition-- and, in fact, if there is no free will there is no reason to exist at all, since the values you have are not chosen by you, but for you by the same entity that determines everything else about your life. Your identity is, in fact, neither real nor yours, since the prime factors that have shaped it are not your choices but determinations. As such, neither your thoughts nor your life nor anything else known to you is worth anything at all.

Edited April 27, 2009 by kainscalia

[gags]

I don't think that must be true. We know that we do "shine the torch" at something, we focus on something. What we don't know is, if that was a free choice. How could we?

I tried to convey the fact, that we can't really know if our mind works deterministic or indeterministic (a true random generator).. I think we both agree that a mystic alternative can be neglected. Either statement ("our mind works in/deterministic") would be an assumption with no basis.

If, as you say, we can never know whether or not we have free will, why does any of this matter? Why are we even having this discussion? If it's something that can never be determined with any level of certainty then we should just choose (oops!) to abandon this discussion rather than continuing to do this:

I think our illusion of free will is maybe the strongest feeling that we posses. It never changes, you always feel that you are in control of your actions, that you are truly responsible for what you do, but as with all feelings: They are not rational.

The fact that free will is not self-evident causes ethical and moral problems changes nothing.

Since when are all feelings not rational? Also, as Thomas and others have said, free will is demonstrable through observation and through introspection. If you actually think that you only have the illusion of free will, then I would appreciate it if you'd give us the evidence that this is the case. So far, you provided little reasoning to support that position and no real evidence.

[Grames]

I actually would accept if Objectivism simply stated that Free Will is am primary and that's it, but it states that free will with all it's implications really exists and that is something different.

At one point it is "smuggled" in by definition.

I agree with existence exists. Can't be refuted. Same goes for consciousness, BUT if you define consciousness with volitional consciousness then this changes things. That suddenly includes an assumption that is not self-evident, because volition includes free choice.

Consciousness for it to be self-evident must centrally mean "being self-aware". The next step, saying that consciousness requires volition is an assumption and nowhere near a statement like existence exists.

...

Also there is this constant notion that volition does not fall in causality or randomness. It is something in-between or a something totally different, which is not possible without being mystic or "magic".

Free will is a primary. It is an axiom. It can't be made any more clear. (Free will and volition are taken to be synonyms in Objectivism.)

Consciousness and volition are two different things, animals are conscious without being volitional. Consciousness alone does not require or create volition. The power of the human consciousness to integrate similarities into new units and the fact that there are options in how this is done and is not automatic, is what is named volition.

Volition is a means to be causal. Selecting between alternatives does not create anything magical.

My friend brought up a Nozickian critique that says to claim your own life as the goal is subjective. Basically, what objective reason do you have to value your life?

Dr. Peikoff has a short course on the "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics." I don't have it yet, but I'm certain that one of the things he says or should say is that volition as the choice to focus and select among alternatives is the same faculty as the choice to continue to live. Just two perspectives on the same thing. There is no reason to value your own life, nor does there need to be. There are plenty of people who do not value their own lives. Such people are proof enough that there is no reason, because a reason that can be overridden is no reason at all, that would be a true violation of causality. A real reason that could not be overridden would in fact be deterministic, so it is this Nozickian argument that smuggles in determinism.

If something is, and you know it, then your knowledge is true. Knowing why something is does not make it more true.

I think our illusion of free will is maybe the strongest feeling that we posses. It never changes, you always feel that you are in control of your actions, that you are truly responsible for what you do, but as with all feelings: They are not rational.

It is true that emotions are not tools of cognition. Emotions are automatic evaluations so when you trying to find the truth of something appealing to an emotion is something very like circular reasoning. Your feeling of free will is not an emotion, it is a perception like seeing, hearing or touching. Actually a better analogy would be the internal senses of balance (the vestibular sense), and body control (kinesthesia). It makes as little sense to talk of the illusion of free will as the it does the illusion of knowing you are standing upright. Your body sense is always with you, you always feel you are in control of your body, it is not an illusion.

edit: fixed spelling casual to causal

Edited April 27, 2009 by Grames

[crizon]

Again lot's of answers. I try respond to most of it.

I'm going to use 2 choice related phrases now, to keep things clear:

choice:

As a solution to a problem for us. The result of a thinking process.

free choice:

well.. i'm actually not even sure how to define it properly. let's say an indeterminate choice influence by reason and our values?

A very big mistake I see happening regarding the issue of free will is two-fold: 1) people who are against it are against observation as a primary, and 2) they have a conception of causality that is not focused on the nature of the entity, and that an entity acts according to its nature.

What you observe is reality, and observation includes the functioning of your consciousness. Introspection is as valid as extrospection; that is one can be aware of one's own mind and what is going on with it. In fact, this is crucial for a rational ethics, for if we were not aware of our own minds, we couldn't be aware that we were not focused on reality instead of being focused on something that is on our mind. The validity of free will is done in a similar manner; you observe that you make choices -- such as choosing to post or choosing to do something else. And that is all the validation that is necessary to identify an aspect of one's own consciousness. By comparison, one can say that a rock does not have a choice, but we certainly do when we decide to pick it up and to throw it or just leave it on the ground.

You are right. I observer that i make choices. But that's the point where introspection ends without loosing it's validity. You do not know if you choices were in fact free choices.

You can't ever know if it was a free choice via introspection, because that would mean, that you know that you could have made a different choice, which you can't. All you can say for certain is that you made a choice, not that you could have made a different one.

The option here are not just "causality" or randomness or magic to explain how this ability comes about. I put "causality" in quotes because most people think of causality as meaning an antecedent action occurring to an entity leading to that entity moving or changing. However, Objectivism fundamentally rejects this deterministic or antecedent view of causation. An entity is what it is and does what it does because it is what it is. To put this in a nut shell, an egg breaks because it is an egg and is fragile, so that when it is hit, that is the action that takes place.

Well "things act according to their nature" or "an entity does what it does because it is what it is" is certainly not false, but it is meaningless when you want to know what they _will_ do or _why_ they did what they did.

Now saying "they acted because of their nature" or "they will act according to their nature" is again meaningless and is the same like "they acted because of something" or "they will act in a certain way".

Let's assume the Copenhagen interpretation was right (just leave out the law of identity). Then it was the nature of electrons to act "random". So now a caused effect can be random.

I must admit, I wasn't aware of how Objectivism defines causality.

Let's put it this way then: There is nothing in between determinism and indeterminism or a third option without relying on something supernatural. You can't get around it.

Let's look at the fundamental choice according to Objectivism: The choice to focus your mind.

How do we make this choice?

We use our mind; we either apply logic to the real world or we let our feelings guide us. Logic leaves no room for free will. If you apply it correctly, then you will end up with one certain result.

Feelings on the other hand could both lead to random or to determined results, but still no free choice here; and this is true for all choices we make.

If you look at how we make choices and what we can use to find results, you will find no third option between determinism and indeterminism there.

If, as you say, we can never know whether or not we have free will, why does any of this matter? Why are we even having this discussion? If it's something that can never be determined with any level of certainty then we should just choose (oops!) to abandon this discussion rather than continuing to do this:

The thing is: Objectivism insists that free will is actually true, which I think is a statement without a basis.

Since when are all feelings not rational? Also, as Thomas and others have said, free will is demonstrable through observation and through introspection. If you actually think that you only have the illusion of free will, then I would appreciate it if you'd give us the evidence that this is the case. So far, you provided little reasoning to support that position and no real evidence.

Free will can't be demonstrated _ever_. Even if you put a human in the exact same conditions a hundred times and observe that he does in fact make different choices you still don't know if his actions are not simply (partially) random.

Free will is a primary. It is an axiom. It can't be made any more clear. (Free will and volition are taken to be synonyms in Objectivism.)

Consciousness and volition are two different things, animals are conscious without being volitional. Consciousness alone does not require or create volition. The power of the human consciousness to integrate similarities into new units and the fact that there are options in how this is done and is not automatic, is what is named volition.

Volition is a means to be causal. Selecting between alternatives does not create anything magical.

Stating that the act of selecting between alternatives is neither determined or indeterminate only leaves magical.

It is true that emotions are not tools of cognition. Emotions are automatic evaluations so when you trying to find the truth of something appealing to an emotion is something very like circular reasoning. Your feeling of free will is not an emotion, it is a perception like seeing, hearing or touching. Actually a better analogy would be the internal senses of balance (the vestibular sense), and body control (kinesthesia). It makes as little sense to talk of the illusion of free will as the it does the illusion of knowing you are standing upright. Your body sense is always with you, you always feel you are in control of your body, it is not an illusion.

edit: fixed spelling casual to causal

A valid perception is: I feel that i have free will. The conclusion that this feeling is in fact real is not valid.

"I hear a voice inside my head that says it is god speaking to me, therefore god must exists!". That would surely not be a valid perception, right?

[Grames]

"I hear a voice inside my head that says it is god speaking to me, therefore god must exists!". That would surely not be a valid perception, right?

"Therefore" is not used in an act of perception. Try again.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Crizon, you and others like you, are way over-thinking the issue. In your view, free will is magic, because you have accepted the notion that if we had free will it would be a violation of "causality"-- to you it would be a violation of determinism. However, you acknowledge that you do indeed make choices, you're just not sure if you are really making the choice or if something else was happening that led you to do what you did. If you making a choice does not fit in with your conception of the universe, then you need to check your premises about the nature of the universe. Obviously, if you are making a choice, then choice is possible -- and that's it, there is no argument that can over-ride that, unless you are a rationalist and believe that your thinking determines the nature of the universe. Free will is a fact of human consciousness, and you have accepted a theory that states that it is not true. But if a theory contradicts a fact of reality, then the theory is wrong, not the fact.

And if you are not going to reply to this of your own free will, then don't bother. Why should we be interested in your mental dumpings? That is, if you are not choosing to think it through and you are just regurgitating what is on your mind, why should we care about that if you cannot of your own free will correct your stance?

[crizon]

Crizon, you and others like you, are way over-thinking the issue. In your view, free will is magic, because you have accepted the notion that if we had free will it would be a violation of "causality"-- to you it would be a violation of determinism. However, you acknowledge that you do indeed make choices, you're just not sure if you are really making the choice or if something else was happening that led you to do what you did. If you making a choice does not fit in with your conception of the universe, then you need to check your premises about the nature of the universe. Obviously, if you are making a choice, then choice is possible -- and that's it, there is no argument that can over-ride that, unless you are a rationalist and believe that your thinking determines the nature of the universe. Free will is a fact of human consciousness, and you have accepted a theory that states that it is not true. But if a theory contradicts a fact of reality, then the theory is wrong, not the fact.

And if you are not going to reply to this of your own free will, then don't bother. Why should we be interested in your mental dumpings? That is, if you are not choosing to think it through and you are just regurgitating what is on your mind, why should we care about that if you cannot of your own free will correct your stance?

Again: Choice implies free will. What I do perceive is that I am finding solutions for problems and I don't that I have a free choice.

Just think about what choice means; what it is made of.

Consciousness means being self-aware. It can't be refuted by definition. Now if you "change" the meaning of consciousness and state that consciousness must include free will, then that doesn't mean that suddendly free will can't be refuted. You just redefined a word.

Same goes for choice. If you define choice as "free choice" then your statement "Obviously, if you are making a choice, then choice is possible" is no longer true, because I can't tell if I made a choice and neither can you.

What happens here is that you automatically build in an assumption in your introspective. What you perceive is that you are faced with a problem. "Which car do I want to buy?". You also perceive that you find a solution "I want to buy an Audi".

The next step "I bought the car because of my free will" is an assumption or conclusion (that can be wrong!).

I feel that this central point was not addressed properly yet, which is why I say it again and again.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make out of the last paragraph. Something like "If you are right then that would be bad"?

[Grames]

"I hear a voice inside my head that says it is god speaking to me, therefore god must exists!". That would surely not be a valid perception, right?

This is actually pissing me off because its so dishonest. This example has no perception anywhere in it. It goes from hallucination to a hasty generalization, and yet crizon thinks its a counter-example to the reliability of perception. Even to call it a non sequitur over dignifies it, it would have to be somewhat logical before it could be a logical fallacy.

[crizon]

This is actually pissing me off because its so dishonest. This example has no perception anywhere in it. It goes from hallucination to a hasty generalization, and yet crizon thinks its a counter-example to the reliability of perception. Even to call it a non sequitur over dignifies it, it would have to be somewhat logical before it could be a logical fallacy.

I didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to illustrate my point.. maybe I made a mistake there. There can be things that we "perceive" that are not real or they are closly linked to a conclusion that is not valid.