Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is The Mind Deterministic?

Rate this topic


DrBaltar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If he had no choice in closing the thread then why be p*ssed?

He had no choice about being pissed.

And I had no choice but to write this.

And you to read it.

Damn I can't stop typing!

Actually I'm determined to submit this post after this phrase, signature and a sarcastic PS.

mrocktor

PS: see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this turned into a circus, this debate has identified two camps. The philosophical camp (who seeks answers through thought), and the scientific camp (who seeks answers from observation and thought).
This is a false characterization of our position. The pro-volition position is based on observations: one's observations of one's own volition. It is you who are declaring an entire category of observations to be mere illusion. So please do not depict us as rationalists who are ignoring empirical evidence.

Both sides have aired their arguments. My main arguments were listed on the 2nd post of "Is the Mind Deterministic". The other side contends that for the forseable future, science cannot give us any answers about consciousness or free-will. This has been refuted though, and apparently no one can, or wishes to dispute its implications.
No one disputes its implications? Then what do you think has been going on here?

We have all disputed it, on the grounds that volition is an axiom and, as such, is perceptually self-evident. Regarding axioms, you wrote:

And be careful when using axioms. Axioms are correct by definition. 'A is A' is always correct. If A is a chair, then it is true that: a chair is a chair. But if A is a unicorn, it is still true that: a unicorn is a unicorn. Does that mean there are really unicorns? No. The iron clad part about 'A is A' is the operator 'is' when relating something to itself. Axioms only relate to reality if their terms relate to reality.

So if an interpretation of an experiment violates an axiom, then the interpretation and/or the terms in the axiom need to be re-evaluated.

You need to study the derivation of the axioms of Objectivism and their corollaries. They are not mere optional tautologies. They stand at the base of all knowledge; to claim to know anything, is to accept and use these axioms. I suggest you start with pages 1 – 72 of “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

Once you grasp their derivation, you will see why it is necessary to reject any claim to knowledge that violates one of these axioms (or their corollaries).

Having said that, I'd like to offer some comments on the experimental data you reference.

Even our voluntary actions do not originate in the consciousness. Kornhuber and Deecke performed a series of experiments using EEG. They averaged EEGs from many subject who were about to move a finger and discovered that there is an increase in potential up to 2 seconds before the movement, and even before the subjects became aware of their intent to move it. The non-conscious brain is preparing to move the finger, and then our conscious becomes aware of our intent to do so.
Aren't the first and last statements above merely your interpretation of the observed data?

Here is another interpretation of those observations. No process of consciousness happens instantaneously. The process of deciding to move one's finger will take some amount of time. Therefore, one would expect brain activity prior to the movement of one's finger. Furthermore, in the case of a process of consciousness as simple as deciding to move one's finger, one might fix the time of the decision to be at the conclusion of the process of making that decision, which would cause one to report the time of the decision after the first brain activity registers.

Your interpretation requires the "non-conscious" part of the brain to be conscious of the fact that one is participating in an experiment and is expected to move one's finger and note the time one decides to do so. How can the "non-conscious" be conscious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a false characterization of our position. The pro-volition position is based on observations: one's observations of one's own volition. It is you who are declaring an entire category of observations to be mere illusion. So please do not depict us as rationalists who are ignoring empirical evidence.
Not empirical evidence... subjective evidence. There is a huge difference.

No one disputes its implications? Then what do you think has been going on here?

The underline under "has been refuted" means that is a hypertext link. If you click on it, it takes you to a post where I have refuted the claim that "science cannot give us any answers about consciousness or free-will." If you haven't found out by now that I am usually pretty explicit about what I mean it's because you still haven't been reading what it is I actually write!

Aren't the first and last statements above merely your interpretation of the observed data?
No, they are theories formulated by peer-reviewed researchers. The experiments they did were duplicated by other researchers, such as Libet and his team (1983), and Keller & Heckhausen (1990).

It doesn't take 2 seconds to weigh the merits of moving ones finger or not. Look into the experiments, rather than my 4 sentence paraphrasing of the experiment.

Your interpretation requires the "non-conscious" part of the brain to be conscious of the fact that one is participating in an experiment and is expected to move one's finger and note the time one decides to do so. How can the "non-conscious" be conscious?
They were recording EEGs while the subjects made whatever movements they wanted to. For the experiment, they measured the activity before and during moving a finger. The subjects were not told that moving a finger was part of the experiment. This is typical when studying human thought processes. The subject shouldn't be aware of the nature of the experiment. And the subject should certainly not be the same as the experimenter.... if you know what I mean.

So I take it by responding to my points, you have volunteered to be my opponent in the debate? My suggestion would be to start with lower animals. Do we agree that they are deterministic? Once we reach a consensus on that, move on to early hominids, such as homo-erectus and neanderthals. At what stage did the mind or consciousness arise? I think it would help if we can at least establish some common ground by starting off earlier in the evolutionary chain. Then, hopefully, when there's a discrepancy in our thinking, it will only be one thing being debated at a time. If you are to be my opponent, you may of course negotiate this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in debating the self-evident. I was merely pointing out additional problems with your "arguments", as well as providing an alternative explanation for the experiments you cited.

Aren't the first and last statements above merely your interpretation of the observed data?

No, they are theories formulated by peer-reviewed researchers. The experiments they did were duplicated by other researchers, such as Libet and his team (1983), and Keller & Heckhausen (1990).

The fact remains that what is being reported is a conclusion, an inference from the data, not a direct observation. And I have provided an alternative explanation.

It doesn't take 2 seconds to weigh the merits of moving ones finger or not.
How do you know? If introspection is subjective, how can you claim any knowledge about how long a given process of consciousness might take?

I notice that you did not respond to what I said about axioms. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that you did not respond to what I said about axioms. Why is that?

Because what you said about axioms demonstrates that you did not read and comprehend what I said about axioms and to respond to what you said would be a waste of time.

I have no interest in debating the self-evident. I was merely pointing out additional problems with your "arguments", as well as providing an alternative explanation for the experiments you cited.

So you have no official role in this debate thread then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because what you said about axioms demonstrates that you did not read and comprehend what I said about axioms and to respond to what you said would be a waste of time.

You've got it backwards. In fact, what you said about the axioms demonstrates that you did not read and comprehend what he said about the axioms.

And your "refutation" refutes absolutely nothing that anyone here has said. It's just an assertion of a conclusion that cannot rightly be drawn from the data given. (assuming the integrity of the data, which I have no way of knowing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...