A few problems I have with Objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
61

Can you quickly define what exactly you mean by subjective, in this case? Under my understanding of the term, there is nothing subjective about the result that occurs when two physical objects interact. The event simply happens, and what results, results. The fact that, with the events we’re talking about now (perception), these events produce information in our brain does not make perception an exception to the general rule, any more than computer programs which produce informational results are thus exempted from causality. It is the direct causal connections involved in the process of perception which makes the results reliable. The light currently hitting my eyes could not, in principle, produce any perception other than the one it is currently producing.

Paticular to a given person. Sorry, should make it clear when I use a word with different definitions like that.

Uh… I’m assuming that you don’t mean physically reconstruct, but rather in our minds?

Either/or in the context of this conversation.

The whole point of this conversation is that when we look at a sewing machine, the perception which results isn’t one that we had to reconstruct; it happened automatically.

No, the whole point is not whether it is volitional or not, but whether it is accurate. Whtether it is true representative information of objective reality.

Now, this is not to say that we observe even the “most absolute details” of the sewing machine. No one here is claiming that we have x-ray vision sufficient to perceive the inner workings of the machine just by looking at it, or that we can perceive each of the atoms exactly. This is not what we mean by perfect. When we say perfect, we do not mean that all information which could ever possibly be gleaned is immediately apparent. If this were true, we would not need microscopes, telescopes, or hearing aids. Rather, when we say perfect, we mean that none of the information that we actually do get is false.

This is what I have a problem with. How is it true information when we are not perceiving it, or even anything about it totally?

Perception cannot deceive any more than a scientific experiment can lie. There can of course be some unseen factor operating in a scientific experiment, which if we do not know, we can draw bad conclusions about. However, the outcome of the experiment itself cannot defy reality. There is no room for deviation in the automatic workings of our central nervous system. We can draw false conclusions and inferences from the information we get, but everything that perception gives us is connected to the object itself by inerrant laws.

Connected, but that does not necessarily imply truth.

Again, I think we are operating under different definitions of imperfect. The information I get from perceiving a tree from 50 feet away is certainly not exhaustive; I could get much more information from perceiving it closer up, from different angles, perhaps by including different senses such as touch, sound, and taste. In this sense, it does not give us a perfect idea of everything that a tree is or possibly could be. However, to the extent that it does give us information, this information must be true. It is in this sense that it is perfect; how could mechanistic operations be otherwise, in this sense?

Our perceptions are what they are, they cannot deviate. The events that allow us to perceive what we do are the same. I don’t see how you get from this that what we perceive is true.

I’m not convinced that this is a valid question to ask concerning the existence of free will. Moments in reality, after all, never do repeat themselves. How can our concept of free will thus be based on an impossible occurrence?

Because this impossible situation is what free will entails. Thats the entire idea of it. Its what free will is.

62

I didn’t see this comment before, but I think it sheds some light on our conflicting definitions, and what we actually mean when we defend perception versus what you seem to think we’re defending.

You say sense perceptions can give us objective knowledge, despite the fact they can never give us absolute knowledge about even the simplest thing.

No one here claims that perception of an object gives absolute knowledge of that object, in the sense of all the knowledge it’s possible to know about the object. Rather, our claim that sense perception is inerrant simply means that it results directly from inerrant processes. It is not exhaustive, but it is valid.

For instance, you might say that I cannot tell from sense perception that my watch is composed of incredibly tiny atoms and mostly empty space. This is true. However, it’s also helpful to think about this: how do we know that it is composed of atoms? Well, we know from experiments like the gold-foil experiment, which illustrated that gold foil is made up of small clusters of positively-charged particles inside mostly empty space (it was not able to detect electrons). However, how did we know the results of that experiment? How did we get that information? We used sense perception on the results. We looked at the impact of alpha particles that we sent through the gold. Ultimately, it all comes back to sense perception. Only sense perception, sometimes augmented by human inventions, leads to knowledge, and it leads to contextually true knowledge because of its direct connection to reality.

63

A malfunctioning sensory apparatus is the result of the physical causation of a change of the organ away from normal operation. To say they malfunction is to affirm the objectivity of the senses, and the efficacy of consciousness to recognize this change.

64

When I say the only free choice in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, you say which doesn’t make any sense at all. You also saymeaning that you actually do not know Ayn Rand’s position at all, and are swinging wildly.

You said no such thing. You said.

There is only one alternative, since we are discussing AR’s philosophy. The only alternative involved in free will is to think or not. We supposed that you were talking about Ayn Rand. If not, then we can stop this discussion.

Of course, this is not an alternative, but a choice. I choose to ignore that.

There cannot be a single alternative with no alternative to it. This is fucking grade school bullshit. If I can have an apple, this is not an alternative. If I can have an apple or a pear, this is not an alternative. It is a choice. In relation to the pear, the apple is the alternative. In relation to the apple, the pear is the alternative. In raltion to thinking or not thinking, both are alternative to each other.

Two relative alternatives. Jesus, do I need to explain every simple sentence like this to you? I’ll amke a note of it.

I wasn’t swinging wildily, these were your arguments, not Ayn Rands. They say nothing about my knowledge of Ayn Rands position.

When I say that you created a straw man of us, you say

which is quite a different thing. In restating a person’s position in our own words helps clarify. It is asking for clarification.

I did not say that. I said “It’s hyperbole”. I said what you qouted in answer to your claim that you did not do what you called me out on. Try to comprehend a bit better.

When we say that the senses operate sufficiently to give us knowledge upon which we can build, you sayeven though none of those points are ones we have made. You use “objective knowledge” out of context, in a way never used by AR or us. “Absolute knowledge” is Mr. Kant, and not anything Ayn Rand or any of us have said.

I am not using words out of context. Absolute has a meaning outside of Kant. Did you not know this? So did objective before Rand. I can’t help it if you can;t distinguish they way the words are being used based on their contexts. You can ask me, and I will tell you, other than that I can’t do shit.

And finally (in my list) you sayThey are in the philosophy we are discussing. They are in reality. In this statement you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and you have ignored our attempt to point that out to you. If you think, somehow, that this is wrong, fine. Most other agree with you. We don’t care.

No agreeing with someone isn’t a lack of knowledge. Jesus.

65

Try actually addressing some arguments guys.

… my position is definitely not that existence does not exist … I am sorry if I gave that impression.

That is the impression I’m getting. If you can (and apparently do) claim that existence exists, then by what “objective” means have you made this determination? At the very least, I get the impression that you may waiver and argue that it is possible that your senses are imperfectly perceiving and it is possible that existence doesn’t exist.

If not, then by what faculty have you established the objective reality of existence?

I missed your response to the above. Please address how YOU are certain of existence. If you can help the posters here understand by what standards you are operating, then perhaps there is a way to escape the current circular arguing.

66

Freestyle, I am not certain of anything. I would not claim to be.

I didn’t see this comment before, but I think it sheds some light on our conflicting definitions, and what we actually mean when we defend perception versus what you seem to think we’re defending.

No one here claims that perception of an object gives absolute knowledge of that object, in the sense of all the knowledge it’s possible to know about the object. Rather, our claim that sense perception is inerrant simply means that it results directly from inerrant processes. It is not exhaustive, but it _ is _ valid.

For instance, you might say that I cannot tell from sense perception that my watch is composed of incredibly tiny atoms and mostly empty space. This is true. However, it’s also helpful to think about this: how do we know that it is composed of atoms? Well, we know from experiments like the gold-foil experiment, which illustrated that gold foil is made up of small clusters of positively-charged particles inside mostly empty space (it was not able to detect electrons). However, how did we know the results of that experiment? How did we get that information? We used sense perception on the results. We looked at the impact of alpha particles that we sent through the gold. Ultimately, it all comes back to sense perception. Only sense perception, sometimes augmented by human inventions, leads to knowledge, and it leads to contextually true knowledge because of its direct connection to reality.

This is the problem. You are acting as if this is self evident. It is not. Being connected to reality does not necessitate that we gain true knowledge of that reality.

Our sense organs being physical and present in reality does not mean they work perfectly in fulfilling their function. Why would it?

67

Paticular to a given person. Sorry, should make it clear when I use a word with different definitions like that.

Okay, so perception leads to information which is particular to a given person. This is true, but it does not imply the unreliability of the senses. I’ll give another analogy.

Let’s say I have two computer programs. I put the same parameters and data in both. One program produces a linear regression of the data. The other produces an exponential regression. I’ve put the same input into two systems which are slightly differently composed, and I’ve gotten two outputs. Does the second output invalidate the first? Does the difference between them imply that they must be fallible? Obviously not. Two different things have been done with the same information; they should produce two different results. If they didn’t, something would really be wrong. Both regressions are true, because they are both based on mechanical manipulations of the same data; either regression could not have turned out differently than it did. They’re both valid. This is the point with sense perception. Everyone’s involuntary neural processes produce the only information that it’s possible for that particular person’s system to produce; they’re all accurate, since they’re all systems in reality and reality’s laws are consistent. Their differences are not contradictory.

How is it true information when we are not perceiving it, or even anything about it totally?

Pronoun use here is confusing. The aspects of the object which are not perceptible to us simply don’t send us any information at all. There is no information to be false. If I have a sheet of paper which is black on one side, white on another, and it’s sitting on the table in front of me such that I can only see the black side, it’s true that I don’t know that the other side is white. However, this doesn’t invalidate the knowledge that I get from looking at the black side. I couldn’t describe with any certainty the unseen side of the paper, but I could describe with absolute certainty that which I do see (ignoring the fact that actually putting perception into words involves the conceptual faculty, which is fallible).

Also, wow. I’ve just realized how naturally I slide into an analogy. I really should branch out.

Our perceptions are what they are, they cannot deviate. The events that allow us to perceive what we do are the same. I don’t see how you get from this that what we perceive is true.

I’m taking true to mean validly in connection with reality. What definition of truth do you think our perceptions should be able to produce in order for them to be valid?

Because this impossible situation is what free will entails. Thats the entire idea of it. Its what free will is.

Free will has another interpretation, which is not dependent on the replaying of moments in time: if we had all the information about the current states of all the matter in the universe, we could not predict with certainty every future state, because of the element of human choice.

68

Start over.

On Objectivist Epistemology

The validity of the senses, this is one I can’t get my head around. Rand seems to hold that our perception of reality is objective reality. Is this so? This makes no sense to me, as it seems to suggest physiological infallibility on mans part. What we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly.

Objective knowledge is not automatic or infallible. Objectivism explains the conscious grasp of existence as happening in a sequence of sensation, then perception, then conception. Sensation is ‘mechanical’ and automatic, or in other words deterministic. The senses act as transducers creating mental sense data from the physical excitations falling upon them. The Law of Identity applies to consciousness and the senses and therefore requires sensation in a particular delimited finite form. The demand that sensation be perfect is a demand for an indefinite means therefore is invalid.

Perception is the automatic organization of sense data into recognizable entities. The eyes focus and pick out things, not just color patches. Hearing perceives voices and words and notes, not just a power-frequency distribution. Perception is also finite, automatic and deterministic.

Conception is an act of abstraction from percepts (not from reality directly). Conception is not automatic but optional and voluntary, i.e. volitional. It is precisely and only because of its volitional nature that conception can be in error. Free will and volition are taken to be synonyms here. Free will causes fallibility. In this sense then, sensation and perception are infallible without invoking a standard of perfection or omniscience.

On Objectivist Ethics

Objectivism seems to hold that a persons life should be their highest value. I see no reason why a rational person could not hold something else, e.g. their child’s life to be of greater value than their own.

This is only relevant in emergency situations. Emergencies are characterized by the impossibility of survival by the normal means, rational action to achieve values. In emergencies the standard is to cut your losses. The loss of a top value could well be judged as so disastrous that death or risk of death are preferable to a subsequent lifetime of regret and suffering. This is not actually a different standard, it is still ‘maximizing value’ but in a context where all the options are negative.

On Objectivist Metaphysics

The problem of free will and causality. This is the biggest stumbling block for me, as one who holds no belief in free will. The arguments I have found against this problem have seemed very weak to me. Free will is held to be self evident in Objectivism, but an argument brought for it seems to be that choice and free will are not contradictory to the law of causality, but a part of it, that volition is causality. Seemingly volition is a causa sui?

The objective is a type of, a subset of, the subjective. Both subjective and objective requires the existence of a perspective, an observer. A perception implies a perceiver, a value implies a valuer. The distinction between them is that the objective is related to reality by a specific means of causation and all other forms of the subjective are variations on being arbitrary. What moves your limbs is a cause, called your will. Your will also directs your thoughts. Your will is perceived as self-evident as your sense of being a self. Your will directs your philosophical and causal inquiries into your will, therefore can never logically invalidate itself. An objective yet impersonal and deterministic interpretation of self is a contradiction in terms.

69

Being connected to reality does not necessitate that we gain true knowledge of that reality.

I think, as I said above, we’re belaboring under different definitions of truth. To quote Ayn Rand for the Objectivist definition, “Truth is the recognition of reality.” Truth means being connected to reality. If you could give your definition of truth, I think that would help to clear up a lot. Discussions like this tend to turn into people talking past one another, based on differing definitions; let’s try to avoid that.

70

Freestyle, I am not certain of anything. I would not claim to be.

Forget that I used the word certain then.

71

Hence they do not work perfectly, perfect example. We do not see “the whole picture” even looking at the simplest things. The “whole picture” exists in objective reality.

Exactly, so, how do you know there’s a ‘whole picture’. Intutively? Is it a Platonic Form, that you just know is there, but haven’t observed?

Objective reality is that which is real, period. Anything that isn’t is irrelevant, because it has no effect on us. This means that whatever tools of cognition/perception/sensation/intuition may be available to us, that anything we can observe to be consistent, measurable, definable, identifiable, is part of objective reality. If something isn’t consistent, identifiable, etc., then it is not part of objective reality.

Assume for instance that the universe was your personal dream. Your mind can control it. This means that there is an objective reality: your mind. However, proper observation, and use of induction over the centuries has proved conclusively that objective reality happens to be something outside of man’s consciousness, that acts according to given physical laws, which have no relationship to man’s whims or desires. In fact, a day’s observation in a toga could tell you that.

The desire to define “the whole picture” is an inductive error. You’re basically saying that you want to impose you concept of ‘wholeness’ on objective reality, when you can easily demonstrate that the concept of ‘wholeness’ is an abstraction derived from observable reality.

Could we someday develop science to the point where we can describe every effect that is observed to affect everything observable? Yeah, but that isn’t a guarantee that some new effect won’t pop up at sometime.

The principle is: the unknown is unknown. It seems like mysticism is caused by a desire to have the comfort of knowing the unknown. But ironically, once known, the unknown is no longer the unknown, and so there still remains some other great unknown. Desiring to paint over it a veneer of abstract mystical explanations is only an inductive error, but it is the cause of so much mischief.

That’s the essence of your ‘problems with Objectivism’, by my estimation.

72

Start over.

Heh. I just tried to do that back on the last page.

73

CJM said: It was my understanding [of Objectivism] that it was not just knowledge, but objective knowledge that our senses could percieve.

I said: [D]epending on whether or not we properly integrate [perceptual] data will determine whether our knowledge has any errors or not.

CJM said: Coleecdting [sic] data from objective reality and collecting objective data about reality are two very different things.

I said: How does it relate to my response?

CJM said: Because I never claimed we did not do what you responded and told me we did

As you can see above, I was addressing your concern about “objective knowledge” when I wrote about “the role of proper integration in errors”. Does that clear things up?

Why is it an objective ecaluation, and not subjective?

If it was not an objective evaluation, why would you discuss it? You (implicitly) hold that anyone can see the (alleged) facts that you are providing. But that is precisely what objectivity means, that anyone who has eyes agrees with you on facts of reality.

Yes, but there is no reason to think the opposite should necessarily be true.

By the opposite, do you mean if man chooses death instead of life? In that case, you don’t need a morality, and certainly not Objectivist Ethics.

[Perceiving reality as it isn’t] would be to perceive reality in a biased and subjective way.

Alright. Now, in the light of your statement, please consider my earlier statement:

“Our sensory organs are infallible in the sense that they merely “collect” data from an objective reality.”

Now, how would you respond to it?

Acting does, being willing does not, as I already pointed out.

Ahh, I finally got your point. But here is the problem:

“Willing” bears a huge relationship to “acting”. Man’s premises direct his thoughts, emotions and actions. Otherwise, what is the point of values or even Ethics? And in that case, why do you even care whether man holds his life as the ultimate value or something else?

“But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it.”

As I explained earlier, it is not a sacrifice, and hence non-contradictory. I wrote:

“If a value is so great to you that your life without it would be rotting in hell, it would be a sacrifice to live without it.”

Okay.

And thus, sense-perception is infallible. Now do you see the argument?

How does that make it relevant?

Because my “relevant” post explains why sense-perception is infallible, which you claimed is not.

I said: Is it possible for you to choose your values?

CJM said: It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice.

I said: I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice?

CJM said: I would define it in much the same way. [… and…] Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others.

What do you mean by “I could not choose any others”? Where did we talk about choosing anything other than your values?

No they do not. How do your eyes give you absolute data? Can you perceive the keyboard in front of you in absolute detail? No you cannot.

‘Absolute data’ does not mean ‘all detail’. It merely means that I can perceive the keyboard in a way which is non-contradictory with my or anyone else’s knowledge. Now, does it all make sense?

74

Why infinite, why not absolute?

What does that even mean? Give me an example of a physical absolute. How is a physical “absolute” different from infinite precision?

I believe most peoples conception of free will to be an illusion. It is not different from making an incorrect judgment.

How are they capable of making judgments without free will? They could not have made such a choice if they’re incapable of choice. In fact, you refute yourself anytime you use the word can or capable.

No I am not, did you just copy what the guy above you wrote?

I have not read a word of this thread other than your replies to my posts.

Absolute detail.

What does that even mean? Please expand on the statement.

I am still waiting for you to explain how the eyes work improperly. The finite number of light receptors that will fit in your eye receive a finite number of photons and convert them into signals that you interpret. That your eye does not have enough light receptors for you to see stuff far away does not imply that the eyes don’t work properly. Each and every one of the receptors works perfectly fine.

If you conclude that there’s nothing in the distance because you drop the context of the capabilities of your eyes, that is your own fault, not a problem with your eyes.

75

Okay, so perception leads to information which is particular to a given person. This is true, but it does not imply the unreliability of the senses. I’ll give another analogy.

Let’s say I have two computer programs. I put the same parameters and data in both. One program produces a linear regression of the data. The other produces an exponential regression. I’ve put the same input into two systems which are slightly differently composed, and I’ve gotten two outputs. Does the second output invalidate the first? Does the difference between them imply that they must be fallible? Obviously not. Two different things have been done with the same information; they should produce two different results. If they didn’t, something would really be wrong. Both regressions are true, because they are both based on mechanical manipulations of the same data; either regression could not have turned out differently than it did. They’re both valid. This is the point with sense perception. Everyone’s involuntary neural processes produce the only information that it’s possible for that particular person’s system to produce; they’re all accurate, since they’re all systems in reality and reality’s laws are consistent. Their differences are not contradictory.

I don’t really get this analogy. Two people acting differently with the same information wouldn’t have to mean they perceived it differently.

Pronoun use here is confusing. The aspects of the object which are not perceptible to us simply don’t send us any information at all. There is no information to be false. If I have a sheet of paper which is black on one side, white on another, and it’s sitting on the table in front of me such that I can only see the black side, it’s true that I don’t know that the other side is white. However, this doesn’t invalidate the knowledge that I get from looking at the black side. I couldn’t describe with any certainty the unseen side of the paper, but I could describe with absolute certainty that which I do see (ignoring the fact that actually putting perception into words involves the conceptual faculty, which is fallible).

My point here on detail is simply that perceptive organs are limited physically in their accuracy. I feel this applies to all aspects of accuracy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t.

I’m taking true to mean validly in connection with reality. What definition of truth do you think our perceptions should be able to produce in order for them to be valid?

I agree with your definition. I am not sure I understand your question.

Free will has another interpretation, which is not dependent on the replaying of moments in time: if we had all the information about the current states of all the matter in the universe, we could not predict with certainty every future state, because of the element of human choice.

This doesn’t have to imply free will. In fact I haven’t heard this argument outside of the matrix. Things being in-determinant due to chance does not have anyhting to do with being free or will. And your definition requires a further defining of what free will entails.

I think, as I said above, we’re belaboring under different definitions of truth. To quote Ayn Rand for the Objectivist definition, “Truth is the recognition of reality.” Truth means being connected to reality. If you could give your definition of truth, I think that would help to clear up a lot. Discussions like this tend to turn into people talking past one another, based on differing definitions; let’s try to avoid that.

I only started using truth because the concept of Objective being used in different ways was too confusing for certain people.

76

I don’t really get this analogy. Two people acting differently with the same information wouldn’t have to mean they perceived it differently.

Oh, sorry, let me make the analogy’s connection clearer. I’m not saying that two people will act differently based on the same input. I’m saying that their perception will be different. A person’s action depends on his choice. A person’s perception, however, does not (and neither do the programs in my analogy; the functions they perform on the data are deterministic). I’m conceding that two people perceive the same inputs differently, but arguing that this does not make one an incorrect connection with reality.

My point here on detail is simply that perceptive organs are limited physically in their accuracy. I feel this applies to all aspects of accuracy. I see no reason why it wouldn’t.

I completely agree, depending on what you mean by “accuracy”. It is not inaccurate in that the information you get could be false (a misrepresentation of reality), but it is inaccurate in that the information might be very little and thus relatively uninformative (and hard to interpret). It can’t be wrong, but it can be severely limited, depending on conditions. However, the information gained can also be extremely extensive, when those conditions include research labs and advanced observational equipment.

Our senses giving us perceptions with missing information (meaning less information than we might like, not meaning that some information which should have been processed according to our senses but wasn’t) does not invalidate the truth of what is given; only incorrect information would do that.

I agree with your definition. I am not sure I understand your question.

I have been arguing that perceptions are directly connected to reality outside ourselves. Under this definition of truth, this is simply another way of saying that our perceptions are true.

77

On Objectivist Metaphysics

The problem of free will and causality. This is the biggest stumbling block for me, as one who holds no belief in free will. The arguments I have found against this problem have seemed very weak to me. Free will is held to be self evident in Objectivism, but an argument brought for it seems to be that choice and free will are not contradictory to the law of causality, but a part of it, that volition is causality. Seemingly volition is a causa sui?

My point of view on free will is mixed (well, my feelings about my point of view are mixed). I know that if I am ever confronted with a choice, I assume that I make it for one of two reasons: 1) I weigh the choice against my values in a rational process and pick what is demonstrably optimal or 2) A sub-conscious decision making algorithm impels me to choose based on a weighing of psychological and evolved standards.

In both cases, and in a mix (which is the most likely common process), the process is algorithmic - even if hopelessly complex.

So, it seems that every choice is deterministic? I’ve heard about Roger Penrose who tries to explain why physics says will is not. But his point of view seems to rely heavily on Plato, and it is the mystics that usually offer a ‘source’ of ‘non-deterministic’ free will. That’s why I am inclined to think choices are deterministic.

However, the truth of the matter is that even if choices are deterministic, they are still possessed, or owned, by those who make them. Thus, a person can feel properly accountable for his or her choices, because they define him/her.

The ‘why’ when it comes to choice is the product alone of Reason. A creature that can experience pain and pleasure does not know why it does without the faculty of reason. If you would prefer a world without why, with only pleasure and pain I suggest oblivion instead, it has no pain. It is the context, and the why, that gives pleasure its significance. It is the why that gives meaning, and provides motive. An animal without a why is subject to instinct alone, and its experience is meaningless - pleasure is only a token of what to do, but can’t be appreciated. The faculty that allows appreciation - the one that makes you think (or feel, but ‘feel’ in the spiritual sense, not in the physical sense) “I want that” or “That’s good” - is the same that allows you to process information rationally.

I think the issue of free will is more the issue of what ‘part’ of your decision making process has precedent: reason, or instinct. The more ‘reason’ is working, the more ‘appreciation of life’ can function.

If your mind - your deterministic mind let’s say - fails to grasp that it must start preferring reason and slowly build that faculty over instinct - then you will enjoy existence less. It’s not that you are being ‘punished’, it is a product of reality.

In that sense, reality dictates that you ‘own’ your decision making process. Because there is only reality, this means for all intents and purposes that you have (possess) free will.

Free will -> You=your choices, and so your choices=You. It’s an equality, the order doesn’t matter, the implications are the same - in reality.

78

My question to the guy promoting determinism is: how do you claim to have knowlege about whether determinism is true without contradicting yourself?

If determinism is a fact of reality, then your belief in determinism (“belief in determinism” itself being a contradiction if determinism were true) was a result of determinism and as RationalBiker pointed out a while ago, your argument for the validity of determinism relies on your ability to perceive reality in order to be correct. It requires you to have a reason why reason doesn’t exist. A rational belief in determinism is self-refuting, thus belief, knowledge, and volition must be assumed in order to deny it, and determinism is axiomatically false.

79

My question to the guy promoting determinism is: how do you claim to have knowlege about whether determinism is true without contradicting yourself?

If determinism is a fact of reality, then your belief in determinism (“belief in determinism” itself being a contradiction if determinism were true) was a result of determinism and as RationalBiker pointed out a while ago, your argument for the validity of determinism relies on your ability to perceive reality in order to be correct. It requires you to have a reason why reason doesn’t exist. A rational belief in determinism is self-refuting, thus belief, knowledge, and volition must be assumed in order to deny it, and determinism is axiomatically false.

Well, that’s why I have ‘mixed feelings’. Of course, I’m still promoting the idea, so I have to defend it. And, naturally, I’d happily accept a convincing argument that refutes determinism.

What specifically is contradictory about determinism and reason? Just because your thought process can be experienced and perceived doesn’t mean you have control over it. That’s the issue, really. Reason means use of logic, and logic is absolute, firm, irrefutable. The real choice is whether to use reason or not - to think or not to think. And so, what is the source of the mechanism that makes that choice?

Who are ‘you’? Are you a mystical soul, who by faculty of reason, judges facts and then is free to choose whatever you want? What is the standard for choosing? If it is reason, perfectly, then there will always be an optimal choice given your situation and knowledge base - reality determines the choice. If it is anything else, what could it be? If it is some aftermath of evolution, a combination of instinct and psychology, then it is assuredly not free will. Otherwise, by what mechanism of ‘self’ do you choose to use reason or non-reason? A mystical Form of self that makes this choice by some mechanism that’s ‘above reason’?

I don’t think that’s true. I think the mechanism of self is a combination of instinct and reason, and the proper thing to do is use reason.

The issue makes me uncomfortable, because a mind confronted with the idea that will is deterministic might become impotent. Though that would be a result of a logical error, I believe. I remember someone telling me once that if people’s choices are determined, then they can’t be punished for bad choices. However, I think that the issue is that they absolutely can be held ethically accountable for their choices, because reality determined those choices, and there is only reality - no other realm that coddles the rationally deprived and forgives them and values them anyway.

That’s IF there is determinism - if there is, the concept of volition still applies. It applies in the sense that it exists in reality as the reverse of its abstraction. Rather than your volition causing choices, the reality is that your choices define your volition. In that sense, I don’t bother worrying too much about ‘determinism’. My purpose is to refute the logic that determinism means ethics are impossible - because it was listed as a ‘problem’ with Objectivism.

That’s my explanation. As I have repeated, the whole issue still makes me a little uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable in the sense that people tell me I’m supporting an obvious contradiction. So I’d like to hear an explanation of how ‘free will’ is logical possible - in reality, a place ruled by reason - if someone can offer it. Then I’ll be able to see how much I might need to reevaluate my perspective.

UPDATE: I want to add a more direct reply to your comment. According to my theory, belief and volition are the product of pure logical reason, and some hodgepodge of instinct, and learned subconscious routines. They are the ‘product’ of ‘forces’. I’m not a psychologist, but this is the best I can do because I don’t understand by what mechanism volition can exist if it is not somehow deterministic. Reason is not the equivalent of volition. Volition is choosing between reason and instinct. Reason is logic, using facts to determine the best choices. ‘Believing in determinism’ is an aggregate of psychological forces causing someone to feel confident in a set of logical outcomes. In this case, it is logic and reason - even if flawed - that dominate those forces. Whereas, discomfort with the idea that there isn’t some mystical source of volition, causing someone to not believe in determinism relies on the same process, but reason and logic are not dominating. Please don’t take offense to that, I’m just trying to be as clear as possible over the point of disagreement for me.

80

UPDATE: I want to add a more direct reply to your comment. According to my theory, belief and volition are the product of pure logical reason, and some hodgepodge of instinct, and learned subconscious routines. They are the ‘product’ of ‘forces’. I’m not a psychologist, but this is the best I can do because I don’t understand by what mechanism volition can exist if it is not somehow deterministic. Reason is not the equivalent of volition. Volition is choosing between reason and instinct. Reason is logic, using facts to determine the best choices. ‘Believing in determinism’ is an aggregate of psychological forces causing someone to feel confident in a set of logical outcomes. In this case, it is logic and reason - even if flawed - that dominate those forces. Whereas, discomfort with the idea that there isn’t some mystical source of volition, causing someone to not believe in determinism relies on the same process, but reason and logic are not dominating. Please don’t take offense to that, I’m just trying to be as clear as possible over the point of disagreement for me.

Your thinking here is vague and unfocused. What exactly do you mean by determinism? “An aggregate of psychological forces causing someone to feel confident in a set of logical outcomes” is completely unsatisfactory because even a commitment to reason is a ‘psychological force’, so this fails to highlight any clear distinction between a volitional and determined consciousness.

There are many threads discussing determinism here, just search for determinism in the topic title.