Integrating Volition

Metaphysics and Epistemology
41

…Defending the existence of knowledge without defending the capability of people to choose to think or not is contradictory…

Good point. So we should be questioning the existence of knowledge. If knowledge exists, then consciousness must exist. So, how do we know knowledge exists? Wait, if we know it exists, then that is knowledge… Am I stumbling on something important? Maybe instead of asking how, I should ask can we know anything? If we know that we can know something, that’s also knowledge…

Serious responses are desired (i.e. I’m not being an idiot on purpose).

42

Good point. So we should be questioning the existence of knowledge. If knowledge exists, then consciousness must exist. So, how do we know knowledge exists? Wait, if we know it exists, then that is knowledge… Am I stumbling on something important? Maybe instead of asking how, I should ask can we know anything? If we know that we can know something, that’s also knowledge…

Serious responses are desired (i.e. I’m not being an idiot on purpose).

Yes- you are stumbling onto something important. It’s basic. But important.

At the end, you said “if we know that we can know something, that’s also knowledge..” This is true.

Now, in order to be fully convinced that knowledge is possible, assume the opposite position:

“if we know that we CANNOT know something, that’s also knowledge”. Do you see how this position (that knowledge is impossible) is self-refuting?

This should help you to see why the ability to have knowledge is also axiomatic.

The “agnostics of truth” try to say “we cannot know anything for sure”, while assuming that they CAN know THAT for sure.

In their guise of “humility” they are being extremely arrogant. They are implicitly saying that THEY ALONE have access to objective knowledge and that everyone else is “blind and confused”.

If you’ve ever heard the analogy of the “elephant and blind men” this becomes very evident.

1 Like
43

Then what you mean is trivial. All attributes are distinguished from parts by the fact that they cannot have a distinct existence separable from the entity they are an attribute of. All attributes are non-material, things like color and taste. Volition is an attribute. This will not support your metaphysical dualism.

Yes, it is an attribute. But is this attribute imagined or real? Is its function imagined or real?

Is Man capable of action which is not entirely coerced by “physical”/“material” cause and effect or not?

Is Man capable of overcoming the total coercion of natural causes in material nature or not?

If “No”, then Man does not have volition (or consciousness for that matter).

If “Yes”, then that aspect of Man which possesses this capability is not, itself, physical/material/ “made of physical matter”.

That’s the issue.

It is fairly simple.

44

I agree that it is not made of physical matter, the spiritual is non-material, but it could be made from physical matter or energies. Either way, it is of this universe, and a property of it.

45

I agree that it is not made of physical matter, the spiritual is non-material, but it could be made from physical matter or energies.

Could you explain the distinction you are referring to here between “made OF physical matter” and “made FROM physical matter”?

Either way, it is of this universe, and a property of it.

If by “universe”, you mean “all of existence”, of course.

But this still begs the question: What kinds of things exist? Are there non-physical existents?

46

Could you explain the distinction you are referring to here between “made OF physical matter” and “made FROM physical matter”?

The human spirit is not made of physical matter, but maybe it is the result of physical matter. For example, the mind is distinct from the brain, but the mind rests upon the physical, biochemical foundation of the brain.

If by “universe”, you mean “all of existence”, of course.

But this still begs the question: What kinds of things exist? Are there non-physical existents?

I don’t know. That is the job of scientists. But, from personal experience, I believe our sensational experience of life is something that cannot be measured empirically, and I identify it as the spiritual.

47

Is Man capable of action which is not entirely coerced by “physical”/“material” cause and effect or not?

Is Man capable of overcoming the total coercion of natural causes in material nature or not?

You are invalidly equating causation with coercion. You are effectively claiming that identity is coercion since causality is identity in action. By your argument the only way to not be coerced is be of no identity. But “non-identity is non-existence”, so that is impossible.

48

You are invalidly equating causation with coercion. You are effectively claiming that identity is coercion since causality is identity in action. By your argument the only way to not be coerced is be of no identity. But “non-identity is non-existence”, so that is impossible.

No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action.

Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree.

49

No. The only way to not be coerced is to have an identity which is capable of being free to some degree from the total causal effects of outside action.

Yes, causality is identity in action, but we are attempting to inquire about the Identity/Nature of Man in this discussion. Freedom from coercion for Man does not mean that he must be free from HIS identity. It means that his identity must be such that he is from from the coercive effects of OTHER causal actions to some degree.

That isn’t even possible. Coercion is a form of causation when it is present and no one is immune to either coercion or causation. Since causality is identity in action an existent to which causation did not apply must be a non-identity, therefore a non-existent.

And you are still mixing up the relationship between those two. Coercion is a subset of causation. The reverse is not true and to continue to entertain the notion is the fallacy of illicit conversion.

“All coercion is causation” is an A-type categorical proposition and is true.

“All causation is coercion” is the converse of the above premise, but forming the converse of an A-type categorical proposition is not valid. See FallacyFiles.org

50

That isn’t even possible. Coercion is a form of causation when it is present and no one is immune to either coercion or causation. Since causality is identity in action an existent to which causation did not apply must be a non-identity, therefore a non-existent.

And you are still mixing up the relationship between those two. Coercion is a subset of causation. The reverse is not true and to continue to entertain the notion is the fallacy of illicit conversion.

“All coercion is causation” is an A-type categorical proposition and is true.

“All causation is coercion” is the converse of the above premise, but forming the converse of an A-type categorical proposition is not valid. See FallacyFiles.org

Yes. I fully understand this. The difference is the TYPE of causation being discussed.

I am not proposing that causation does not apply to Man.

***PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH* The tendancy of Oists on this forum to misconstrue the position of others is extremely annoying, dishonest, evasive, and down right dis-respectful.

IF you don’t understand my position or if you think you do but I say that you don’t, PERHAPS it might be a wise idea to ask clarifying questions about what I mean and do not mean rather than imagining me to mean your straw man.

Quite frankly, I am SICK of these straw men- whether they come from intentional arrogance or ignorance, or misunderstandings. They can EASILY be avoided by asking clarifying questions!

I completely agree that Man is subject to causality. I am proposing that the “free” in free will means that he is free TO SOME EXTENT (i.e. DO NOT READ “TO ALL EXTENTS”), and in SOME RESPECT (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL RESPECTS”) from the total effects of OUTSIDE MATERIAL CAUSATION (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL CAUSATION”).

I will refrain from typing any more until I am SURE that you understand what I am saying in the above and that you understand what I am NOT saying.

Hint: Read the parentheses for clarification. :slight_smile:

IF you understand the above and can parrot it back to me in your own words, then I will be convinced that a rational discussion can commence.

Until then, I will regard it as utterly futile to speak to you since you seem to have ZERO interest in grasping the meaning of what I say.

51

Been thinking that the phrase “free will” represents a subversive concept. Will, by its nature, is “free”, i.e., under the control of the willing entity. If will is thus conceptually closed, determined, and absolute, with respect to any given individual (as is self-evident to any sane individual – either that, or I am insane), then how/why does it require adjective modification with the concept “free”.

The concept is will. The subversive/straw-man concept “free will” arbitrarily purports to restrict “will” to the “free” variety, which implies that there must be two forms of will, one of which is “free”, and the other one. But, there is only one form of will, my will to me; your will to you; etc. But, logically, with respect to any given individual, a single form of will, which is: the power to (attempt to) do what one choose to do. That is all that “will” is, and there is only one variety.

The “concept” of “free will” ought to be put in the dumpster. All we need is the idea of “will”, properly defined.

Eh? Does this clear up the present discussion a bit?

  • ico
52

I completely agree that Man is subject to causality. I am proposing that the “free” in free will means that he is free TO SOME EXTENT (i.e. DO NOT READ “TO ALL EXTENTS”), and in SOME RESPECT (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL RESPECTS”) from the total effects of OUTSIDE MATERIAL CAUSATION (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL CAUSATION”).

This is a contradiction. “Free” to any extent at all in any respect whatever as you describe it is acausal. No, you can’t have even a little bit of magic.

It is not the case that “the mind is embodied in a physical form”. Let me translate that for your theist mentality: The soul is not imprisoned by chains of causality. This fantasy is not improved by insisting the chains must be a little loose.

2 Likes
53

This is a contradiction. “Free” to any extent at all in any respect whatever as you describe it is acausal. No, you can’t have even a little bit of magic.

It is not the case that “the mind is embodied in a physical form”. Let me translate that for your theist mentality: The soul is not imprisoned by chains of causality. This fantasy is not improved by insisting the chains must be a little loose.

Well put, Grames.

I consider certainty and its logical complement, uncertainty, to be the key ideas which need to be harmoniously integrated in order to break the mental chains self-imposed by many. You can’t obtain certainty by using your power of determination (i.e., your will) to force reality to conform to your desires, no matter how intensely you feel them. You can choose to jump out a 40th story window and flap your wings; you can choose stand in front of a speeding bus; but you cannot escape the logical consequences of your actions. That is the law of causality, it is not controversial, is it?

The law of causality simply means that entities act according to their natures. Rational animals have will power, i.e., the power to determine what to do (within natural limits). They can use this to change their environments to suit. There is no “magic” here, just the OPTION to create and use better techniques.

  • ico
54

It is not a matter for debate. It is a fact that man’s nature is entirely physical.

Why is that a fact?

What do you mean by physical?

Man’s nature is entirely real (non-supernatural) but it is most certainly not entirely ruled by mechanistic causation as seen in the material. Evidence of this: volition.

55

This is a contradiction. “Free” to any extent at all in any respect whatever as you describe it is acausal. No, you can’t have even a little bit of magic.

He is actually stating something along the lines of the actual Objectivist position.

I disagree that what he describes is a-causal. Define your terms here–what do you mean by causality? Because it certainly seems to be something different than what Objectivism defines as causality.

56

He is actually stating something along the lines of the actual Objectivist position.

I disagree that what he describes is a-causal. Define your terms here–what do you mean by causality? Because it certainly seems to be something different than what Objectivism defines as causality.

Here is a quote of one of his last posts:

Yes, it is an attribute. But is this attribute imagined or real? Is its function imagined or real?

Is Man capable of action which is not entirely coerced by “physical”/“material” cause and effect or not?

Is Man capable of overcoming the total coercion of natural causes in material nature or not?

If “No”, then Man does not have volition (or consciousness for that matter).

If “Yes”, then that aspect of Man which possesses this capability is not, itself, physical/material/ “made of physical matter”.

That’s the issue.

It is fairly simple.

If these questions sound remotely plausible to you, then you have the same warped perspective he does. The very framing of the questions he asks assumes a certain invalid perspective and dictates what kind of answer he can accept. It is not compatible with Objectivism to accept the supernatural.

Volition is an attribute, not a gland found in your brain. Of course it is non-material in that way as I’ve already stated. Try re-reading the thread more closely to find my other definitions as well.

57

Here is a quote of one of his last posts:

Irrelevant. I won’t even bother reading it. I’m simply referring to the block of text you had quoted and responded to. With regard to that, my judgement still stands: What he wrote in that block of text is basically the Objectivist position.

58

This is ridiculously circular reasoning.

The issue is “are there non-physical existents (specifically, is Man’s nature partially non-physical)?”

There are certainly existents that operate according to non-mechanistic causation. The one existent I can think of that qualifies is the faculty of free will. Whether it is also physical or not is up for science to discover in the future. In that case we would have to properly define what we mean by physical, because if it were physical it would be an entity behaving in a causal manner different from mechanistic causation.

59

Irrelevant. I won’t even bother reading it. I’m simply referring to the block of text you had quoted and responded to. With regard to that, my judgement still stands: What he wrote in that block of text is basically the Objectivist position.

You refer to this

I completely agree that Man is subject to causality. I am proposing that the “free” in free will means that he is free TO SOME EXTENT (i.e. DO NOT READ “TO ALL EXTENTS”), and in SOME RESPECT (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL RESPECTS”) from the total effects of OUTSIDE MATERIAL CAUSATION (i.e. DO NOT READ “ALL CAUSATION”).

The secret to understanding his meaning is knowing that “outside” refers to everything external to consciousness, not everything outside one’s skull. See his post #9. He demands freedom from both internal and external causation. Try to keep the context next time. edit Specifically, read the thread and not just the last page.

60

Grames, I’m interested in your thoughts on Binswanger’s position, which according Dr. Diana Hsieh’s paper “Mind in Objectivism”, is apparently a dualist one in which the mind is not physical nor extended, nor simply a different way of looking at the actions of the brain, but a fundamentally different type of stuff/thing which somehow can interact with the brain.

That, to me, sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, but also a lot like the position it seems that Jacob86 was trying to get across. In Binswanger’s view, volition lies in this “mind” that is different than the body and which interacts with it and is dependent upon it for its existence.

I myself have a hard time really finding anything that identifies the mind as anything other than some sort of introspective view of the brain (that is, just some other way of looking at the physical goings-on) to be a little mumbo-jumbo-ey, but I think it is in part a holdover from my many years of hard nosed materialism and scientism (many, here, being like 8, which is a good third of my life at this point, and since it was from about 9-17 or so, it had a big impact on my psycho-epistemology).