| | Michael,
At least, I gave you a chance to understand my position. Now for your errors.
In an earlier post, you wrote:
Nor does it change anything to say that your position is not that behavior is determined, but merely influenced. The issue is, do I control my mental processes freely and clearly, or am I working under the handicap of an outside "influence"
First of all, it is a fact that Peikoff uses the word, "determinant", in a manner synonymous with "influence". I provided references. If you cannot explain to me why he does so using your distinction between the words, I will assume that your object of whim-worship understands that "determines(v)" and "influence(v)" can be used synonymously, the former ("determine") being used more often with an "all other things being equal" clause, and the other being used more often when there is a claim that that the "influence" is working in a system with other influences, but both being quite synonymous. As external sources corroborating my use of the words, I refer you to ANY dictionary or thesaurus of repute. If something "influences" a decision, it is a part of the cause. If something "determines" a decision, it is argued as the efficient cause, but it is still only a part of the cause, as any intelligent thinker can verify by realizing that causality is a relationship between the attributes of entities and that any determinant must be only one of the attributes.
I can only guess your reasons for refusing to admit your error on this point, but please address it if you choose to respond.
Now, given that a lot of your arguments rest on this misunderstanding of the nature of an "influence", I will stress its importance.
You cannot say: "Ayn Rand's Objectivism was a major influence on my thought" without arguing that Objectivism is a part of the cause. If before you read Objectivism, you were an altruist who gave alms to beggars, and after reading Rand, you stopped doing so and claimed that Objectivism was a part of the influence or that Rand influenced your thinking, you cannot claim that your reading of Rand was not a part of the cause of your repudiation of alms-giving and maintain Rand was an influence.
I will return to an earlier post of yours (27) where you rode this distinction to delude yourself.
Now, you agree that brains are involved in decision making (at least, I hope you do). Then you go on to write:
The choice to focus or not to focus one's mind on a conceptual level is man's basic choice -- it is an irreducible primary, it cannot be attributed to anything else. It is, simply, free will.
Obviously, this has to be a property of the brain, so why do you claim it cannot be attributed to anything else if it cannot occur without a brain? You have also admitted that it depends on the nature of the brain (the brain has to be normal though you do not specify the empirical nature of an undamaged brain so that one can distinguish it from a damaged brain). I will address more of this later.
We know this because it is axiomatic, in the sense that any claim to knowledge -- including your claim that our behavior is determined -- presupposes the ability to make this basic choice free of any external factors. If you are not free to choose to think or not to think, then you do not know the extent to which you control your mind versus the extent to which it is affected by deterministic factors -- and thus you have no way of knowing whether your conclusions are the result of a process of thought governed by logic, or merely the result of some genetic predisposition to believing in determinism. This is nonsense. If you agree that human beings can make errors even when they have free will (on your argument), and they can make them while believing that they are in full control of their free will (on your argument), what are you proving? Do human beings know to what extent that their errors are affected by internal and external factors according to your position? If so, how?
The very process of trying to "analyze scientifically" presupposes that you are in control of your mind's processes, free of any deterministic forces that may cause you to ignore evidence, think illogically, etc.
This is only true if you make a dualistic distinction between yourself and your mind's processes - the signature of an equivocating dualist like you who makes a false distinction between himself and his brain/nervous system (awaiting your verbal denials to the contrary). Without your mind's processes, what are you? The issue is not "control", but proper functioning.
Thus, for anyone that truly believes that their mental processes may be determined by factors other than their own volition, the only logical behavior is to sit down and shut-up. Since you cannot be sure why you believe what you believe, you have no business trying to convince others.
And what about the determinist who argues that volition consists of factors? And what about the determinist who tries to correct the external factors determining the improper thinking of others?
This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because brain size is genetically determined, decisions are genetically determined. The ability to focus or not focus, to think or not to think, is independent of one's level of intelligence.
The fact that people with larger brains tend to go to college more frequently than those with smaller brains certainly does not prove a genetic predisposition toward deciding for college. If it did, then what would explain the big-brainers that never get out of grade school? You are confusing correlation with causation.
1) Are you arguing that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence? Are you arguing that there are no parts of the brain associated with one's ability to "focus", in your rationalistic view? Where are your empirical studies on the phenomenon of "focusing"? Have the empirical studies distinguished it from concentrating? Evidence?
2) A positive correlation in science, especially one above 0.3 in the biological sciences, and has been consistently reproduced or bettered in every single study I know of which was performed, is not trivial. If you know any experts that testify to the contrary, I would like to hear from them.
3) What would explain the big-brainers who don't get out of school would be an appeal to other influences.
Many factors may influence a person's choices. But influence and determine are miles apart. A depressed person is still free to choose to think or not to think. A sick person's decision to stay in bed until he gets better does not change the fact that it was his decision, and he could decide otherwise. I agree with the first part I emboldened. You have read my views on your weaseling dichotomy between "influence" and "determine" and the rest. My position is that he could decide otherwise if some determinant were different.
This is another non-sequitur. The fact that our physical make-up is encoded in our genes does not change the fact that an attribute of man's physical make-up is a volitional consciousness. But if the brain is a physical structure, and the genes make it qualitatively and quantitatively different from animal to animal and from individual to individual, where is the non-sequitur? Either you are being irrational or you're still under the command of dualism.
This is more non-sequitur. It does not follow that because some human characteristics are genetically determined, decisions are genetically determined.
Refer to my discussion of your dichotomy between "influence" and "determine".
A normal brain is one that has not been obviously damaged. Doing a frontal lobotomy may change many of that particular brain's capabilities, none of which has any implications for the functioning of a normal brain. A man born with no arms will not be capable of playing baseball. This does not mean that the decision to play baseball is genetically determined.
But a man with genetically determined shorter fingers? With a genetically retarded brain (or you need studies to show you that genes can impact brain functioning)? Once again, does brain size influence mental performance? You sure know how to stop your chain of reasoning when it suits you.
There is no duality or gap between matter and consciousness. Volitional consciousness is an attribute of man's mind. It arises out of the biological identity of man.
How? On your account, it just does. When did ignorance become a justification for arrogance?
A poor choice is still a free choice, not a "determined" one. Many people who are depressed make the proper decision to seek help. Many diabetics make the proper decision to get insulin. There is no evidence here that any decision they make is determined by their condition. Certainly, they take their own conditions into account -- and some individuals will decide to evade reality and do nothing about their condition. But it is still their decision.
No, it is always to some degree their RESPONSIBILITY, but sometimes, it is not their decision, as I told you earlier. Sometimes, it is the parents of such individuals who force them into counseling, and in all cases, it is a confluence of factors, including the knowledge and the availability of treatment. And once again, you refuse to count "influences" as "determinants".
Scientific analysis presupposes free will, completely, utterly and totally free will -- otherwise one has no way of knowing how and why one reached whatever conclusions one professes to have reached. And volition is its own causal factor.
From someone who claims to be philosophically sophisticated, the emboldened is among the most inane statements I've ever read. Explain to me how something (or anything) can be synonymous with its cause. Explain how something synonymous with it cause could ever emerge. In order words, cause and effect are being conflated as being one and the same. Or volition causes the very same volition. Philosophical quackery.
|
|
