About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>>I was hoping you weren't going to tell me you got it from Witgenstein.

Nah, Ted, I think I heard of that fellow, but I never delved into much of his work other than a wikipedia article I read about him a year or so back, but none of it related to free will.

-- Bridget

Post 21

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What does "free will" mean again?
In a nutshell:
The capacity to choose among alternative means toward the achievement of the universal and ultimate end of happy living.

Is that clear?

;-)

Ed



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 2:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dwyer, along with a host of others--Daniel Dennett, Thomas Clark, et al.--have been stating this thesis for years (I recall Dwyer arguing it in The Personalist in the 70s), but it's a nonstarter. When someone ought to believe in something, it does indeed imply that this is a possibility for that person even if he or she chooses not to believe as advised.  But the advice would be pointless, the logic of it would be missing, if the person being advised couldn't freely choose to change his or her thinking on the topic at hand. I keep urging socialists, welfare statists, fascists and others to, please, change your minds and acknowledge that the free society is superior but they just do not choose to do so even though, of course, they could (and now and then one of them does, as for example Robert Heilbroner--even Galbraith, as shown in his interview of Alitalia's inflight magazine back in 1996--did late in his life). If, however, it's all just que sera, sera, so one will believe what the impersonal forces in the world (including one's brain's various components) compel one to believe, there is no point to the idea of an argument. Therapy, perhaps, drug treatment, maybe, operant conditioning, it's possible, but not argument. Argument assumes a free mind, a mind freely able--not forced--to attend to a subject matter and freely following  (or not) the rationale that unfolds. That many folks refuse to go along with a sound argument, while others do, isn't because the world makes them be one way or the other but because they have chosen (or refused to choose) to heed the sound case that's being made.
          If we have no free will, none of this discussion has any point either--Dwyer will believe what he must and I will what I must and everything will just happen as it must (Iraqi war, minimum wage increase by Congress, you name it). To complain that it shouldn't have is nonsense--although one might still lament it.


Post 23

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I was a teen I concluded as Dwyer and Bissell did, with the same "reasoning," and taught it to my younger brother. After I discovered and studied Objectivism, I realized that I was wrong and that my idea of causation was not dictated by the full context of what I knew.

Post 24

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I still find Armozel's thought experiment significant. She is not saying that all thoughts are possible, or that one can believe what one likes. Rather, she is pointing out the fact that since we can indeed posit and consider counterfactuals our thoughts are not strictly constrained.

One might find it "impossible" to believe that Hillary Clinton would make a good president or that water will freeze at 212F at one atmosphere, but one can still consider that Hillary Clinton might make a good president if she were not a lying panderer or that water might freeze at 212F if the Hydrogen bond were stronger. If we can consider ideas counter to fact, does not this mean that fact does not constrain our thought?

There are billions of counterfactual claims that I can form about Hitler. Are those claims determined in any sense that denies me free will?

Perhaps there is a flaw, but the argument seems a bit more subtle to me than simply claiming that one can or cannot chose to believe anything one likes, and I am not sure that Bill's argument (with which I don't necessarily find fault) addresses Armozel's Conjecture of Counterfactual Freedom.

I am pleasantly stumped.

Ted Keer

Post 25

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
If we can consider ideas counter to fact, does not this mean that fact does not constrain our thought?
I don't claim that fact constrains our thought. A fact is something that exists independently of anyone's recognition of it. It is a fact that black swans exist, even if I happen to believe that all swans are white. What I am saying is that it is a person's knowledge and understanding of the relevant evidence on behalf of a particular conclusion that determines his acceptance or rejection of it. We can certainly consider ideas that we recognize as counter to fact, but these are not ideas that we believe in or regard as true. We don't freely choose to believe that a particular idea is true; if we did, then we could just as well choose to believe that it is false.

For example, since I believe that capitalism is better than socialism, I cannot choose to believe that socialism is better than capitalism. My understanding of the merits of capitalism's would have to change in order for my belief to change. And that understanding is determined by the extent of my knowledge, which is determined by the relevant information that I have as well as by the quality of the thinking I've done to integrate it. The quality of my thinking is, in turn, determined by my grasp of logic as well as by the importance I attach to arriving at a fair and unbiased conclusion.

Nowhere in this process am I free to choose otherwise or to think differently than I do. But I don't characterize the process as one of constraints. A constraint is an interference with one's choices. I'm not saying that one's choices are interfered with; I'm saying that they are determined by one's value judgments in the context of one's knowledge, understanding and experience.

- Bill

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 11:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Determined by one's value judgments" sounds like some passive process--there are the value judgments about, maybe residing in one's head somehow, that then go about producing choices, etc., etc., prompted by who knows what, ad infinitum.  The champion of free will, especially within the Objectivist framework, argues that value or any other kind of judgments are themselves first produced by human beings using their minds. Without the prior use of one's minds, there cannot be any (value) judgments. Judgments, in short, are actions of a mind, actions that are initiated by a mind. But they do not have to be initiated. It is a free (first) act to initiate them.  It is the starting point of the process that eventually determines one's value or any other kind of judgments. It is the source of the creativity that's unique to human beings. The other way is to put the cart before the horse. (I argue, in several publications, that this account is more comprehensive, more consistent, more complete, more on point than those competing against it; thus it is more probably true. And when one adds that there is direct evidence for the initiative people are capable of, namely, their own reports of having taken it, the case gets even stronger. The main thing standing against it is a misguided, narrow conception of causality that makes no room for any other kind of cause beside the efficient variety.)

Post 27

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

You said,
"My understanding of the merits of capitalism's would have to change in order for my belief to change. And that understanding is determined by the extent of my knowledge, which is determined by the relevant information that I have as well as by the quality of the thinking I've done to integrate it. The quality of my thinking is, in turn, determined by my grasp of logic as well as by the importance I attach to arriving at a fair and unbiased conclusion."
I would amend that in one place.  I would say,
"...The quality of my thinking is, in turn, determined by my grasp of logic, the intensity and type of focus I choose to make at that moment, as well as by the importance I attach to arriving at a fair and unbiased conclusion."
I don't know how extensive our free will is - certainly one is unlikely to change core beliefs in an instant's choice - but it also doesn't take a psychologist to know that we choose the intensity of our focus with every passing moment (to grasp or not to grasp) - and we have a choice point when it comes to becoming defensive or not.

If there are no choice points anywhere - if every 'choice' was preconditioned by prior 'knowledge' then we are determined.  Am I getting this right?


Post 28

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

I agree with all your positions in post 25.  But I am not, and I do not think Bridget is speaking of belief but rather of contemplation of counterfactuals.  I think the point is a little more subtle, not one of assent but of thought. 

If I consider sufficient facts regarding some matter, I will find it impossible to believe in a falsehood.  I am incapable of believing in a personal God because my thoughts are integrated and the concept is incoherent and so my understanding of the facts make it impossible for me to assent to the existence of a personal God.  But I am capable of saying that, if I have made an error, and if a personal god did exist, I am confident that he would either not mind that I didn't believe in him, or he would be a contemptible sort of God.  I am not assenting to his existence, I am saying that "either X or not X, and if X then either A or not A, and not A implies B."  But how can a determinist even understand "A or not A"?  Since either one or the other is the case, and his thoughts are determined, how can he consider both cases?

The determinist is apparently stuck in the position of either saying that "the facts" don't determine his thoughts, in which case his words are meaningless, or he must claim that his thoughts are determined by the facts, in which case, how could he either generate or understand counterfactuals?  How could a determinist say that if Hitler had won WWII, X might have happened?  Is he going to say that both his knowledge of the facts regarding Hitler and his ability to consider an infinite number of counterfactuals regarding Hitler are equally "determined?"

Again, Bridget's argument is new to me.  I or she may be making a mistake.  But the argument is not what you are denying in 25, or at least not directly.  If I am misconstruing Armozel's Conjecture, Bridget, please do correct me.

Ted Keer


Post 29

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
    On the rare occasions I've allowed myself to get into a discussion about God and atheism with Christians, I've pointed out my view akin to Ted's about 'suppose there is a God and I didn't believe.' I've stressed that Christ supposedly had no prob with 'Doubting' Thomas, whom I consider an inadvertantly storied  forerunner of atheists :)

     Christ's so-called followers of now clearly follow his apostles more than him. The apostles had a prob with Tom; Christ didn't. Present day Christians have a prob with us...

LLAP
J:D


Post 30

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 1:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     As far as the ability to un-determinedly (freedom to) consider counter-factuals, this comes close to how I've thought of volition/free-will in its actual use, though I've always thought in terms of considering 'alternatives.'

LLAP
J:D


Post 31

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor writes,
The champion of free will, especially within the Objectivist framework, argues that value or any other kind of judgments are themselves first produced by human beings using their minds. Without the prior use of one's minds, there cannot be any (value) judgments.
But you can't make a choice to use your mind unless you're aware of the alternatives and judge one alternative as more valuable than the other. Moreover, whichever alternative you choose -- either to use your mind or not to use it -- must itself be judged as valuable, i.e., as worth taking, otherwise, it wouldn't be a conscious choice; it wouldn't be motivated by any perceived end or goal. The choice to use your mind presupposes a value judgment. It presupposes that you value making the choice.
Judgments, in short, are actions of a mind, actions that are initiated by a mind. But they do not have to be initiated. It is a free (first) act to initiate them. It is the starting point of the process that eventually determines one's value or any other kind of judgments.
Then how do you make a choice, if you don't first judge it as valuable? Don't you have to judge an action, whether mental or physical, as valuable in order to choose it in preference to the alternative?

Steve, you wrote:
I don't know how extensive our free will is - certainly one is unlikely to change core beliefs in an instant's choice - but it also doesn't take a psychologist to know that we choose the intensity of our focus with every passing moment (to grasp or not to grasp) - and we have a choice point when it comes to becoming defensive or not.

If there are no choice points anywhere - if every 'choice' was preconditioned by prior 'knowledge' then we are determined. Am I getting this right?
Close, but I wouldn't put it quite that way. I would say that if there are no psychologically free choice points, then we are determined. In other words, if every choice is motivated by a value judgment, then we could not have chosen differently (unless, of course, our value judgments were different). And since every choice is in fact motivated by a value judgment -- is chosen for the sake of a value in preference to the alternative -- it follows that we could not have chosen differently under the circumstances, and are therefore determined.

To be sure, people do make objectively bad choices -- choices based on defense values. But they make them because they believe, however wrongly or perversely, that they are doing themselves a favor. If they are to change, they must come to realize that such defensive behavior is not in their self-interest. When they do realize it, they can learn to avoid such behavior and to make better, more honest choices.

- Bill

Post 32

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 3:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In other words, Bill - if ye lived your life over again, it'd be exactly the same as it was, ye making the same mistakes for the same wrong 'reasons'......

Post 33

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
[H]ow can a determinist even understand "A or not A"? Since either one or the other is the case, and his thoughts are determined, how can he consider both cases?
His "thoughts" include both his conclusions about what is in fact the case and his consideration as to what would or might be the case if things were different.
The determinist is apparently stuck in the position of either saying that "the facts" don't determine his thoughts, in which case his words are meaningless, or he must claim that his thoughts are determined by the facts . . .
By the latter alternative, you mean "he must claim that his conclusions are determined by his recognition of the facts.
. . . in which case, how could he either generate or understand counterfactuals?
He would say that his generation or his understanding of counterfactuals is determined in the same way that his conclusions about what is factual is determined -- by his recognition of reality. It is only through a recognition of reality that one can arrive at a consideration of counterfactuals. Before considering what is counterfactual, one must recognize what is factual.
How could a determinist say that if Hitler had won WWII, X might have happened? Is he going to say that both his knowledge of the facts regarding Hitler and his ability to consider an infinite number of counterfactuals regarding Hitler are equally "determined?"
Yes. What is paradoxical about that? His conclusions as to what actually happened are one thing; his consideration of what might have happened if things had been different is another. Both are determined by antecedent causes.

- Bill

Post 34

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcom wrote,
In other words, Bill - if ye lived your life over again, it'd be exactly the same as it was, ye making the same mistakes for the same wrong 'reasons'...
If I lived my life over in exactly the same way under the same conditions, then, yes, I'd live it in the same way and make the same mistakes for the same wrong reasons. But life is a learning experience in which one learns from one's mistakes. So if I lived my life over again, I would also make the same corrections of my mistakes, and would do so for the same right reasons.

In any case, however, this is not an argument against determinism, for a mistake is not something one chooses; it is made inadvertently and therefore involuntarily.

- Bill

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 3:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So now we are supposed to have these inborn values--one's we do not even understand because, of course, we haven't given them any mind yet--which guide our decisions. Why? Because we just happen to have these values--they just popped into being somehow. In fact values--value judgments--presuppose an aware mind which had to come into focus at some point and it is this mental act, of focusing, that is free, undetermined by anything but our own mental effort or initiative, a true original act. And some of us are on the ball with producing this awareness, this focus, while others are laggards and even remain so much of our lives. Why? Because that is how we choose to be--that's what's up to us, alone as agents of our most essential, distinctive human behavior.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 5:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree, I don't see how an agent that is born with no concepts can produce determined behavior insomuch as being determined solely on external causes. In this regard, there must be something isolated in the rational agent that operates independently from the external world. This also makes good sense when you consider how specialized and layered parts of the brain and nervous system can get.

-- Bridget

Post 37

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[I avoid these discussions where we contemplate our navels.  What is the "appleness" of an apple?  Is it the germ of the seed?  Eating a pound  of appleseed germ will not get you what you get from eating a whole, fresh, ripe apple.  They are different. Is the "appleness" of an apple on the outside?  If you peel it, is it still an apple?  If you peeled it in situ on a tree, it would lose a lot of its "appleness."  Let's get really fancy, and give this a Latin name, so we can philosophize about it: melitosity.  We could give it a Greek name: melitoia.  We could host meta-discussions at apple grower conventions: Melitoia: Germ or Skin?...  Melitosity and Apple Cider: Whole Germ or None?...]

Criminal Justice -- so called -- is mired for not wanting to address free will.  Why do people commit crimes?  Sociologists have a half dozen strong theories and another set of less complete explanations -- not that any is complete... or even workable... which is why there are so many theories.

Joseph Bidinotto wrote a book called Criminal Justice? that draws heavily on the work of Dr. Stanton Sameow's Inside the Criminal Mind.  Samenow successfully treated a cohort of imprisoned felons, using the best psychology to get them to understand themselves and their crimes.  They were very successful in this program and the inmates who graduated thanked their mentors with a party, the supplies for which were stolen from the institution.  Samenow dropped back, and punted.

In my Community Corrections class, we just watched a film called Omar and Pete, a PBS Point of View documentatary (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/omarandpete/)  Omar and Pete came from the same neighborhood, commited crimes together, met in prison, and were in and out for 30 years, give or take.  Long story short, Pete turned his life around.  It took about three years.  He even got married.  "When he gave me his address and I saw that it was a halfway house, I thought he gave me the card because he knew I was an addict," she said.  People change.  Omar did not.  He fell back a few times and recovered a few times and ultimately went back to die in prison, sentenced to 25 years for armed robbery. 

Dr. Stanton Samenow says that discussion stops with choice. After that, asking "why" takes you down the rabbit hole and into Wonderland.  You have 46 chromosomes.  They unravel into halves and relink.  Two to the 46th power is the number of possible human beings.  Even identical twins raised in the same home are only 85% likely to have IQs within one standard deviation of each other, whereas strict reductionism would expect 100%.  People choose.  We obviously do.  Beyond that, there is no why.

We choose.  Why we choose what we choose is not tractable from the outside.

As Hofferan true believers, some nominal "Objectivists" think that it is tractable from the outside.  They think that you can give someone a book and "change their mind."  In some sense -- speaking from my own experience -- this is understandable.  One of my buddies in YAF gave me Anthem.  But I was in YAF in the first place -- and Anthem made perfect sense prima facie.  On the other hand, I knew a leading libertarian theorist who came to ideas of personal freedom via the authoritarian right including religion and for him, it was a struggle to understand and come to grips, which ultimately he did, but at some level -- coming back to Pete and Omar -- he was just saying what he needed to say to get people to do what he wanted them to do.  As one halfway house (ex-con) manager said about the failing Omar, "his head and his heart are not connected. All you hear is what his mouth is saying to get what he needs at this moment."   

Trying to convince other people not to bother trying to convince other people is another example of falling down the rabbit hole.  If what I just wrote makes sense you, then it does, otherwise, it does not.

2^46.


Post 38

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor wrote,
So now we are supposed to have these inborn values--one's we do not even understand because, of course, we haven't given them any mind yet--which guide our decisions. Why? Because we just happen to have these values--they just popped into being somehow.
There are no inborn values. We are born, not with values, but with the capacity to value, which is realized once we become aware of reality and of our own needs and desires as living organisms. As for the choice to focus or not to focus, "an infant or a young child learns to focus his mind in the form of wanting to know something -- to understand clearly. That is the beginning from which a fully conscious, rational focus comes." (AR, Ayn Rand Answers, p. 154) In other words, the value motivating a child's initial choice to focus is the desire to know something, to arrive at a clearer understanding of it. But he has to recognize, at some level, that focusing his mind will help him to achieve that goal, otherwise there would be no point to his action, no purpose in choosing to focus his mind. Every choice, no matter how rudimentary, presupposes an awareness of an alternative which is the basis for the choice.
In fact values--value judgments--presuppose an aware mind which had to come into focus at some point and it is this mental act, of focusing, that is free, undetermined by anything but our own mental effort or initiative, a true original act.
You are talking about a higher level, conceptualized value judgment, which results from a process of rational deliberation, which can only come about if one first chooses to focus one's mind and raise one's level of awareness. But there has to be some lower level of awareness, as well as a rudimentary valuation, of the choice to focus in order for the choice to made. The child must choose to focus his mind (i.e., to raise his level of awareness) for the sake of some end or goal, e.g., to achieve a clearer understanding of something. That is the value motivating his choice.
And some of us are on the ball with producing this awareness, this focus, while others are laggards and even remain so much of our lives. Why?
Because some of us recognize the importance of exerting this kind of mental effort, whereas others do not.
Because that is how we choose to be--that's what's up to us, alone as agents of our most essential, distinctive human behavior.
Yes, it's up to us, but that doesn't mean that we make the choice with no awareness of its nature and for no reason, purpose or value.

- Bill

Post 39

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not 2^46. The human genome contains 3164.7 million chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G). Here it says that there is a SNP (a single base switch) difference every 100 to 300 bases, which accounts for about 90% of the variation in humans. Using that I'd say there are about 17,200,000 places where people can be different. Lets say that at each place where there are differences, there is only two options (although in the non-SNP case there may be more than two options). That would mean 2^17,200,000 different possible humans, or 10^5,180,000 possible humans. That is 1 with 5.18 million zeros after it!

Given that the Earth currently has 6.5 billion people living on it, it would take 7090 years to have 10^5,180,000 people, given that every day every female newborn has 200 children.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.