Objectivist Free Will and Reason

Ed, you're debating a guy that thinks faith is the foundation of inductive reasoning. This guy thinks anything is possible without proof. Maybe I should sell him some property in the Holy Land. ^__^

-- Bridget

Post 61

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:22am

I never said that dogs can reason on a conceptual level. I am complaining that simply saying the evidence proves they don't doesn't prove or explain anything. And, giving an example of one dog's behavior does not prove that that one dog is representative of all dogs.

I said that I think this difference between non-humans and humans can be explained and that I have explained it in other posts. I will explain it again below:

Conceptual reasoning requires human language facility, which is not observable in dogs. Dogs and other animals make meaningful sounds, but they do not organize them into structured forms, like human speech, and they do not appear to be in volitional control of it. Bees have structure to their communication but are not n control of it, and parrets can mimc human sounds but not appropriately. The research on apes is inconclusive.

Human inventions which affect human lifestyles are evidence of creative ability, free will, which is not obserable in dogs or other creatures who seem bound by fixed natures. An explanation of this creative ability can be found in Chomsky's creaivity principle, which shows that, with sybols and substitution frames into which symbols are placed, humans are able to construct meaningful thoughts which have never been constructed before.

This difference between fixed natures, the "in itself," and incomplete natures, the "for-itself," is accounted for in Existential philosophy but not in orthodox Objectivist philosophy.

That was an explanation and proof for the difference between non-humans and humans, not just a declaration that there is a difference, that humans have free will and dogs don't.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/17, 11:27am)

Post 62

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 12:06pm

NNO wrote:

The research on apes is inconclusive.

Some research has shown good evidence of non-language based abstract conceptual thinking in chimps and parrots.

Bob

Post 63

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 1:03pm

And language....

Dogs and other animals make meaningful sounds, but they do not organize them into structured forms, like human speech

"July 8, 2006 � Two bonobo chimpanzees in Iowa are changing how scientists think about the nature of human language.
Kanzi and Panbanisha understand thousands of words. They use sentences, talk on the phone, and they like to gossip. In short, they use language in many of the same ways humans do.

That's not supposed to be possible.
Since the 1950s, linguists including Noam Chomsky have argued that language is unique to humans and requires an innate understanding of grammar.

But the achievements of Kanzi and Panbanisha suggest otherwise, says Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, head scientist at the Great Ape Trust near Des Moines. She says apes can acquire a lot of language if they learn it the same way human babies do."

Bob

Post 64

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:08pm

When it becomes an established fact that apes are able to volitonally manipulate symbols in a structured form and create meaninful sentences never before constructed, with Chomsky's creativity principle, then I'll concede that these apes also think conceptually and have free will, and are different in kind, not just degree, from dogs and animals whch do not volitionally manipulate symbols in a structured form.

bis bald,

Nck

Post 65

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:36pm

Chomsky's principle is wrong.

-- Bridget

Post 66

Monday, July 17, 2006 - 10:45pm

Chomsky's principle is wrong.

Either support your case, Bridget, or stay away. Don't just drop an unsupported line.

Nick

Post 67

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 6:32am

Nick said:

Either support your case, Bridget, or stay away.

That's at least twice that you've told Bridget to go away. This is not your site, Nick. You don't decide who posts here or who responds to your posts. Until the owner of this site decides that someone doesn't belong here, your only option is to ignore someone's posts, just as I ignore most of yours.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are posting here. Maybe you will come up with an "authentic" answer.
Glenn

Post 68

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 10:33am

Well, Glenn, Bridget has told me several times to go away, and she has said a few times that she was finished with me, yet she keeps coming back and not really saying anything worthwhile.

If you don't like what I say or how say it, you can continue to ignore me.

It is, as you say, the owner's option to delete my posts or bann me.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 69

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:18pm

Chomsky's principle is prefaced on the belief that language has intrinsic meaning, as his most of his work in language. To which, has been proven false by neurologist for about a decade. So until you get your eyes onto the latest research papers on learning and neurology, you are always going to be on the wrong track.

Oh, if you want more info try Ray Kurzweil's site for info.

-- Bridget

P.S. A formal refutation of Chom Ling.

(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/18, 12:59pm)

Post 70

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:59pm

Again, you are finding one little aspect somethng Chomsky said, not really demonstrating how it is related to the rest of the theory, and condemning the entire theory. It is like condemning all Asians because some of them are not good in math. Chomsky's creativity principle is that symbols can be arranged into substitution frames of subject and predicate in an infinite number of unique ways such that meaningful thoughts can be constructed which have never before been constructed. This can be empirically and inductively verified.

If Chomsky is right, it means Rand and Sartre are right about humans having voltional conceptual thought and free will. If he is wrong, it means we still have a mechanistc model controlled by causalty with no room for free will. Where does Kurzwel stand on this?

The fact that Kurzweil criticises Chomsky in some areas does not prove that Chomsky's creativity princple is wrong. Please summarize Kurzweil's argument against Chomsky's creativty principle, and bring it to this thread, in your own words. Don't just duck out and refer to another site.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 71

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:02pm

1) Chomsky's theories are set on arbitrary criteria such as his linguistic theories. "Me want cookie." And "I want cookie." To Chom Ling is the same despite being different, and one being the correct form.

2) Chom Ling has issues with differentiating correct and incorrect grammar.

3) If Chom Ling is correct then...

int c = 0;
and c = 0; is the same in computer science languages.

Yet, this isn't so that means Chom Ling fails. What's the word again for this Chom Ling stuff? Oh yes! Bad Science...

-- Bridget

Post 72

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:46pm

That is not the creatvity principle about which I spoke. Please refute the Creativity principle.

Nick

Post 73

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:27pm

Give me an article link about it.

Also, if he's asserting creative solution development as the means of gauging whether one is intelligent, then crows, chimpanzees (and bonobos), gorillas, the african grey parrot, dolphins, and the Australian Sheep Herding Dog are all intelligent and very much self-conscious.

Whether it's the sign languaging gorilla, Coco, or whether it's the numerous dolphins seen recognizing their own self-image in a mirror, intelligence is not something that is apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the 'cool tool' of our biological kingdom, it's what allows the most recent adaptations to survive as long as they have on such limited biomass and harsh environs. Your claims, as is Chomsky's, are faulty because of all that is known in Zoology, and the life sciences about intelligence.

So, claiming that just because Coco the Gorilla can't make her own Fifth Symphony or a Fresco like that on the Sistine Chapel is pointless, because even the first humans did not make such grand things at first. That takes time and effort, to which they, like most animals, did not have. It took centuries upon centuries of development of better tools, the first writing system so one could learn without having to live a lifetime, and many other inventions that allows us humans to stand apart from our fellow animals. Our efforts to do as such is what makes us different, not our mere creativity. So, again, if you can't make an effort to make your claims stick, then please, don't assert them.

As we say in first-person shooter land, you have been served.

-- Bridget

Post 74

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:01pm

Give me an article link about it.

I don't refer people to article inks. I've summarized the creativity principle twice. It is that people use substitution frames into which they they place symbols in meaningful arrangements never before constructed.

Whether it's the sign languaging gorilla, Coco, or whether it's the numerous dolphins seen recognizing their own self-image in a mirror, intelligence is not something that is apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the 'cool tool' of our biological kingdom, it's what allows the most recent adaptations to survive as long as they have on such limited biomass and harsh environs. Your claims, as is Chomsky's, are faulty because of all that is known in Zoology, and the life sciences about intelligence.

Scientists are still skeptical about Coco. They are also not certain that dolphins comunicate with structured noises. Patterns could be the mimicing of machinery. Yes, many animals are intelligent. It is not certain that they think conceptually and have volitional consciousness, as humans have because of their linguistic ability.

So, claiming that just because Coco the Gorilla can't make her own Fifth Symphony or a Fresco like that on the Sistine Chapel is pointless, because even the first humans did not make such grand things at first. That takes time and effort, to which they, like most animals, did not have. It took centuries upon centuries of development of better tools, the first writing system so one could learn without having to live a lifetime, and many other inventions that allows us humans to stand apart from our fellow animals. Our efforts to do as such is what makes us different, not our mere creativity. So, again, if you can't make an effort to make your claims stick, then please, don't assert them.

So, you think there is no break between animals and humans. It is just a slde from less to more development. Creativity has nothing to do with it. Rand would disagree with this. Do you call yourself an Objectivist?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 75

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 12:32am

Give me a quote where Rand supposed creativity was the basis for the difference between rational animals and non-rational animals? Otherwise, stop playing like you know Objectivism, when it seems you can't even give me a single quote in any of her non-fiction or fiction that supports your accusation.

As for slide, I never said that, you said it. I said that the difference was that we focused ourselves into developing technology and language to a level that would allow us to sustain exponential growth. Creativity is the after-effect of such rational focus. It's taking what we know and expanding it into territories of which we don't in ways that are not readibly predictible. Beyond that, creativity means nothing if you don't have a basis for it.

As for your claims of skepticism about Coco and the dolphins, skepticism does not infer that the evidence is wrong, it infers that a refinement of said evidence will be needed for strengthening a given argument.

Also I have a problem with this Creativity Principle as you define it...

(Nick)I don't refer people to article inks. I've summarized the creativity principle twice. It is that people use substitution frames into which they they place symbols in meaningful arrangements never before constructed.

(Me) This is a faulty concept because first you need to explain what a symbol is and a substitution frame is. You have NOT defined those terms. Therefore, this definition as you given is undecipherable. Refine it.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/19, 12:34am)

Post 76

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:08am

(Bridget)Give me a quote where Rand supposed creativity was the basis for the difference between rational animals and non-rational animals? Otherwise, stop playing like you know Objectivism, when it seems you can't even give me a single quote in any of her non-fiction or fiction that supports your accusation.

(Nick)I shouldn't have to do that. People with whom I wish to talk would know that creativity is an indication of free will, not a fixed nature. Also, people who have read a fair number of my posts wll know that I am very familar with Objectivism. I don't have to prove this to you.

(Bridget)As for slide, I never said that, you said it. I said that the difference was that we focused ourselves into developing technology and language to a level that would allow us to sustain exponential growth. Creativity is the after-effect of such rational focus. It's taking what we know and expanding it into territories of which we don't in ways that are not readibly predictible. Beyond that, creativity means nothing if you don't have a basis for it.

(Nick)You describe it as an advance of development, not a difference of kind. Conceptual thinking and free will is more than an advancement or expansion. Inventions and human technology are examples of creativity not apparent in non-human behavior, in behavior of animals which do not voltionally manipulate symbols.

(Bridget)As for your claims of skepticism about Coco and the dolphins, skepticism does not infer that the evidence is wrong, it infers that a refinement of said evidence will be needed for strengthening a given argument.

(Nick)The burden on you is to prove skepticism is wrong. Just because you cite something, it doesn't make it true. If it did, you could say God exists and scepticism about it doesn't make it wrong.

(Bridget)Also I have a problem with this Creativity Principle as you define it...

(Nick)So? What is your problem. Have you studied linguistics?

(Nick)I don't refer people to article inks. I've summarized the creativity principle twice. It is that people use substitution frames into which they they place symbols in meaningful arrangements never before constructed.

(Bridget) This is a faulty concept because first you need to explain what a symbol is and a substitution frame is. You have NOT defined those terms. Therefore, this definition as you given is undecipherable. Refine it.

(Nick)People who have studied linguistics and concept formation know what symbols and signs are and don't need definitions of every term. I shouldn't have to provide a basic course which defines every term to those who debate with me. Stop trying to challenge me when you don't know what I'm talking about. Make certain you understand me before you jump in to disagree with me.

Anyway, in linguistics, words are symbols. They represent objects and ideas. We put them into substitution frames of subject and predicate to expand their reference capability. I explain this in my post on perception, logic, and language.

There is usually an hour of discussion on the difference between symbols and signs, which can also be words but usually described as the difference between words and sounds like animals make, and here are several classes on the functions of different words. This is all part of linguistics and semantics, but it also gives us insight into human thinking, since communcating with one's self is thinking. The creative principle, the ability to form meaningul thoughts, sentences, which have never before been constructed, allows humans to move beyond the fixed natures of other living things in adopting to their environent and adopting their environment to them. It is what we refer to as "reasoning ability."

bis bald,

Nick

Post 77

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 8:00am

(Nick)I shouldn't have to do that. People with whom I wish to talk would know that creativity is an indication of free will, not a fixed nature. Also, people who have read a fair number of my posts wll know that I am very familar with Objectivism. I don't have to prove this to you.

(Me) That doesn't follow. Show me evidence that creativity is objectively measurable. The last time I checked, certain creatures beside humans can be called creative but lack any significant neo-cortex, namely birds.

And yes, you do have to prove it. Those that make positive claims must present proof/evidence/etc for their said claims. Otherwise, everyone has the ethical and intellectual right-of-way to disregard said argument and its presenter. That is how the real world works, Nick. I don't ask much for evidence, but do I ask for a simple link to a credible source. A credible quotation, and what not. But you EVADE THAT SIMPLE STANDARD CURTESY. So, either you stand and deliver, or I can simply disregard anything you say for now on as either not based in reason, or unworthy of examination.

Btw, my mentality actually comes from certain Zennists teachers I read about it. They had a very binary yes/no mentality as well in their teaching. So, expect more from me on this since you're the woo-woo eastern mastah. :-P

(Nick)You describe it as an advance of development, not a difference of kind. Conceptual thinking and free will is more than an advancement or expansion. Inventions and human technology are examples of creativity not apparent in non-human behavior, in behavior of animals which do not voltionally manipulate symbols.

(Me) Nick, it's called EVOLUTION. Wow, biological entities of particular traits being 'naturally selected [surviving]' through sucessive generations, thus developing niche behaviors and/or adaptations to which aide the survival of said species. How is conceptual thinking, or intellectual power, any different as an adaptation? There's lots of evidence that it was an adaptation.

From the first drawings by homo erectus (btw, they found these drawings of patterns in South Africa, where no human prior to the modern age set foot, and found drawins pre-dating the first human habitation, but not the first homo erectus habitation.) to our modern scientific thinking, it started in baby steps of physical development of the neo-cortex, to which allows us to multitask on complex data unlike most of the species on the planet. But, it does not come out of the thin fraking aether without causation of some evolutionary pressure. This does not mean those that are of the said species that evolved this adaptation will use it, though, but it does mean everyone is born with the faculty of it.

That's why your argument fails. You are basically disregarding the know biological and scientific fact of human evolution. And if you say you deny evolution, I can simply disregard your arguments from now on and ask you stop using antibodies, which biologists use evolution to select the best bacteria in its production to keep pace with new resistent bacteria... :-P

(Nick)The burden on you is to prove skepticism is wrong. Just because you cite something, it doesn't make it true. If it did, you could say God exists and scepticism about it doesn't make it wrong.

(Me) No, skepticism does not infer anything but a refinement of data. I am not going to play your game, kiddo. Prove your claims that human conceptualization came out of thin aether, or I am going to get my copy of Origin of Species and smack you with it! :-P

(Nick)So? What is your problem. Have you studied linguistics?

(Me) Yes, I have not studied it. I require you to simplify the definition so it that applies to the context of the argument, dude.

(Nick)People who have studied linguistics and concept formation know what symbols and signs are and don't need definitions of every term. I shouldn't have to provide a basic course which defines every term to those who debate with me. Stop trying to challenge me when you don't know what I'm talking about. Make certain you understand me before you jump in to disagree with me.

(Me) Um, so you do this to people that don't agree with you? Hun, it's called defining your terms. It's a common practice and everyone that I know does it for a reason, primarily to make sure everyone understands the basic premises from which one is presenting their specific argument. What you seem to have problems with is providing the most basic form of definition for Creativity Principle that everyone can understand.

Not everyone on this forum is a linguist. Not everyone has the money or the time to study it. Either make a universal definition or expect, and accept, people to act rudely to your elitest attitude. Got it?

Also, the so-called definition in your article is not there. Now, you will post your definition, exactly with complete annotation. Or I will continue to post a request for that definition ad infinitum.

Stick to a standard of decorum that everyone can tolerate, or tottle off.

-- Bridget

Post 78

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:06am