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 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nate:

 

You wrote:  >>You define free will as freedom of action.  Freedom of action-- to do what?  Of course we're constrained by our environments.  How does this imply that we aren't free to choose?  Which Law of Physics predicts that I'm intending to type a response to you on this keyboard, as opposed to intending to move air particles in the vicinity of my keyboard?<<

 

You are making my point for me.  We experience volition as free will – i.e., a freely made choice undetermined by preceding events (which is not to say we do not account for those events, but we can ignore them if we choose).  The laws of physics appear to have nothing to do with it.

 

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 41

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi, Regi.

 

You wrote: >>Thank you for answering my questions. I am not trying to convince you, but thought you might be interested in why your arguments are not convincing most Objectivists.<<

 

You’re welcome.

 

I’m not trying to convince Objectivists to become Catholics – or even that we’re something more than the scum of the earth.  If they want to be atheists, that’s their business.  If they want to fear and loathe Catholics, I can’t exorcise their bogeymen.  However, I did want to satisfy myself as to whether or not I was correct about the essential materialism of Objectivism and whether or not the primacy of atheism in the Objectivist belief system was the foundation of that materialism.

 

Because this was my purpose, I had no interest in being an apologist for Catholicism here.  I answered direct questions about my faith when queried, but I wasn’t going to be baited into arguments that I had the sense to know were dead-enders.  I had my quest, and I wasn’t going to be distracted from it.  I would have thought Objectivists, of all people, would have respected that.  After all, I do understand the basics of the creed.

 

I studied Objectivism in depth several years ago.  Initially I accepted at face value that Objectivism was not a materialist philosophy.  I even let myself be satisfied with Peikoff’s limp denial of materialism in OPAR.  But I could not square volition with causation, and I began to sense that Objectivism’s metaphysical schizophrenia was rooted in denying any aspect of reality that did not preclude the possibility of the divine.  In other words Objectivism twisted itself whichever way necessary to safeguard its atheistic conclusions, and it was this twisting that made Objectivism materialistic – despite the intentions of its authors, Rand and Peikoff.

 

Because materialism is contradicted by my experience of consciousness as self-awareness and volition as free will, I reject it.  Because I concluded Objectivism was materialistic, I turned away from it.  However, I am hardly an expert in philosophy and I acknowledge my capacity for error.  So I decided to check in here at SOLO and many other places to see if the distance of some years might shine a new light on the subject.  Was I right?  Or did I miss something that would explain why Objectivism is not materialism?

 

I’m persuaded that I was right.  So I succeeded in convincing someone:  Myself.  Such a self-interested purpose should satisfy any Objectivist.

 

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 42

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regi:

 

You wrote:  >>Faith is believing something without evidence, or even contrary to evidence. If you are Catholic, for example, you believe in transubstantiation. There is hardly a more superstitious belief on the face of the earth. It flies in the face of reason and decency, yet millions of people believe it on no other basis than "faith."<<

 

Ah yes, the old cannibal canard.  The best response I have ever seen to that bit of silliness is when a fundamentalist Protestant accused my wife of being a cannibal for partaking of the Eucharist.  She sized him up from head to toe with a gleam in her eye, licked her lips, and asked him:  “Would you like to come to dinner?”

 

I have no problem answering questions about my religion and even discussing it to the best of my knowledge.  But if the only purpose of such queries is to provide a forum for Jack Chick-like foolishness about Catholicism, l think that would be a waste of time for all of us.

 

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 43

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regi:

 

I wrote (in entirety):  >> Faith is the belief that something is true when I lack sufficient evidence to know without doubt.  If I encounter evidence that falsifies that belief, then I no longer doubt, because I know it isn’t true.  Thus, faith evaporates and is replaced by knowledge.
 
>>
The truth is that we all operate on faith to some extent.  Some do so irrationally, perhaps by continuing to believe things they know from experience are not true.  Just as irrationally some may deny any faith at all and wrongly claim as knowledge those things that properly remain the subject of doubt.  Others, such as myself, try to distinguish between those truths which I can know with certainty (knowledge) and those in which I must retain doubt (faith).
 
>>
Faith, properly applied, means knowing as much of the truth as I can, even if I cannot know everything with certainty, but at least knowing where that lack of certainty exists.<<

 

You responded:  >>That is insane. There are many things I do not know perfectly, or only partially, or with reservation. In such cases, I never believe they are true, only probable or possible, and make my decisions based on practical risk analysis. I never risk more than the prize is worth for example, always take the long view, and always make preparations for what cannot or is not yet known. That has nothing to do with faith.<<

 
Excellent.  Sounds like you have a good grip on reality, even that which you aren’t certain about.  So what’s the difference between what I said and you said?  What is doubt other than the acknowledgment of a probability in lieu of a certainity? 

 

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 44

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rodney:

 

You asked:  >>Why such a disagreeable screen name?<<

 

I’ve used it for years.  It stems from my battle with city hall in which I “ratted out” the mayor, who provided on the sly a piece of city-owned property in the middle of working class neighborhood to a client of his business for use as a landfill for hazardous waste.  Fortunately, I saved the videotapes from my manufacturing plant’s security camera system to prove my charges, and now the Michigan Attorney General’s office has opened a criminal investigation of the matter.  So the moniker has its history, and I’ve stuck with it.

 

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 45

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rodney:

 

In response to MUVIRSE2, you wrote:  >>True, but the (somewhat porous) interface between his bits of rationality and his irrationality consists of his declared inability to reconcile volition, life, and consciousness with causation and the world of matter with which he thinks science deals exclusively. These issues have been discussed in several of the various replies to Citizen Rat … <<

 

First of all, thanks for acknowledging my rationality, such as it is.  I’m touched.

 

As for those “issues” having been discussed, I found that the responses to me were either essentially materialist (which I acknowledge as a coherent position except that it contradicts with my experience of consciousness and volition) or tautological (and so failed to address the issue of whether reality is strictly material or does it include the trans-material)?

 

I’ll admit to being thick when it comes to this subject, but I think I understand it well enough to know it is a difficult one that lacks pat answers, such as the tautological ones.

 

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 46

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dave:

 

I congratulate you on your editing of my most brilliant thoughts.  No easy task to pick the diamonds out of so many gems I have posted here.  In all seriousness, I think you have been quite astute in highlighting my positions here and bold in drawing attention to the provocative ones.  Kudos.

 

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 47

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
HI Citizen Rat,
 
You wrote:
 
"You are making my point for me.  We experience volition as free will – i.e., a freely made choice undetermined by preceding events (which is not to say we do not account for those events, but we can ignore them if we choose).  The laws of physics appear to have nothing to do with it."
 
I was trying to address your dichotomy you posited, stating that either (1) one's mind is deterministic and so free will is an illusion, or (2) one's mind is not deterministic and so we must make introduce hypotheses outside those which are physically verifiable.
 
Suppose (1), that all actions are determined.  Why does this imply that one's intention is determined?  This is why I asked which Law of Physics predicts that I'm typing on my keyboard as opposed to circulating the air in its vicinity with my fingers.
 
Nate


Post 48

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Nate.
 
You wrote:  >>I was trying to address your dichotomy you posited, stating that either (1) one's mind is deterministic and so free will is an illusion, or (2) one's mind is not deterministic and so we must make introduce hypotheses outside those which are physically verifiable.<<
 
OK.  That's a pretty good distillation of what I've been getting at.  I'd tweak the second branch to state "hypotheses outside those which are physically verifiable under the existing laws of physics".  I'd allow for the possibility that there may be laws of physics we have yet to discover which are not deterministic; although I don't see how.
 
You continued: >>Suppose (1), that all actions are determined.  Why does this imply that one's intention is determined?  This is why I asked which Law of Physics predicts that I'm typing on my keyboard as opposed to circulating the air in its vicinity with my fingers.<<

 
Because -- according to identity materialists -- your intention is nothing more than an epiphenomenon of that electro-chemical calculator called the brain.  Therefore, the creation and execution of that intention by your brain is a consequence of electro-chemical processes that are controlled by the laws of physics.
 
Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 49

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You should hang around at least until I've answered.

Post 50

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 

Citizen Rat: “I noted that such a trans-material reality possibly makes room for God.  What appears to have eluded you and many others …is that a trans-material reality may not require God.  In other words, you can be an atheist and not a materialist.”

Jeremy: “You can't prove God--and don't deny you've been stating God exists and that this is the basis for even confronting Objectivists here about their atheism--and so you simply avoid the question.”

Jeremy, I don’t wish to speak for Bill, as he can speak well enough for himself, but the way I read his argument is that experience of one’s own consciousness and volition is indirect evidence that some aspects of reality are non-material. By their very nature these aspects are not amenable to scientific inspection, since the evidence in their favour cannot be tested or measured.

But one can provide reasonable grounds for belief in these forms of non-material reality, although since there is no hard scientific evidence, such belief can only be supported by argument rather than demonstration. By the same token, there is no hard evidence in favour of the existence of a non-material supreme being, but one can provide reasonable grounds for such a belief.

If I have it right, this argument is quite reasonable and rational. It’s not an appeal to “mysticism” or “magic”; but rather an appeal to experience.

Those Objectivists who demand proof that “God exists” might like to examine their own primary postulate and prove that “Existence exists”.

Brendan


Post 51

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Citizen Rat,
 
You say that, under assumption (1), determined actions imply determined intentions because "... your intention is nothing more than an epiphenomenon of that electro-chemical calculator called the brain.  Therefore, the creation and execution of that intention by your brain is a consequence of electro-chemical processes that are controlled by the laws of physics."
 
How exactly is an 'intention' executed?  Won't the resulting physical action always be explainable in terms of some other possible intention (e.g., the keyboard example), that is, is a proposition "A intends to do X" falsifiable only by A himself?  Do you think that, in the future, neuroscience will progress to a point where a person's thoughts, intentions, memories, etc., will be perfectly accessible to scientists?
 
Sorry for being so inquisitive, but I'd really like to get to the bottom of this.
 
Nate

(Edited by Nate T. on 4/22, 4:24pm)

(Edited by Nate T. on 4/22, 4:26pm)


Post 52

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan writes:

Those Objectivists who demand proof that “God exists” might like to examine their own primary postulate and prove that “Existence exists”.


Why would I want to do that, Brendan?  I mean, what's the point? 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Bill,

I’m not trying to convince Objectivists to become Catholics – or even that we’re something more than the scum of the earth.
 
Do not suppose everyone who disagrees with you thinks you are the scum of the earth. While all faith or superstition (there is no difference) is a mistake, some superstitions really are evil (Islam, for example), and some rather benign, but all are harmful to those who hold them. Human beings are provided only one means of gaining knowledge, the ability to reason. Anything that is not learned by reason from the evidence is superstition. To the extent your choices and behavior are determined by irrational beliefs, you will be acting contrary to reality, which at best is pointless, but more likely self-destructive.

Because materialism is contradicted by my experience of consciousness as self-awareness and volition as free will, I reject it.
 
But you acknowledge that my post #84 "your explanations of consciousness and volition are intellectually coherent if you are materialist," in your post #86 on the "Atheist Internet Outreach Response," thread.

Now I have no idea why you hate matter so much. C.S. Lewis once remarked, "God loves matter, else He would not have made so much of it." [quote may not be exact, since it is from memory.] There is no reason for a theist to reject materialism or to suppose there is any contradiction between a determined physical world and consciousness and volition.

In fact, I think that is your mistake. You are equating the physical aspects of existence (that which is studied by the physical sciences) with material existence. They are not the same thing. The physical is a subset of the material.

The material existence is all that exists independent of any particular person's consciousness or knowledge of it. It is metaphysically primary and includes all that is or can be known. It includes, for example, consciousness and volition, which are not "physical." The physical world is the world consciousness is conscious of and which, as I said, is studied by the physical sciences, but consciousness itself is not directly perceived consciously. Consciousness and that-which-consciousness-is-conscious-of are not the same thing.

But consciousness and volition are certainly part of the objective material existence, or the natural world, else there would be no living, conscious, or rational beings in the world—but we know there are.

Regi


Post 54

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

 

You wrote:  >>Faith is believing something without evidence, or even contrary to evidence. If you are Catholic, for example, you believe in transubstantiation. There is hardly a more superstitious belief on the face of the earth. It flies in the face of reason and decency, yet millions of people believe it on no other basis than "faith."<<

 

Ah yes, the old cannibal canard. 

 

That is extremely disingenuous. I specifically referred to the doctrine of transubstantiation. I never mentioned (or even thought of) the straw man you threw up about cannibalism, although I can certainly understand how that charge might be laid. I was referring to the superstition that the wine and host are literally changed into actual blood and flesh.

 

Regi


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

What is doubt other than the acknowledgment of a probability in lieu of a certainty?
 
The difference is exactly what I said. I regard what I know imperfectly only as a possibility, not the truth. You regard what you have no reason for believing to be the truth.<p>
 
Regi


Post 56

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,
You wrote, "Those Objectivists who demand proof that “God exists” might like to examine their own primary postulate and prove that “Existence exists”."

Any attempt to prove something assumes
1)that one's consciousness exists
and
2) that an external reality exists and is knowable.

To attempt to prove that existence exists would be as foolish as attempting to enumerate infinity.


Nicholas W. Balcolm


Post 57

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rodney:

 

You suggested: >>You should hang around at least until I've answered.<<

 

I will, and I look forward to it.

 

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 58

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Brendan:

 

In response to Jeremy, you wrote:  >>I don’t wish to speak for Bill, … It’s not an appeal to “mysticism” or “magic”; but rather an appeal to experience.<<

 

In three paragraphs you elegantly summarized my position and put forth in plain language what I’ve been hashing over for the past couple of weeks.  Be assured, Brendan, I certainly welcome you putting words in my mouth when they read so concisely and cogently.

 

One distinction I would make between your summary and what I’ve been writing is “non-material” and “trans-material”.  I refer to consciousness and volition as trans-material, because even if they are non-material they arise from material.  This avoids any connotation of a material vs. non-material duality in which the non-material can exist apart from the prior existence of material.

 

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 59

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nate:

 

You asked:  >>How exactly is an 'intention' executed?  Won't the resulting physical action always be explainable in terms of some other possible intention (e.g., the keyboard example), that is, is a proposition "A intends to do X" falsifiable only by A himself?<<

 

An identity materialist would have to answer no to that question for reason that an intention or anything else of the mind is nothing but a product of the brain.  Therefore, he would conclude that with sufficient scientific knowledge and advanced technology, the production of that intention by the brain could be identified and quantified in the same sense that a nurse can measure your heartbeat.

 

Because I am not a materialist, I agree with you that “A intends to do X” is falsifiable only by A himself.  That is because the mind, though arising from the brain, has a non-material (or I prefer to say, per my post to Brendan, “trans-material”) existence that cannot be objectively identified and measured by anyone else.

 

You then asked:  >>Do you think that, in the future, neuroscience will progress to a point where a person's thoughts, intentions, memories, etc., will be perfectly accessible to scientists?<<

 

My armchair expert take on this is no.  However, I do think there will be astounding discoveries about the brain – especially in the areas of memory, language, and the senses – that will enlighten us about the mind.
 
Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


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


User ID Password or create a free account.