The Number of the Beast

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

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

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

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

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