The Prerational and Premoral Choice to Live

Your happiness will increase as you accomplish more life sustaining action: your life, and those you love. You become less happy when you cease performing life sustaining action.

You can gain knowledge about how reality works in order to make better decisions. If the results of your actions aren't what you expected, then check your premises, and you will find a conflict in your knowledge that you can fix. Reality is concrete, and it doesn't conflict with itself. You can make your knowledge the same, because you are a part of reality.

Oh, and there is no limit to how much value can be made, or how many new tools can be invented. If you run into an opportunity to solve a problem, you can identify what it is, and solve it. I'm looking at our future, and it looks incredible.

People who perform life sustaining action will always flourish.

Have a great life!
Dean
Do you ever read back over what you said, and think, "Did I actually communicate something? It looks like all I did was say A is A."

Post 61

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 5:10am

Woman want to be with men who are assertive, who know what they want and make decisions. This is a trait of a man who is adapt in performing life affirming action. Don't you loose interest in a person if they choose, not for a reason (for the reason=life), but because of some other random thing?

Indeed, that's all its about. That's how some people are so successful. They simply figure out what life affirming action is, and then they do it!

Post 62

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 7:14am

In post #6, Phil said:

... I find that technical topics in philosophy seldom work well on this board.

Phil: You sure got it right for this thread.
Glenn

Post 63

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:53am

Dean, MSK, Cal, I'm going to try to prove Glenn wrong ...

I disagree with you guys regarding free will.

Will is a part of the intellect. It is commensurate with our conceptual faculties. Animals, lacking conceptual faculties altogether, have NO free will. Animals are beings that "life happens to" -- they are not conscious planners, dreamers of alternative (improved) realities, etc. They skip along from desire to desire -- and that is ALL that they do, in their entire lives.

Review my past battles with the notorious Nathan Hawking ...

http://solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/0454_13.shtml#269

the more recent thread on animal cognition ...

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0015.shtml#15

and my comments on the more recent article by Machan ...

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1540.shtml#1

... all of which regard whether or not it is absurd to postulate that sub-human animals conceptualize.

Ed

Post 64

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 11:09am

Ed,

Definition. Please define what you mean by "free will."

For me (and apparently most of the civilized world), being able to choose is not simply a conceptual matter. However a conceptual mind has a vastly amplified field of choice over a perceptual one. You wrote:

They [animals] skip along from desire to desire...

What on earth do they satisfy their desires with if not choice?

Simple example: Dog is sleepy. Sees food. Tail thumps but he is too lazy to get up.

He chose between two values.

(btw - This is a wonderful metaphor for the way some people think.)

Sorry, I can't do those Nathan things. They put me in a catatonic state where I lose my free will altogether...

Michael

Post 65

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 11:35am

Ed said:

Dean, MSK, Cal, I'm going to try to prove Glenn wrong ...

I disagree with you guys regarding free will.

Actually, Ed, you're proving me right; or, at least, you're making my point for me. This thread was started by Jason with a very specific topic: the difference between Tara Smith and Leonard Peikoff as to whether the choice to live is pre-rational or not. And now it's a discussion about free will. You can say that they're related. Sure, but everything is related. Shouldn't we first discuss whether there is an external reality, before jumping into ethics?

I don't think Jason's original question was answered, at least not to my satisfaction (I'm still thinking about it). It was a very focussed question and the discussion very quickly grew to encompass all of philosophy. I think this is what Phil was alluding to in post #6 (he can correct me if I'm wrong).

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 66

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 11:45am

Michael,

A successful definition of Free Will is arrived at via modification of the definition of "self-will" at m-w.com ...

stubborn or willful adherence to one's own [snip] ideas

In this manner then, folks will be able to will things that go against all probability. Folks will be able to will things that even go against their (moderate-to-long term) interests. It all has to do with their stubborn, willful adherence to their own ideas. Change the ideas, and you will change the specific, stubborn, willful adherences. But they are going to make their own choice, regardless of probability or actual, rational interests.

For me (and apparently most of the civilized world), being able to choose is not simply a conceptual matter. However a conceptual mind has a vastly amplified field of choice over a perceptual one.

Okay, but there is a category mistake here (a weak analogy). For "humans" -- the beings who have conceptual powers of awareness (which require prior perceptual power) -- we choose by using both powers of awareness. We perceive the beauty of a flower AND conceive of how it would make our loved one feel to receive it, and then make the choice to buy it.

Just because choosing involves both powers of awareness, doesn't mean that having just one power (perceptual) is sufficient to have real choice (fallacy of division).

What on earth do they satisfy their desires with if not choice?

With instinct. Again, from m-w.com ...

1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>

2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Simple example: Dog is sleepy. Sees food. Tail thumps but he is too lazy to get up.

He chose between two values.

Michael, I like the example (it's cute & very witty), but you're anthropomorphizing this dog (the category mistake thing). You are viewing the dog's "mental" and physical action as the same kind of mental and physical action that a human would've gone through, if his behavior had been congruent to that which the dog displayed.

Sorry, I can't do those Nathan things. They put me in a catatonic state where I lose my free will altogether...

RoRoRoRoRoR!

Ed

Post 67

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 11:49am

Good point, Glenn.

It is an objective fact that this thread has been hijacked. If anything, a separate thread -- merely linked to from this one -- appears to be the appropriate response of what can only be ascertained as a (likely unintended) Red Herring tangent.

Ed

Post 68

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 12:17pm

Glenn said:

"This thread was started by Jason with a very specific topic: the difference between Tara Smith and Leonard Peikoff as to whether the choice to live is pre-rational or not. And now it's a discussion about free will."

I have observed this happen in other discussions as well, it is also the point where I bail out and stop following the discussion. Why, on an objectivists website, where free will should be accepted as a metaphysical given, [why bother arguing the rational nature of man and his ethical behavior if all is "pre-determined"?], does everything degenerate into the "free-will" argument? Besides, even the term "free will" is redundant to me. We either have a "will" or we don't. If we do, it's by definition free.

I think "determinism" debates should only be on the "dissent" threads. I HATE ARGUMENTS ABOUT DETERMINISM!! There, I said it.

Mike E.
grump

Post 69

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:09pm

Ed,

Sorry. I don't agree with your definition of what choosing means at all. I will agree that you must perceive or be aware of something before you can make a choice about it.

But the other good people on this thread still want to discuss whether or not you can "choose" to live as a first cause, so I will not argue this point with you. (My vote is both, i.e., that the urge to live comes prewired AND you choose to live, even on a perceptual level. I'm not an either-or man when the reality I observe is not that way.)

I also don't agree at all that by observing the dog's preference for staying put, when he also shows all his habitual signs of interest in the food, this is anthropomorphizing.

Here's a hint. We love dogs because they CHOOSE us and growl at others. Ever heard of Nathaniel Branden's Muttnick principle of the dog CHOOSING to play instead of really biting?

And since when did you turn Japanese? The correct term is "LOLOLOLOLOLOL...," not "RoRoRoRoRoRoRoR..."

Michael

Post 70

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:16pm

Mike I can only say I'd like to sanction your post 68 at least 5 more times.

At least.

---Landon

Post 71

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:24pm

Now you know why I dropped out of philosophy in school, Mike E., not that I dropped out of philosophy in life - I had a life to live, and no time for such ivory tower cross-rantings... now, it's more like playing with crossword puzzles, only is more finding the words to gain the preciseness to refute such obviousness erroneous notions...
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/06, 1:26pm)

Post 72

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:34pm

That's it, with respect for Jason (and even Phil, & Mike, & Landon), I'm reopening that dusty ole' animal cognition thread. If any of you animals want to growl at me over there, fine, bring your claws then.

Sigh-ah-narr-ah [don't know how to spell it],

Ed

Post 73

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:37pm

Ah so, Ed - it's Sayonnara...[polite bow]...

Post 74

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 2:22pm

Glenn wrote,

This thread was started by Jason with a very specific topic: the difference between Tara Smith and Leonard Peikoff as to whether the choice to live is pre-rational or not. And now it's a discussion about free will. You can say that they're related. Sure, but everything is related. Shouldn't we first discuss whether there is an external reality, before jumping into ethics?

I don't think Jason's original question was answered, at least not to my satisfaction (I'm still thinking about it). It was a very focussed question and the discussion very quickly grew to encompass all of philosophy. I think this is what Phil was alluding to in post #6 (he can correct me if I'm wrong).

I wrote an on-topic reply (Post 43), which Ed commented favorably on--thanks, Ed! No one else has replied to it, including you, Glenn. If you thought my post was an insufficient answer to your question, I would have expected to hear from you. However, instead of responding to me, you are complaining about how the thread has been hijacked. Yes, it has been hijacked (let's take the discussion on free will to the appropriate thread, which already exists!), but you can do your part to keep it on topic, which is to reply to my answer, por favor! :-)

- Bill

Post 75

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:11pm

Bill,
Is there a statute of limitations on responding to posts? I consider the original question to be very fundamental and your answer deserves some thought on my part.

As to my complaining; I think you misunderstood my post. My complaint was not that the thread was hijacked; I expect that and have done it myself. It's that there seems to be little interest in addressing Jason's original question. As you pointed out; no one else responded to your posts. So, I pointed out that I agree with Phil that perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for "technical topics in philosophy", or, as Robert M called them: "ivory tower cross-rantings".
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 76

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 3:34pm

Ed:

Just because choosing involves both powers of awareness, doesn't mean that having just one power (perceptual) is sufficient to have real choice (fallacy of division)

But why should only a choice by a being with conceptual power of awareness be a "real" choice? The choices that animals have to make are just as real. In both cases there are several alternatives to choose from, and making the choice is a deterministic process, whether it is that of the animal with its more limited power of awareness (though calling it "only conceptual" is an unwarranted simplification, at least for "higher" animals) or that of man with its power of conceptual awareness. Both do ultimately make the choice they have to make. It's only while we can't predict what that choice will be that we call it "free will". In general the range of possibilities will be much greater for human beings, thanks to the possibility of abstract reasoning, so these have more "free will", but the notion applies as well to animals, depending of course on how sophisticated they are.

Post 77

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 5:04pm

Animals cannot act for their own self destruction unless organic wrongness - humans can, and many times do - that is the 'free will/choice' factor...

Post 78

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 6:28pm

Kind, not degree?

And defined by suicide?

Bullshit.

An animal cannot choose whether to use its perceptual faculty in the manner that a human can choose whether or not to use his/her conceptual faculty, but it can choose whether to use its other survival faculties in a given situation - and even how and to what extent to use them.

(Bear in mind that the conceptual faculty is defined in Objectivism as man's faculty of survival).

Michael

Post 79

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 12:56am