The Fallacy of "the Naturalistic Fallacy"

I will go step by step.

Warren wrote:

Rather, mental entities are an essence which derives from substances.

Now, according to you:

1.- "What is the Objectivist definition of "essence"?
1.1.- If essence is (at least in part) immaterial, how can immateriality derive "from substances" --namely, matter/energy?

(My answers:

1.- Objectivism has not a proper definition of "essence."
1.1.- Immateriality cannot derive from materiality. The "products of chemical reactions" are energy and matter, not immateriality.)

---

Warren also wrote:

Consciousness is not essence alone, or substance alone; but essence-married-to-substance.

2.- Could you define the essence of consciousness?

(My comment:

At the point when you define a substanceless essence, you will dissent from Objectivism.)

---

Warren also wrote:

Consciousness is an emergent property of our brain's neural network in conjunction with our central nervous system.

This is part of the irrational Objectivist mantra.

Let me explain.

In one link I recently provided you several times, which consists in an article written by a PhD in Solid State Physics, Dr. Marco Biagini,

"Scientific contradictions in materialism: emergent and holistic properties, complexity, etc." [http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/brainandmind.html ]

There you may read the following:

"In materialism, consciousness is considered a complex, emergent or macroscopic property of matter, but this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes."

In plain language: the so-called "emergent and holistic properties of matter" are descriptions of macroscopic physical processes.

Even simpler: "emergent and holistic properties of matter" are only about materiality.

You Warren are in fact defending a strictly materialist description of consciousness.

Indeed, you are defending the Objectivist one.

---

On free will, I asked to Warren:

"This is a denial of free will: if free decisions are not created from no-thing, but "it is all rearrangement of what was previously there", how can free will be free?"

And Warren stated:

The contention which lies in your question is tantamount to declaring: "For One to have volition, One must not be limited by any means of cognition or surrounding environment

But my question did not imply that: human knowledge of course has physical limits --in Warren's words, "preconditions"; but free will, per se, has no physical limits, because that would be a mechanistic --a determinist-- view of volition, and thus its denial.

For the record, my points on free will are:

A.- Our available information for making decisions is limited. (Approved by Objectivism.)
B.- free will of course has physical correlates within the brain.
C.- Free will is immaterial, and derived from the soul --an immaterial existent. (Warning: Objectivist anathema.)

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/03, 6:56am)

Post 181

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 7:32am

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness and that which you call "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."

Post 182

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 8:32am

Bob adds the following Randian quote:

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness and that which you call "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character."

Le'ts analyze it in its two definitions. About consciousness:

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness [...]"

Wrong. In non-lucid sleeping, a human is not conscious. Did Rand mean that we "loose our soul" while sleeping, and then we "recover" it in conscious dreaming and while awake? I don't think so.

Now, on free will:

"[...] that which you call "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not [...]"

That's an insufficient definition of free will.

Free will of course requires thinking; free will of course molds your character. But a more accurate definition of free will is the following:

The human, individual capacity of making moral decisions.

Two important points on free will:

A.- Free will can't have any material origin in order to really exist --the only alternative, a "free will" rooted in matter, would be ruled by the laws of physics, and thus, determinism, which is the denial of genuine free will.
B.- Without free will, responsibility and justice would be meaningless. Free will is the only reason that makes a man authentically responsible of his acts.

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/03, 9:00am)

Post 183

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 12:46pm

Rand:

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness and that which you call "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.

Joel comments:

"Let's analyze it in its two definitions. About consciousness:

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness [...]"
Wrong. In non-lucid sleeping, a human is not conscious. Did Rand mean that we "loose our soul" while sleeping? I don't think so.

No, of course not. By "consciousness," Rand does not mean simply a present awareness of an external world, (although consciousness presupposes the awareness of an external world, past and/or present); she means the mind, including the subconscious. One's subconscious, which contains information of which one is not presently aware, is part of one's "consciousness" in the sense in which Objectivism uses that term.

Now, on free will:
"[...] that which you call "free will" is your mind's freedom to think or not [...]"
That's an insufficient definition of free will.

Free will of course requires thinking; free will of course molds your character. But a more accurate definition of free will is the following:

The human, individual capacity of making moral decisions.

As I understand it, the reason Rand defines free will this way is that she believes that this is the locus of one's freedom - that all other choices are contingent on the choice to think - the choice to focus one's mind and to be aware of reality, which can itself be a moral decision.

Free will can't have any material origin in order to really exist --the only alternative is determinism

Why? If free will exists, it is a part of consciousness, and consciousness requires sense organs, a brain and central nervous system - in other words, a material body. If consciousness is an attribute of a physical organism, which it certainly is, then so is free will.

- Bill

Post 184

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 1:58pm

Addendum - all act of choice is an act of morality, because it is an act of chosing 'true or false', 'right or wrong', 'rational or irrational'.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/03, 1:58pm)

Post 185

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 2:05am

Robert Malcom wrote:

"all act of choice is an act of morality, [...]"

Not true. There are morally inconsequential decisions.

In example: typically, when dressing in the morning, choosing a pair of sockets is not a moral issue.

Joel Català

---

From a book of Ms. Rosenbaum's ancestors:

I have placed before you life and death, blessing and curse, and you should choose life (Deuteronomy 30:19).

---

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/04, 4:25am)

Post 186

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 6:35am

No, of course not. By "consciousness," Rand does not mean simply a present awareness of an external world, (although consciousness presupposes the awareness of an external world, past and/or present); she means the mind, including the subconscious. One's subconscious, which contains information of which one is not presently aware, is part of one's "consciousness" in the sense in which Objectivism uses that term.

I find it hard to believe in this day and age that someone still gives credence to refuted theories of Freud. Tell us more about this bogey-man called the subconscious that contains information of which we are not aware and affects us in unknowable ways.

Post 187

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 7:43am

Free will is a trick nature played on us to let us do all the work.

Post 188

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 7:57am

Ciro, at least you honestly opened the can of worms. Thanks.

The position of Ayn Rand & orthodox Objectivists is considering free will as genuinely "free." But that point of them is contradictory with their position with causation, in where they are 100% determinist.

For more information on this Objectivist contradiction, you may check this link.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/04, 8:07am)

Post 189

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 8:07am

Nature being parasitic, finds in religion its worst enemy!
(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/04, 8:08am)

Post 190

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 8:18am

[With a grain of salt:]

Congrats, Ciro: that was really Ayn Rand-ish!

Addenda: Italian food is (nearly) as good as Catalan food --we are less influenced by the Northern French cuisine.

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/04, 8:20am)

Post 191

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 8:43am

Addenda: Italian food is (nearly) as good as Catalan food --we are less influenced by the Northern French cuisine.

Ok, Joel, you just gave an example of free will!!
Bravo to you!!

Post 192

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 8:59am

Joel, let me make clear my position on free will: I say that free will is only possible in a deterministic universe. Can you imagine a soccer player while scoring a goal with his head the ball becomes a rock? lol

Post 193

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 9:09am

Your current position is shaky, Ciro. You said:

"Free will is a trick nature played on us to let us do all the work."

There, you can only mean two things: 1.- That free will is an illusion.2.- That we humans indeed have free will, and that it was 'created' by "nature" --whatever that god-like "nature" is.

"I say that free will is only possible in a deterministic universe [...]"

Translation: free will exists if and only if the universe is deterministic.

Your sentence is non-sensical. In a 100% deterministic universe, free will is impossible. To put it briefly:

If man is free, as man is part of, and actively interacts with, the universe, the universe cannot be deterministic.

Can you imagine a soccer player while scoring a goal with his head the ball becomes a rock? lol

Here, I will assume that you know that free will is a limited capacity of man --and not a chimerical property of inanimate objects.

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/04, 9:55am)

Post 194

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 10:04am

Joel, It is all explained in this link, by Roger Bissel http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/BissellRE/Objectivism_and_Determinism.shtml.
Mr Bissel's definition of free will is the only definition that makes sense to me--based on how I think.

Post 195

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 10:08am

Ciro, my definition of free will is exactly this one:

The non-physical, individual, human capacity of making moral decisions.

Ciro, could you please share yours? (For the record, I agree with Einstein in the assertion that "you do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.") Thanks.

For starters, free will involves that prior to the decision one could actually have done otherwise. Be aware that that is contrary to the Objectivist view of free will.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/04, 11:54am)

Post 196

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 12:10pm

Joel, I will, this evening, got to go now!!

Joel:The non-physical,
Please explain a little more what do you really mean by "The non-physical,"

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/04, 12:14pm)

Post 197

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 5:07pm

Joel, we are born with an innate capacity to feel pain and pleasure that’s the given, we cannot change that, and with this mechanism as only guide to survival we start our life as human beings. Why has nature programmed us this way? Why nature wants us to live? Has nature programmed us as we are for our own sake? I really don’t have the answer to such questions, but, I am prone to believe that it is not for our own sake--because we dye--we stop to exist, but nature will always exist in eternity. Man at some point was able to be conscious of existence, but he was never able to change it. Free will is the potential that each man posses to understand what is happening to him, and why. We know very little so far.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/04, 8:43pm)

Post 198

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 2:29am

Ciro:

We know very little so far.

I agree with you. (Note that modesty --"freedom from vanity or conceit" in dictionary.com-- is not one of the Objectivist virtues.)

Joel, we are born with an innate capacity to feel pain and pleasure that’s the given, we cannot change that,

Agreed. As I wrote in post #193, "free will is a limited capacity of man." Physicality is part of our limitations, and of course independent of human volition.

and with this mechanism as only guide to survival we start our life as human beings.

At the very start of our life, yes. But notice that when we (eventually) become responsible humans, morality should overcome hedonism. In example: a moral life typically means a less comfortable life.

Why has nature programmed us this way? Why nature wants us to live? Has nature programmed us as we are for our own sake?

You are wrong, here. Non-human 'nature' has no volition. 'Nature', per se, has no sake.

I really don’t have the answer to such questions, but, I am prone to believe that it is not for our own sake--because we dye--we stop to exist, but nature will always exist in eternity.

(We are digressing here. I don't know for sure why we live, either. But a transcendent point is that the universe is intelligible, and so, open to human understanding. I think that we are here for something, and that inanimate nature is instrumental to that something. Today, I think that something is to develop a creative & fulfilling partnership with the Creator.)

And here, your personal take on free will:

"Free will is the potential that each man posses to understand what is happening to him, and why."

This is not the definition of free will per se. But yes, this is one of the possibilities that free will opens to us: to ask for the ultimate why; that's philosophy!

Regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/05, 3:26am)

Post 199

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 2:54am