Then you will be happy in your delusions.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
To stand and fight? And what if you are no match for me?

(Leonid)8.By this post I'm closing my arguments on this thread.

(Nick)Yes, that is what some people do when they don’t want to learn. It’s what the bigot at the bar would do."

(Leonid)No,that just proves I have Free will and may close my arguments whenever I choose to do so.

(Nick)First, you have not many arguments to close down, just a lot of unsupported and repeated assertions. Second, if you do have free-will, your decisions demonsxtrate what kind of person you are. A coward decides to cut and run rather than stand and fight.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
"Leonid)8.By this post I'm closing my arguments on this thread.

(Nick)Yes, that is what some people do when they don’t want to learn. It’s what the bigot at the bar would do."

No,that just proves I have Free will and may close my arguments whenever I choose to do so.

(Nick)1."Yes, according to Skinner and other behaviorists and cognitivists, anyone who thinks actions have reasons, man can be conditioned to do all these complex things. It's a combination of his genetic code and his environment, his stimulus complex."

(Leonid)Skinner and company clearly exlude themselves from conditioned herd which they probably want to condition.What they refuse to realize is the simple fact that man cannot be conditioned to do things which don't yet exist,and man has to create them first.That reffers also to their own philosophy no matter how evil it is.

(Nick)No, they don’t exclude themselves. And, yes, man can be conditioned to do things which do not yet exist. Everything he does is a future event which does not exist before he does it. (I do understand, though, that animals don’t make discoveries which lead to industrial revolutions. That could be evidence for freedom in humans.)

(Nick)2."squirrels gather nuts for the winter"

(Leonid)-yes,they do,but they never make factories for caned food.They cannot create new tools. That requires volition. Thousands of experiments,as any respectfull etologist would explain to you,proved that animals act not on volition but on build-in mechanisms of behavior-exactly what Skinner ascribes to humans.

(Nick)I agree that animals do not act on volition. The question is, “Do humans act on volition?” I think they do, and I think I can back this with evidence and reasoning. I am only saying here that you, Leonid, have not done so. You haven’t really proven that animals are different in kind from humans.

(Nick)3."."Clearly Peikoff is treating “focus” here as a matter of choice."

(Leonid)-you could have noticed that Peikoff changed his position .And in any case Objectivist position is that focus is purpose-driven.
(Nick)So, he was either wrong then or wrong now. He contradicted himself, right?"-
(Leonid)why don't you ask him? This is his e-mail address leonard@peikoff.com

(Nick)But I’m talking to you now. Why don’t you answer?

(Nick)4."I don’t think you have demonstrated this difference."-

(Leonid)Suppose there is no difference.In such a case all this discussion wouldn't be possible.Sunflowers never argue. I mean you don't need proof for self-evident.Religious person's basis is blind faith. My basis is ubiquitous evidences easy obtainable by simple observation.-

(Nick)Religious people also think the existence of God is self-evident. Try to tell them different. They will act like you."

(Leonid)What you ask is to prove volition-meaning that one has to step out of his mind,to negate his volition to examine the matter and to prove these premises by means of unconsciousness.That obviously cannot be done.

(Nick)No, I’m not asking that at all. Stay in your consciousness or mind and explain volition.

(Leonid)I already described to you the difference between rational and mystical aproach.I can add that philosophy is not mind-game like chess or sidoku but science and like any science it based first of all on observations.

(Nick)Rand and company do not describe philosophy as science. They describe it as the foundation of science.

(Leonid)Volition is observable self-evident property of human mind.If one negates or doubts volition he undermines his own mind and therefore nothing could be proven to him.If it is no volition then it is no point to discuss anything.One doesn't argue with his parrot or computer.

(Nick)Do you mean that man does not have the volition or freedom to negate or doubt his own mind? Is he not free to doubt his freedom? This seems like a contradictory position. Are you going to evade and recommend that I email someone else?

(Nick)5."What guides that initial choice to be rational?"

(Leonid)Very shortly-man's desire to live.If,however, he has death-wish he doesn't have to make any choices,he doesn't have to do anything.Nature will take its course.

(Nick)Live can be a goal, just as a finished house can be the ultimate goal for a pile of wood. However, something has to put the wood together to make the house. What puts together the initial choice to be rational?

(Nick)6."Parrots can make sentences, but they don't use them in the appropriate way to demonstrate they understand them."

(Leonid)What do you mean? You don't understand "ecumenism"? This word has been specially designed to describe complex concept which obviously existed before this term has been created.

(Nick)“Ecumenism” has to do with furthering the Cjhristian religion.

(Nick)7."I think crativity can be explained with Chomsky's creativity principle, and this is a key to the explanation of freedom in humans, but Leonid is nowhere close to this. He is just maintaing that man is free and derisively dismissing the possibility that he is not.)"

(Leonid)I'm happy to learn from you that I'm nowhere close to Chomsky.I intensivly dislike this character for his political views and activities.In any case creativity is derivate of volition,no other way around.Many people live as parasites,not creators,but they still possess volition.

(Nick)People who discount what a person says about a scientific matter because they disagree with the person’s political views are not very objective. It would be like discounting what Rand says because she had an extra-marital affair.

(Leonid)8.By this post I'm closing my arguments on this thread.

(Nick)Yes, that is what some people do when they don’t want to learn. It’s what the bigot at the bar would do.

bis bald,
Nick

Leonid

1."Yes, according to Skinner and other behaviorists and cognitivists, anyone who thinks actions have reasons, man can be conditioned to do all these complex things. It's a combination of his genetic code and his environment, his stimulus complex."

Skinner and company clearly exlude themselves from conditioned herd which they probably want to condition.What they refuse to realize is the simple fact that man cannot be conditioned to do things which don't yet exist,and man has to create them first.That reffers also to their own philosophy no matter how evil it is.

2."squirrels gather nuts for the winter"-yes,they do,but they never make factories for caned food.They cannot create new tools. That requires volition. Thousands of experiments,as any respectfull etologist would explain to you,proved that animals act not on volition but on build-in mechanisms of behavior-exactly what Skinner ascribes to humans.

3."."Clearly Peikoff is treating “focus” here as a matter of choice."-you could have noticed that Peikoff changed his position .And in any case Objectivist position is that focus is purpose-driven.

So, he was either wrong then or wrong now. He contradicted himself, right?"-why don't you ask him? This is his e-mail address "leonard@peikoff.com "

4."I don’t think you have demonstrated this difference."-
Suppose there is no difference.In such a case all this discussion wouldn't be possible.Sunflowers never argue. I mean you don't need proof for self-evident.Religious person's basis is blind faith. My basis is ubiquitous evidences easy obtainable by simple observation.-
Religious people also think the existence of God is self-evident. Try to tell them different. They will act like you."

What you ask is to prove volition-meaning that one has to step out of his mind,to negate his volition to examine the matter and to prove these premises by means of unconsciousness.That obviously cannot be done.I already described to you the difference between rational and mystical aproach.I can add that philosophy is not mind-game like chess or sidoku but science and like any science it based first of all on observations.Volition is observable self-evident property of human mind.If one negates or doubts volition he undermines his own mind and therefore nothing could be proven to him.If it is no volition then it is no point to discuss anything.One doesn't argue with his parrot or computer.

5."What guides that initial choice to be rational?"

Very shortly-man's desire to live.If,however, he has death-wish he doesn't have to make any choices,he doesn't have to do anything.Nature will take its course.

6."Parrots can make sentences, but they don't use them in the appropriate way to demonstrate they understand them."

What do you mean? You don't understand "ecumenism"? This word has been specially designed to describe complex concept which obviously existed before this term has been created.

7."I think crativity can be explained with Chomsky's creativity principle, and this is a key to the explanation of freedom in humans, but Leonid is nowhere close to this. He is just maintaing that man is free and derisively dismissing the possibility that he is not.)"

I'm happy to learn from you that I'm nowhere close to Chomsky.I intensivly dislike this character for his political views and activities.In any case creativity is derivate of volition,no other way around.Many people live as parasites,not creators,but they still possess volition.

8.By this post I'm closing my arguments on this thread.

1."How do you know man is not conditioned to set goals and only thinks he is acting volitionally?"
Can man be conditioned to build rocket,cyclotron,to invent philosophy or ballpen? If he can then by whom or by what? Does it mean that all the things man may want in the future are programmed in his genetic code? If it so how it's possible? You can see yourself that this idea is absolute nonsense.

Yes, according to Skinner and other behaviorists and cognitivists, anyone who thinks actions have reasons, man can be conditioned to do all these complex things. It's a combination of his genetic code and his environment, his stimulus complex.

To want something means to set goals by choice,to project them into the future. This process is by definition volitional.One cannot set goals by conditioning since process of conditioning is providing ready set goals and exluding choice. But people make choices all the time.This is easy observable self-evident fact.Therefore man is not conditioned.Besides this idea is self refuting and circular. Does one conclude that" Our idea of freedom or volition could be just our ignorance of what causes our behavior. It could be an illusion or wishful thinking"-by conditioning or by wishful thinking?

No, squirrels gather nuts for the winter. This is setting goals for the future. Just because man thinks he is free, it doesn't make it so. To say something is self-evident is to cop-out on a proof or reason to believe. And, yes, we could even be conditioned to think we are conditioned. It makes more sense than spontaniously coming up with something out of the blue. (For the record, I think crativity can be explained with Chomsky's creativity principle, and this is a key to the explanation of freedom in humans, but Leonid is nowhere close to this. He is just maintaing that man is free and derisively dismissing the possibility that he is not.)

2."Clearly Peikoff is treating “focus” here as a matter of choice."-you could have noticed that Peikoff changed his position .And in any case Objectivist position is that focus is purpose-driven.

So, he was either wrong then or wrong now. He contradicted himself, right?

3."What guides that initial choice to be rational?"
First I don't think that it is such a thing as initial choice.One may talk about main or most important choice-to think or not to think.From experience,by try and error man learns that rationality is for his own benefit.

This is pragmatism, not Objectivism.

4."All life wants life." No. "Wants" means volitional setting of goals by choice. Sunflower doesn't choose to turn to Sun. It's programmed to do so. We are responding to stimuli but in different way-on conceptual level,volitionally.

Wants and just values, that which one acts to gain and or keep, and flowers and all living things value. It could be that man is just more complex, thus with a more complex program than flowers. There are scientists who explain human behavior this mechanistic way. It could be that you are just to proud to think you are nothing more than a complex machine determined by cause and effect.

"I don’t think you have demonstrated this difference."
Suppose there is no difference.In such a case all this discussion wouldn't be possible.Sunflowers never argue. I mean you don't need proof for self-evident.Religious person's basis is blind faith. My basis is ubiquitous evidences easy obtainable by simple observation.

Religious people also think the existence of God is self-evident. Try to tell them different. They will act like you.

5."It is not concept-formation until it is manipulated in a structure." I disagree. It is often happens that one formulates concept and then finds the word for it. The words like "electricity","radio" "television" "telescope" , and thousand others have been especially invented to describe new concepts.

So? Animals can associate certain sounds to certain objects or entities, but they can't make meaningful thoughts, as in sentences, with them. Parrots can make sentences, but they don't use them in the appropriate way to demonstrate they understand them. They don't substitute symbols into substitution frames and come up with meaningful thoughts never before uttered. Humans do, and this is evidence of freedom in human thought.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
1."How do you know man is not conditioned to set goals and only thinks he is acting volitionally?"
Can man be conditioned to build rocket,cyclotron,to invent philosophy or ballpen? If he can then by whom or by what? Does it mean that all the things man may want in the future are programmed in his genetic code? If it so how it's possible? You can see yourself that this idea is absolute nonsense.
To want something means to set goals by choice,to project them into the future. This process is by definition volitional.One cannot set goals by conditioning since process of conditioning is providing ready set goals and exluding choice. But people make choices all the time.This is easy observable self-evident fact.Therefore man is not conditioned.Besides this idea is self refuting and circular. Does one conclude that" Our idea of freedom or volition could be just our ignorance of what causes our behavior. It could be an illusion or wishful thinking"-by conditioning or by wishful thinking?

2."Clearly Peikoff is treating “focus” here as a matter of choice."-you could have noticed that Peikoff changed his position .And in any case Objectivist position is that focus is purpose-driven.

3."What guides that initial choice to be rational?"

First I don't think that it is such a thing as initial choice.One may talk about main or most important choice-to think or not to think.From experience,by try and error man learns that rationality is for his own benefit.

4."All life wants life." No. "Wants" means volitional setting of goals by choice. Sunflower doesn't choose to turn to Sun. It's programmed to do so. We are responding to stimuli but in different way-on conceptual level,volitionally."I don’t think you have demonstrated this difference."
Suppose there is no difference.In such a case all this discussion wouldn't be possible.Sunflowers never argue. I mean you don't need proof for self-evident.Religious person's basis is blind faith. My basis is ubiquitous evidences easy obtainable by simple observation.

5."It is not concept-formation until it is manipulated in a structure."
I disagree. It is often happens that one formulates concept and then finds the word for it. The words like "electricity","radio" "television" "telescope" , and thousand others have been especially invented to describe new concepts

Suppose, one travels from New York City to Los Angelos.He doesn't do it by migrant instinct like Norway salmon (human don't have instincts), neither has he done it by conditional reflex like Pavlov's dog and if he's not epileptic he doesn't do it as result of epileptic fit. One does things on purpose even if purpose is the journey itself. One wants to achieve certain goal, in other words he performs volitional action-contrary to salmon or migrant birds who don't set goals volitionaly, their goals are preprogrammed. The moment one set certain goal-to travel-he is focused on this goal. The setting itself is volitional-one may just want to travel-but what to do about it, how to travel-this decision is already matter of choice. One may consult maps, use GPS or decide about mode of travel like car, airplane, and train and so on. Waste majority of the people will be rational about that, no matter what their explicit philosophy or religion. Very few, if any, would drive at random hoping that God will provide guidance or waiting for revelation or just follow their heart, intuition, gut-feeling-inspite they are able to do just that. As a matter of fact most of the people choose to be rational in their practical daily life. They know implicitly from experience that this is the way to achieve their goals. What makes humans humans is rationality; this is essence of human nature, their only tool of survival. No man can survive by irrational means. However it is no "must" to be rational. Man may decide to be irrational and perish-as many people actually do.

How do you know all this, Leonid? You say it is so, but you offer no reason or evidence to support it. How do you know man is not conditioned to set goals and only thinks he is acting volitionally? Perhaps we are just like Pavlov’s dogs but more sophisticated. Our idea of freedom or volition could be just our ignorance of what causes our behavior. It could be an illusion or wishful thinking. How can you demonstrate that it is not?

Focus is not a matter of choice. Man always possesses some degree of focus- as Peikoff himself explained in his Q/A session.

Peikoff said, in OPAR, page 59, “The choice to focus, I have said, is man’s primary choice.” He goes on to explain “The choice to ‘throw the switch’ is thus the root choice, on which all others depend.” Clearly Peikoff is treating “focus” here as a matter of choice.

And finally to answer your question “from where does this inherent rationality come if man is initially a blank slate, according to Rand?"-rationality is not inherent, only ability to be rational, mental "software" is inherent. To be rational is a matter of choice to deploy and to use this software.

So, this leads back to my question. What guides that initial choice to be rational? It can’t be rationality if man hasn’t chosen it yet.

P.S.I'm not sure that animals want things, they simply response to stimuli on perceptual level according to their preprogrammed mode. To want means to set goals consciously and volitionally.

How do we know we are not similarly responding to stimuli we just can’t easily identify? All life wants life. Trees want sunlight and nutrients in the soil. It is what they value. Of course we don’t say they value it volitionally, and I think there is a difference in kind between other living things and man, not just a slope from lower to higher degree of sophistication. I don’t think you have demonstrated this difference. You merely insist it is there, like a religious person insists there is a god.

P.P.S How you concluded that my idea of concept-formation is labeling? What I said is exactly opposite-man may hold concept without to have the word for it. Word is concrete, perceptual expression of concept.

Having a word for something is labeling. It is not concept-formation until it is manipulated in a structure. Even non-human animals can associate symbols with objects and entities. That they can use these symbols in a structured form for communication and thinking is still inconclusive. Holding that children have concepts before they can manipulate symbols is holding something that can’t be proven.

Bis bald,
Nick

Leonid

Suppose, one travels from New York City to Los Angelos.He doesn't do it by migrant instinct like Norway salmon (human don't have instincts), neither has he done it by conditional reflex like Pavlov's dog and if he's not epileptic he doesn't do it as result of epileptic fit. One does things on purpose even if purpose is the journey itself. One wants to achieve certain goal, in other words he performs volitional action-contrary to salmon or migrant birds who don't set goals volitionaly, their goals are preprogrammed. The moment one set certain goal-to travel-he is focused on this goal. The setting itself is volitional-one may just want to travel-but what to do about it, how to travel-this decision is already matter of choice. One may consult maps, use GPS or decide about mode of travel like car, airplane, and train and so on. Waste majority of the people will be rational about that, no matter what their explicit philosophy or religion. Very few, if any, would drive at random hoping that God will provide guidance or waiting for revelation or just follow their heart, intuition, gut-feeling-inspite they are able to do just that. As a matter of fact most of the people choose to be rational in their practical daily life. They know implicitly from experience that this is the way to achieve their goals. What makes humans humans is rationality; this is essence of human nature, their only tool of survival. No man can survive by irrational means. However it is no "must" to be rational. Man may decide to be irrational and perish-as many people actually do.
Focus is not a matter of choice. Man always possesses some degree of focus- as Peikoff himself explained in his Q/A session.
And finally to answer your question “from where does this inherent rationality come if man is initially a blank slate, according to Rand?"-rationality is not inherent, only ability to be rational, mental "software" is inherent. To be rational is a matter of choice to deploy and to use this software.

P.S.I'm not sure that animals want things, they simply response to stimuli on perceptual level according to their preprogrammed mode. To want means to set goals consciously and volitionally.

P.P.S How you concluded that my idea of concept-formation is labeling? What I said is exactly opposite-man may hold concept without to have the word for it. Word is concrete, perceptual expression of concept.

(Leonid)If child wants ice-cream,toy,or even dummy-it's not volitional?

(Nick)Not necessarily. Non-human animals also want certain things, but Rand doesn’t ascribe volition to them.

(Leonid)He doesn't do it by reflex or instict.He wants the thing and act to get it- that means he acts volitionaly. Animals however are driven by instinct.

(Nick)First, to prove this, or even to build a case for it, you have to do more than simply say it is so. Second, Objectivists don’t like the word “instinct.” Nathaniel Branden, in the Objectivist Newsletter of 1962, denied that humans possess instincts, and attacked the concept of "instinct" as being scientifically unuseful and non-explanatory, even when applied to non-human animals.

(Leonid)Volitionaly doesn't mean rationaly. Many adults make volitional irrational choices, let alone toddlers.

(Nick)I never said otherwise. There wouldn’t be a choice to be rational if it weren’t possible to choose not to be rational.

(Leonid)However child can form concepts even before he learns to name them by words. It is very well known neurological disorder when person knows the concept but cannot name it. He cannot say "dog" but will describe dog's features.Children often say "I want that"-pointing to the object,unable to name it.

(Nick)There is much more to concept formation than attaching names to objects and entities. There is the manipulation of symbols, the substituting of symbols into substitution frames of subject and predicate. A child will not even be able to describe a dog’s features until he or she can do that. I agree with linguists such as Benjamin Lee Whorf and Susanne Langer, that language facilitates and limits our awareness and shapes our consciousness.

(Leonid)Regarding to your question " what guides that initial choice to be rational."-it very similar to the question about primary choice which I've addressed at lenght.

(Nick)This doesn’t mean that you dealt with it adequately.

(Leonid)The answer is that it is no such a thing as initial choice.

(Nick)Yes there is. It is the choice to focus or not. Peikoff talks about this in OPAR, but I’ve already quoted several passages from Rand and Branden talking about how man must choose to be rational.

(Leonid)It is main choice.Rationality is inherent in human nature.

(Nick)First, if human nature is determined by observation and generalization, as the nature of objects and non-human animals is, then it is also inherent in human nature to be irrational, since that is also what many humans are. Second, if man is rational by nature, he still must choose to be so, according to Rand. Third, from where does this inherent rationality come if man is initially a blank slate, according to Rand?

(Leonid) Child starts to learn about the world by rational means-he forms concepts-"table","dog","cat", "man", and so on by integrating his perceptional input. Then he learns to form abstractions from abstractions "animal",furniture","people".

(Nick)As I said, there is more to concept-formation than attaching names to things.

(Leonid)Irrationality usually introduced to the child in much latter stage of development in form of religion or mystical tales or in the high school as explicit philosophy.

(Nick)Explicit philosophy is generally not introduced in high school. In the rare cases that it is, it is a special elective. According to Freud, children are born irrational, with an id which must be controlled by ego and super ego.

(Leonid)As result most of the people have mixed premises.Implicitly in their daily life they are rational.Very few people would stay in the burning house and pray to avoid disaster.

(Nick)That’s not the best example of volitional rationality. Even dogs try to get out of burning houses. People like Gandhi, however, will stand and pray in protest while being stoned or on a hunger strike.

(Leonid)Their choice to be rational is implicit. But when it comes to explicit thinking they may become quite irrational. I think when Rand said that the main choice is to think or not she was talking about explicit decisions.

(Nick)No, it is not a choice to act on impulse, to leave a burning house. The choice to go back in to save a loved one or to subject one’s self to torture on principle, for a greater good, as Gandhi did, as Roark and Galt did, is an indication of volition.

Bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
"Leonid, no respectable child development psychologist would agree with your view that toddlers set their goals and priorities volitionally, unlike non-human animals do"

If child wants ice-cream,toy,or even dummy-it's not volitional? He doesn't do it by reflex or instict.He wants the thing and act to get it- that means he acts volitionaly. Animals however are driven by instinct.
Volitionaly doesn't mean rationaly. Many adults make volitional irrational choices, let alone toddlers.However child can form concepts even before he learns to name them by words. It is very well known neurological disorder when person knows the concept but cannot name it. He cannot say "dog" but will describe dog's features.Children often say "I want that"-pointing to the object,unable to name it.Regarding to your question " what guides that initial choice to be rational."-it very similar to the question about primary choice which I've addressed at lenght.The answer is that it is no such a thing as initial choice.It is main choice.Rationality is inherent in human nature. Child starts to learn about the world by rational means-he forms concepts-"table","dog","cat", "man", and so on by integrating his perceptional input. Then he learns to form abstractions from abstractions "animal",furniture","people".
Irrationality usually introduced to the child in much latter stage of development in form of religion or mystical tales or in the high school as explicit philosophy.As result most of the people have mixed premises.Implicitly in their daily life they are rational.Very few people would stay in the burning house and pray to avoid disaster.Their choice to be rational is implicit. But when it comes to explicit thinking they may become quite irrational. I think when Rand said that the main choice is to think or not she was talking about explicit decisions.

Have you ever observed dog throwing tantrums because it cannot get what it wants? Well,todlers are very good in it.They are humans and they are able to set their goals and priorities volitionaly even before they learn to master their language in full and they are very focused on their goals.
That why I define free will as ability to set and reset goals according to one's priority.The difference between todler and grown-up is that adults can do it (and sometimes,not always)do it rationally. According to Rand the main choice is to use rationality,to think or not to think.

Leonid, no respectable child development psychologist would agree with your view that toddlers set their goals and priorities volitionally, unlike non-human animals do, even before they learn to master their language. Children are motivated to act by emotion. They learn, by experience, what is pleasurable and painful to them and then act to increase pleasure and avoid pain, just as other animals do. They do not volitionally focus on their goals, set priorities, and then act rationally. They don't know what is rational and what is not until they experience it, pragmatically.

Plato may think that man already knows everything, from some prior existence, and merely remembers more clearly as he or she becomes more rational. Rand denounces Plato. However, when Rand says knowledge of axiomatic concepts is implicit in a human's first awareness, she sounds more like Plato than she wants.

You,, Leonid, still haven't told me what guides that initial choice to be rational. It can't be rationality if rationality is not yet chosen.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

Have you ever observed dog throwing tantrums because it cannot get what it wants? Well,todlers are very good in it.They are humans and they are able to set their goals and priorities volitionaly even before they learn to master their language in full and they are very focused on their goals.
That why I define free will as ability to set and reset goals according to one's priority.The difference between todler and grown-up is that adults can do it (and sometimes,not always)do it rationally. According to Rand the main choice is to use rationality,to think or not to think.

The degree of the focus is goal-depended.Goal or purpose,however is a matter of choice.Even toddler may decide that he wants ice-cream and doesn't want porridge.

A toddler who has not yet learned enough language to think conceptually is at about the same stage as a non-human animal, a dog or cat. According to Rand, these creatures do not have volitional consciousness. This is something she says only humans have. Well, where is it? Even a dog can decide that he or she wants meat and doesn't want water. Why is it considered reflex or stimulus response when an animal does it but choice when a human does it?

"Man is the only living species who has to perceive reality--which means: to be conscious by choice." (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 15) "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...your only freedom, the choice that...determines your life and character." (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, in For the New Intellectual, p. 127) "The issue," states Nathaniel Branden, "is a moral one, because man is a being who has to be conscious by choice." (Nathaniel Branden, "An Analysis of the Novels of Ayn Rand," in Who is Ayn Rand? pp. 61-62)"Man's particular distinction from all other living spieces is the fact that his consciousness is volitional." (Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 20)

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
The degree of the focus is goal-depended.Goal or purpose,however is a matter of choice.Even toddler may decide that he wants ice-cream and doesn't want porridge.

If focus is just raising the degree of one's focus, something which is done automatically, like walking or jumping or keeping one's eyes open; then it really isn't any more free than the choice of a non-human animal to do the same. Rand said this choice made man unique, that no other animal chooses or has free-will. If it is just a slide along a continuum, then man may be more sophisticated but not different in kind from other creatures. Is this right, Leonid? In other places, he and other Objectivists treat this choice to focus as a first cause. This would be a definite break with what other animals do.

Toddlers, according to Piaget and other child development authorities, are motivated by emotion and learn in stages by trial and error. Rand doesn't seem to like emotion as a motivator, but reason is learned by experience. It is not implicit in all awareness and self-evident upon one's first awareness. The toddler does not weigh all consequences of his or her actions and make rational decisions. It just moves and learns pragmatically what works best to satisfy its self-interest.

bis bald,

Nick

bis bald,

Leonid

That what Leonard Peikoff said about this issue in his Q/A sessions.Peikoff is doubtless represents Rand's position,doesn't he?

Q: How can the choice to focus be man’s primary choice, preceding his ability to think or evaluate? Wouldn’t he have to think and evaluate to decide to choose to be in focus?

A: This question has been answered at length in my best (and least appreciated) course on Objectivism, “Advanced Seminars on OPAR”, to which I refer you. In essence, the choice to focus is not a choice to go from total zero to purposeful awareness. Focus exists in degrees, along a continuum, and the choice to focus is the choice to raise the degree of one’s focus. In short, one must already be awake in order to choose to focus.

Moreover, neither thought nor evaluation is necessary (or possible) in order to choose to be in focus. It is in the nature of living entities to use their faculties, as part of their need to act (and thereby to survive). A toddler does not need to think about its desirability in order to walk or jump when he finds he can, nor does he need to induce, deduce, or evaluate alternatives in order to keep his eyes open. The same is true of opening one’s mind.

This is not Rand's position. If focus is always with someone, it is rather a meaningless term. It would be impossible to be unfocused. There is something called reflective thinking, which is really concentrating on a specific topic, and there is reflexive thinking, which is sort of being in a zone, allowing one's automatic functions to take over, one's subconscious. Basketball players don't concentrate reflectively on every movement they make. They don't have time. They let their training take over. They have the right reflexes. However, there is also the possibility of being distracted. One can be concentrating on something other than the task at hand. Some tasks are not done well when this happens. Michael Jordan couldn't play basketball well when some crank told him his mother was sick.

Rand was talking about the initial choice to focus. It is her contention that man has to choose to be rational. It doesn't happen automatically. This initial choice, however, must be baseless. It is not yet a rational choice because he has not yet choosen to be rational.

It is also a first cause. It doesn't have a reason. It is not consistent with cause and effect.

However, Rand uses this to condemn people. Since anyone who disagrees with her is, according to her, irrational, and man must be rational by choice, she is concluding that men who disagree with her are choosing to be irrational, or not chjoosing to be rational. They are denying the truth, which they know because it is self-evident, and are, thus, immoral.

People who point this out on this board get called kooks and such.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

... focus is always with you-even when you sleep...
I have observed this myself but can not say confidently that I always have focus when sleeping although it is possible that it is just not committed to memory.

The "Focus on choice" essay is interesting. I have some ideas to discuss about this when time permits.

Cheers

Reed

“Free will” is necessary for morality. One can’t be held morally responsible for something over which he or she had no choice. And, Objectivists claim to believe in free will, as do Christians. Christians offer us this story about how Adam disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and ate a fruit from the tree of knowledge. After that, he had knowledge of good and evil and the freedom to choose between the two. This gave him the capacity to sin, to make wrong choices. Well, how did Adam know eating the fruit was wrong if he didn’t have knowledge of right and wrong before he ate the fruit? Sure, God told him not to eat the fruit, but he wouldn’t have known that disobeying God would be a sin before he had the knowledge of what sin was. (Besides, if this was God’s plan, to give people freedom so that they would come to Him of their own free will, then Adam really didn’t go against God’s will. God wanted him to sin. And, as Ayn Rand said, holding all mankind responsible for the sin of Adam, something that happened long before we were born, is a sin against justice and fairness etc.)

Anyhow, back to the subject, Objectivism has a problem with “free will” similar to the problem of Adam not knowing about sin until after he ate the apple. Objectivists maintain that man’s “free will” is his mind’s freedom to think or not. Man is a being of volitional consciousness, and reason does not work automatically. Man must choose to use reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. To think or not is the choice to focus or not. However, if man’s initial choice is to focus, to think, to use reason, what guides that initial choice? He isn’t focused or using reason until after he chooses to be focused or using reason. Is that first choice guided by something other than reason?

Well Rand does talk about the sense of life and some pre-conceptual ways of choosing, and she and Nathaniel Branden talked about concept formation in children as they are becoming conceptual. She also alludes to man’s nature as man, that it is his nature to choose reason. However, I think the problem still remains. If man is bound by his nature and the causation of natural laws, then how is that initial choice free. Branden does talk about how it is a prime mover, a first cause. Does he prove it? When theists used first cause arguments to prove the existence of God, Schopenhauer said they were using sufficient reason as a taxi to get to their location and then getting out. It is not fair to say that everything has a cause except God, that he is an exception to the rule somehow. Is man an exception to the rule? (I think he is, and I have a long explanation, using Existentialism, linguistics, and Chomsky’s creativity principle. However, I’d like to see how Objectivists on this forum deal with this.)

What does it mean, anyway, to use reason and that reasonable people don’t disagree. If my fried gets into an airplane which crashes over the ocean and I don’t hear from him for a long time, it is reasonable for me to assume that he is dead. However, as he is bouncing around in the ocean, it is reasonable for him to believe he is still alive. We are both being reasonable, but we reach different conclusions. One believes A, and the other believes not A.

Another problem with using reason is that it doesn’t reach everywhere. If there are two or more alternatives which, when measured and weighed on the egoistic utilitarian scale, have exactly equal advantages and disadvantages, then what guides the choice? Reason won’t help. It also won’t help if we do not have enough information on which to apply reason. The older we get and the more involved with life we get, the more we find ourselves in this situation. A systematic philosophy which tells us to use reason won’t help us much.

Okay, this has been fun. I‘m presenting this board with several problems: 1. What guides one’s choice to use reason before one has made the choice to use reason? 2. Was Rand wrong when she said, through her characters, that there can be no disagreement among reasonable men, considering the example above? 3. What do we use when the choice is really free, when reason is inadequate or can’t be applied? I look forward to some lively but reasoned discussion on these questions.

Bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
"The choice for me, in this regard, is what to focus on."

And that exactly what I've said in my article "Choice and focus" on my SOLO blog.
"Awareness just happens - no effort is required and no effort, except going to sleep (maybe), can prevent it."-that because focus is always with you-even when you sleep.Observe how focus could be selective by one's priority. For example tired new mother may be in deep sleep inspite noise and light but weak cry of her baby would wake her up immidiatly.
No effort is required to focus your eyes and this is acquired skill.
P.S Please note:this essay is not written by me and I don't approve on every thing in this essay. If you want to know my position please read my essay "Focus and choice" on my SOLO blog.
Leonid

Reed, sorry, but from your last post, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.  But that's OK.  Don't spend any time trying to explain more, because I really don't think that continuing this conversation will be of any use. So I'm going to drop it.

good luck to you.

K

K

... something more precise than just thinking itself, but rather, the focusing of that thinking.
I am always conscious (or aware) of what I am thinking (axiomatic IMO) - if I "focus" on that then aren't I simply thinking about what I just thought? It all looks the same to me.

From Leonids essay... "Focus is a precondition on awareness". I have to disagree with this statement too as it contradicts my experience, awareness just happens - no effort is required and no effort, except going to sleep (maybe), can prevent it.

... imagine a perpetual state of wandering
I don't have to imagine that.

I'm not sure how "trance like states" or "evading reality" relate to Leonids essay or my response.

Cheers

Reed

I like the fact that this essay does present several views on free-will, but it doesn’t deal with them all fairly. Yes, there is the classical hard determinist view that all things are caused and free-will is an illusion, a myth. It doesn’t really exist. Smith’s defense for killing his aunt Millie is that it was predetermined, and he had not choice but to act according to his fate. There is the soft determinist position which holds that some acts are random, not strictly determined. However, this also precludes free-will since random acts are not determined by will. There are some who will say this exhausts all possibilities. Acts are either determined or random, and neither is conducive to free-will. So, free-will does not exist.

There are, as this essay points out, libertarian positions which try to redefine freedom to mean not externally constrained. If we are not tied to a chair, then we are free. We are also free to bend our fingers forward but limited in our ability to bend them backwards. All this ignores the mechanistic theory which says we are responding to cause and effect. It assumes that we deliberate and choose our decisions and ignores the possibility that we may be conditioned to make the decisions we do, even if we think we deliberated and came to our own conclusions. It’s hard to argue against this. Psychological egoism is one form of this. It is tautological, circular. How do we know we did something because we were conditioned to do so?- because we did it. How do we know we did it for self-interest?-because we did it.

There is also the radical libertarian position that all acts are free. We can never be victims of circumstance. We have to blame ourselves for everything. With total freedom comes total responsibility. Life is what we make of it. As B.F. Skinner might be a hard determinist, Carl Rogers might be a radical libertarian. It is also an existentialist view.

There is something to say for this last position, but I’m not ready to take total responsibility for everything that happens to me. I can be victimized. However, I’m not a total victim. I do have, as a human, a pre-existing nature which requires certain conditions for my flourishing survival. Among those are my natural rights. Within those parameters, however, I have freedom to participate in creating my nature. It is not fixed and finished as the objects I observe external to me.

“. . Freedom of the will, when carefully analyzed, means an existence without an essence, which means that something is and at the same time is nothing, which in turn means is not, and consequently is a self-contradiction.(3)”
I find this statement to be irresponsible. Something can have an open ended essence or nature, as I described above, and still have freedom of the will. It’s not necessarily all or none.

Rand’s position tries to have a strong determinist position but also a Roger’s type libertarian position. One has a fixed nature but also free-will. This is contradictory. It is like maintaining that circles can be squared.

Bis bald,

Nick

"My experience must be quite different to yours, I can not choose to not think, nor can I choose to be unaware of my thoughts. "

Reed, I think that your experience is the same for all of us. But as I understand it, I believe that what is meant to be assumed is something more precise than just thinking itself, but rather, the focusing of that thinking. While you are always conscious to some degree, you can choose to un-focus your thought process from the things you need or value most, and from what the proper course of actions should be to achive them best. In other words: evading reality.  

Something akin to when we let our minds wander, but imagine a perpetual state of wandering. Or for some, it might be purposefully keeping their mental focus on its most simplistic or primitive level (like the trance state the mystics get in from repetitive chanting). I think that is what Rand meant when she says a person can choose to think, or not to think; not that they're literally brain dead - but that their evading reality by not using their minds properly, and to its potential.

K

Leonid

... Each of us can observe that he can focus his consciousness, or relax it. We can pay attention, or not...

My experience must be quite different to yours, I can not choose to not think, nor can I choose to be unaware of my thoughts. The choice for me, in this regard, is what to focus on.

Note: I agree that I have free will but from my perspective conscious thought is hard wired and compulsory while I am awake.

Cheers

Reed

Leonid says to the kook, "Every discussion has to end, and I rest my case."

Thank God.

K

Leonid

I understand your position and I don't agree with most of your premises since I don't agree with existentialist metaphysics. Every discussion has to end and I rest my case.As farewell I bring to you summary of objectivist position on free will.[This was written for the Ayn Rand Institute's essay contest for graduate students, 1995. --mh]

The Objectivist Theory of Free Will
Imagine we are at a murder trial. Randy Smith is accused of killing his Aunt Millie. The defense admits that on the night of the murder, Smith had an argument with his Aunt, that he took a pistol out of his jacket and shot her. She died of the gunshot wound. Smith knew that the gun was loaded, that Millie was directly in front of it, and that he was pulling the trigger. He was not insane at the time, there were no abnormal chemicals in his brain, and he was not acting in self-defense. He killed her knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably.

Nevertheless, Smith maintains, he cannot be held responsible for his action, because, in the strongest sense, he could not help it. It was, he says, physically impossible for him to avoid shooting his Aunt. He argues:

Physics teaches us that all physical changes transpire in accordance with the laws of nature. Now my firing of the gun, along with my aunt's ensuing death, were physical events. So, if the dictates of science are to be accepted, these events were ultimately the outcome of events occurring in (say) 2 million B.C., together with the laws of nature. But it is not up to me what went on 2 million years ago. And it is not up to me what the laws of nature are either. Therefore, the consequences of these things, including my present actions, are not up to me either.(1)

Is this argument valid? If it is, parallel reasoning also applies to every human action, whether for good or ill. If so, then literally no one can control anything.

In the past two centuries of philosophy, three responses to this issue have predominated. First, there are the 'hard determinists', who agree that since determinism is true, free will is an illusion. These include, notably, Baruch Spinoza, who argues that there is no such thing as free will because "all things have been predetermined by God, not from his free will or absolute pleasure, but from the absolute nature of God"(2); and Arthur Schopenhauer, who argues more secularly directly from the law of identity:

[E]very thing-in-being must be something, must have a definite nature. It cannot exist and yet be nothing, it cannot be something like the ens metaphysicum, that is, a thing which simply is and no more than is, without any definitions and properties, and consequently, without a definite way of acting which flows from them. . . . But all this is just as true of man and his will as of all other beings in nature. . . . Freedom of the will, when carefully analyzed, means an existence without an essence, which means that something is and at the same time is nothing, which in turn means is not, and consequently is a self-contradiction.(3)
Those who have rejected free will have generally done so because they assumed, as Schopenhauer demonstrates, that free will requires indeterminism -- i.e., that man act without cause -- and have considered this idea irrational.

Their position is hard to believe, however. Throughout his life, every normal person deliberates, imputes responsibility, and recommends or proscribes courses of action. In each of these activities, he presupposes that alternatives are available to himself and others -- for it would make no sense to deliberate over what one had no choice about, or to recommend to a person what he either could not do or could not help doing, etc. So a second school of philosophers have held that, since man certainly does have freedom -- that is, he often has multiple alternatives available to him -- indeterminism must be true. Mankind, according to this view, constitute the sole exception to the law of causality.(4)

This view has its own problems. If my actions are not caused, then it seems they must be mere random, inexplicable happenings. A third line of philosophers, urging that this cannot be the meaning of freedom, have claimed that free will is, after all, compatible with determinism -- perhaps even entails determinism. They have sought to explain how this is possible by means of definitions of "freedom" that remove the apparent conflict. Usually they say that a person is 'free' if there are no external obstacles hindering him; if he is able to do what he wills; or if, had he tried to act differently, he would have succeeded -- none of these definitions imply the man's action is uncaused. Locke, for example, urges "that freedom consists in the dependence of the existence, or not existence of any action, upon our volition of it"(5), while Hobbes writes, "LIBERTY, or FREEDOM, signifieth, properly, the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments to motion," later concluding, "Liberty, and necessity are consistent."(6) Thus, the answer to the argument I put forth at the outset would be that Smith was free not to shoot his Aunt, because, if he had tried not to shoot her, then he wouldn't have shot her. This latter fact remains the case even if determinism is true.

But this last position grants us freedom only in a Pickwickian sense. It allows that Smith could have done otherwise than he did if he had tried to, while granting that, actually, he could not have tried to, and that, just as Smith maintains, given his circumstances only one course of action was possible.

Now the Objectivist theory of free will maintains the freedom of the will together with the law of causality, without resorting to the sort of redefinition of "freedom" that Locke, Hobbes, and others have found necessary. Objectivism affirms our freedom in the strong sense, in which "A course of thought or action is 'free,' if it is selected from two or more courses possible under the circumstances."(7) Unlike the previous views, however, the Objectivist theory does not assume this means our free actions are uncaused. Rather, when one performs a free action, the action is caused (generally, by one's values and factual beliefs), but other actions are still possible, because it is up to one which possible causes are operative in oneself.

Consider again the case of Smith, the murderer. The three traditional theories of freedom concur that, in order for Smith to have multiple courses of action possible to him given his circumstances, his action would have to be uncaused -- they agree, that is, that causality implies determinism. But according to Objectivism, Smith's action was caused (say) by his anger at his aunt; however, it remained possible for Smith not to shoot his aunt, because he could have not been so controlled by his anger. Many other people who get angry do not kill anybody; they have cultivated rational character traits, which they act on. Smith, too, could have chosen to act from more reasonable motives, and then he would not have killed Millie. For example, he could have thought about the consequences of shooting Millie, realized that these would be harmful, and acted accordingly. Thus, he could have chosen different causes for his actions.(

But why did Smith act on the motives he did, instead of more rational ones? Was there also some cause of this choice? At this point, it becomes evident that there must be either an infinite regress of choices, or else some primary choice, which gives rise to the others -- a choice about which one cannot ask further, why the person made that choice. Here Objectivism's second unique feature appears, that of identifying the primary choice as the choice to focus one's consciousness. Whereas previous writers have generally focused on man's physical actions as the locus of freedom, Rand recognizes that such external actions presuppose some previous mental activity. In order to act, one must first identify possible courses of action, how to carry them out, and what one wants to achieve. Hence, physical action presupposes awareness. Rand calls the state in which one's mind is alert and prepared to acquire information, "focus". Focus is a precondition on awareness. Furthermore, she recognizes that this state is achieved only through specific mental effort. Hence, the primary choice, without which other choices are impossible, must be the choice to focus one's consciousness. Without such a choice, one would be unaware of the possibilities of action.(9) This makes the Objectivist theory of free will uniquely epistemological, in the sense that it identifies the volitional nature of awareness as the source of man's free will.

Finally, Objectivism makes two observations about the validation of the theory of free will. Rand does not attempt to give a positive proof that our wills are free. Rather, in the first place, she observes that the fact of free will is available to introspection. Each of us can observe that he can focus his consciousness, or relax it. We can pay attention, or not. It would be out of place to ask for a proof of this fact, in the same way that it would be out of place to ask for a proof that trees exist, if you are standing in front of one, looking at it -- not because the fact is unknowable, but because it is known directly, rather than needing to be derived from something else.

Second, Rand argues that it is not possible consistently to deny that one has free will. Every human choice and every evaluation presupposes it. One cannot deliberate about something, unless one thinks it is within one's power to do it or not do it; one also can not say that something 'should' or 'shouldn't' be done, unless it is possible for it to be done or not be done. Consequently, if one is deliberating about whether to believe in free will or not, then one is already committed to its existence. Nor can the determinist tell us that we should accept determinism. Nor can he claim that he is advocating determinism because it is true -- since on his view, he is advocating determinism only because some blind factors beyond his control force him to advocate it. Thus, the determinist's position appears to devolve into incoherence, as soon as he tries to assert it.(10) This is not, strictly, a proof of the freedom of the will, however.(11) What it shows is that, in order to argue about free will (even to deny it), one has to already implicitly know that one has it; therefore, one must have learned it by some means other than argument -- in particular, Rand holds, one learns it by direct observation.

Notes
1. Cf. Peter van Inwagen's argument in An Essay on Free Will p. 222.

2. Ethics, appendix. See also his proposition 32.

3. From his "Essay on the Freedom of the Will".

4. See, for example, Duns Scotus, Thomas Reid, and Immanuel Kant for this view.

5. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, chapter xxi, section 27; italics Locke's.

6. Leviathan, chapter XXI.

7. Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (hereafter: OPAR) (New York: Penguin, 1991), p. 55.

8. OPAR, pp. 65-7.

9. OPAR, pp. 55-60.

10. OPAR, pp. 69-72.

11. Aristotle calls this kind of argument "negative demonstration", as opposed to demonstration proper. See Metaphysics IV.4, where he argues that a person cannot deny the law of non-contradiction without implying its truth.

P.S I don't agree with the argument for primary choice.I'd say that the cause why Smith shouldn't kill his aunt is that Smith's final cause-existence and identity as rational beign demands that,but Smith has to act volitionaly to execute this demand.

(Nick)1."First, I did explain that the law of identity is a procedural rule for communication and thinking and does not necessarily represent reality."
(Leonid)Yes, you did,but you never explained how reality could exist without identity.If it couldn't then the law of identity is not procedural rule but axiom of existence.
(Nick)Reality exists as unidentified phenomena. We give parts of it names like “gravity” and “Uranium.” We observe and classify. We deem certain entities “man.” I did talk about all this in my essay on perception, logic, and language. It is not like we discover something, read the label, and know its identity. We create identities for phenomena we discover. That’s what subjects do to objects.
(Nick)2."Second, I did explain about natures and how they are determined by observation and generalization, not by the grammatical structure of the statement, like A is A. I said that sometimes natures are not fixed or even recognizable."
(Leonid)And you are wrong.Natures aren't determined by observation or generalization.They simply exist and possess their identities regardless of observer. Your statement amount to recognition of the primacy of consciousness.
(Nick)Phenomena exists independent of observers and does what it does, but it is the observers who impose natures, artificial classifications, onto this phenomena. It’s existence prior to essence, a catch phrase of Existentialism. If no sensing being is there when a tree falls, it wouldn’t make a sound, so they say. The world exists in our light. If we didn’t exist, neither would it, as we know it. We are existentially prior to that of which we are aware. This is primacy of us, not of consciousness. And, we also get things a little wrong. We have to go back and adjust our categories and artificial natures. To us, the world was once flat. Who knows what adjustments will be made in the next hundred years?
(Nick)3."I said that sometimes natures are not fixed or even recognizable. It is not always the case that if A, then B. It could be that if A, then C or D or something else. Sometimes nature is just whatever an entity does, and it is not predictable"
(Leonid)What you imply here is that entities may undergo change,condition of interaction also could be different. But in any case "if A then B" will always be valid in the given time and given circumstances. Scientists call it reproducability of results. Without this criteria no experiment is valid.
(Nick)That given time and given circumstance is a snapshot in a state of affairs which is in constant flux. Experiments are empirical and inductive. Results are probable but not absolute. (I’ve spoken before about how science is pragmatic.) And, there is the assumption of a uniformity in nature, but it is only an assumption. I gave examples in part one of the Alice series of when this assumption breaks down.
(Leonid)Predictability is not metaphysical but epistomological problem.Man is not omniscient."A is A" is not arbitrary grammatical structure but expression of fundamental Law of existence.
(Nick)No, as Aristotle meant it, the law of identity is a procedural rule for communication and thinking. BTW, laws of existence are the subject matter of metaphysics. How we know is the subject matter of epistemology.
(Nick). It cannot be A is A applied to action. You’ve done nothing to refute this. You only ignore my explanations and repeat your Randian catechism."
(Leonid)You also ignore my question: if things don't act and interact according to their identity then according to what they do it ? Your approach eliminate casuality altogether.You refute yourself.
(Nick)You eliminate complete causality when you talk about first causes and free-will. You refute yourself. Things do what they do. Putting identities and natures on them is what we do, to a large extent. (In NickOtani’s Neo-Objectivism, I do hold that there is a human nature which is generalizable, as true for humans in Asia as it is for humans in Spokane, but there is much freedom to become, to participate in creating one’s own nature, within those parameters.)
(Nick)3. "You ignored everything I said about how it is impossible to turn one’s eyes back in on themselves to observe completely that which observes."
(Leonid)And tell me why it is impossible? Don't you have memories,contemplations,don't you ever try to understand your emotions.How you can refute introspection when it is part of everyday human life?
(Nick)I’m not saying we can’t observe ourselves to some extent, but we can’t do it to the extent that we observe objects, the in-themselves. We do not have fixed natures. We can never get to the end of ourselves because we cannot turn our eyes back in on themselves to observe that which observes. It would be like a yard stick measuring itself. Man is the measure of all things, but not himself.
(Nick)4."Nick)If something doesn’t have an antecedent cause, it is a first cause. Many scientists believe there is not such a thing, that it is mysticism. You insist it is not, but you don’t prove it. You just maintain it, like someone with blind faith."
(Leonid)What is antecedent cause for the organism to heal itself?
what is antecedent cause for sunflower to turn to Sun,for lioness to hunt and for you to send your posts.If you can name it then you are right.
(Nick)All these things have to do with the interaction of internal biology with external stimuli as the organism strives for flourishing survival, the intrinsic goal. The most plausible theory is that it is mechanistic, even if we do not have enough knowledge about what causes what to reproduce a living entity from synthetic parts. If things do not happen by magic, they happen as a result of cause and effect, and that means all things have antecedent causes.
(Nick)" Some scientists maintain that all behavior can be so explained, that all actions have reasons. If that is true, then free-will is a myth. It is inconsistent to maintain causality and also free-will and first causes."
(Leonid)All actions have causes but not all causes are antecedent.
(Nick)That’s a contradiction. I know you are thinking that flourishing survival is a final cause, not antecedent, and it is enough to explain all behavior of living things, but it is only a goal toward which internal and external interactions strive. Some antecedent causes cause living things to pursue life.
(Leonid)If free will has final ,not antecedent cause then it is consistent with casuality which is human identity applied to action.
(Nick)A free choice is baseless, with nothing impacting it at all. It is forging a path where none exists or choosing among paths which all have equal consequences. It is like the Objectivists’ initial choice to focus.
(leonid)5.I retract "dishonesty". Intellectual slopiness would be enough.Your conditional statement was unwarranted since my position on this matter was very well known to you.
(Nick)I have several positions about which I have written extensively on this forum and should be well known to you, but you constantly over look or ignore them. Intellectual sloppiness is evident when someone calls someone dishonest and retracts it only after several posts in which the accused has to drive home the point that he is not guilty. It is also evident by the number of mistakes in spelling and grammar someone makes. I do have the occasional error, but you, Leonid, seem much less careful than I. In this post alone, you misspelled epistemological, causality, and sloppiness. That would seem a bit sloppy to most people.

bis bald,
Nick

Leonid

1."First, I did explain that the law of identity is a procedural rule for communication and thinking and does not necessarily represent reality."

Yes, you did,but you never explained how reality could exist without identity.If it couldn't then the law of identity is not procedural rule but axiom of existence.

2."Second, I did explain about natures and how they are determined by observation and generalization, not by the grammatical structure of the statement, like A is A. I said that sometimes natures are not fixed or even recognizable."

And you are wrong.Natures aren't determined by observation or generalization.They simply exist and possess their identities regardless of observer. Your statement amount to recognition of the primacy of consciousness.

3."I said that sometimes natures are not fixed or even recognizable. It is not always the case that if A, then B. It could be that if A, then C or D or something else. Sometimes nature is just whatever an entity does, and it is not predictable"

What you imply here is that entities may undergo change,condition of interaction also could be different. But in any case "if A then B" will always be valid in the given time and given circumstances. Scientists call it reproducability of results. Without this criteria no experiment is valid.Predictability is not metaphysical but epistomological problem.Man is not omniscient."A is A" is not arbitrary grammatical structure but expression of fundamental Law of existence.
". It cannot be A is A applied to action. You’ve done nothing to refute this. You only ignore my explanations and repeat your Randian catechism."
You also ignore my question: if things don't act and interact according to their identity then according to what they do it ? Your approach eliminate casuality altogether.You refute yourself.

3. "You ignored everything I said about how it is impossible to turn one’s eyes back in on themselves to observe completely that which observes."

And tell me why it is impossible? Don't you have memories,contemplations,don't you ever try to understand your emotions.How you can refute introspection when it is part of everyday human life?

4."Nick)If something doesn’t have an antecedent cause, it is a first cause. Many scientists believe there is not such a thing, that it is mysticism. You insist it is not, but you don’t prove it. You just maintain it, like someone with blind faith."

What is antecedent cause for the organism to heal itself?
what is antecedent cause for sunflower to turn to Sun,for lioness to hunt and for you to send your posts.If you can name it then you are right." Some scientists maintain that all behavior can be so explained, that all actions have reasons. If that is true, then free-will is a myth. It is inconsistent to maintain causality and also free-will and first causes."

All actions have causes but not all causes are antecedent.
If free will has final ,not antecedent cause then it is consistent with casuality which is human identity applied to action.

5.I retract "dishonesty". Intellectual slopiness would be enough.Your conditional statement was unwarranted since my position on this matter was very well known to you.

(Nick)"I’m still waiting for you to show me how to get from A is A to if A, then B."

(Leonid)This is simply means that things have identity and act or interact according to it.Without A=A and B=B cannot be if A then B.It would be no A,no B,no identity,no casuality,no existence.

(Nick)One reason why things here keep going in a circle is because you, Leonid, ignore my explanations and attempts to move beyond this dogma to which you keep returning. First, I did explain that the law of identity is a procedural rule for communication and thinking and does not necessarily represent reality. It allows variables to maintain their identity throughout the argument. It doesn’t mean that the things the variables symbolize maintain their identities. You’ve done nothing to refute this. You ignore it. Second, I did explain about natures and how they are determined by observation and generalization, not by the grammatical structure of the statement, like A is A. I said that sometimes natures are not fixed or even recognizable. It is not always the case that if A, then B. It could be that if A, then C or D or something else. Sometimes nature is just whatever an entity does, and it is not predictable. In such cases, nature is either not known or non-existent. In any case, this is not the same as A is A. It cannot be A is A applied to action. You’ve done nothing to refute this. You only ignore my explanations and repeat your Randian catechism.

(Nick)" She sloughs over the distinction between extrospective and introspective awareness. "

(Leonid)Extrospection-awareness of what is exist.Introspection-awareness of content of one own consciousness-perception,tought,memory and so on by means of integration,not break down.Rand never spoke about analizing consciousness as axiom.What she said that one may observe it by means of introspection and formulate concepts about different aspects of consciousness by means of integration.There is no contradiction to observe existence which is also axiom, and to make concepts about its attributes.The same thing applies to consciousness.

(Nick)You ignored everything I said about how it is impossible to turn one’s eyes back in on themselves to observe completely that which observes. Rand slides over the problems with introspection, and you do not even deal with them or my argument. And, Rand did say one cannot analyze consciousness, but she does so anyway. It is a contradiction. Attributes or component parts are not the same as elements. There are elements of existence, like every object that exists. There are elements of consciousness, the elements of existence of which we are aware. These are not the same as the attributes or component parts of content and action, the categories into which these elements are categorized. I have spoken of this before, and you have done nothing to refute it. You just keep returning to old rationales.

(Nick)"Free-will is inconsistent with unbroken cause and effect."

(Leonid)Not if you understand the difference between determinism and casuality.

(Nick)If things are caused, they are determined.

(Leonid)Free will is an example of one of these cases in which entity acts without antecedent cause.

(Nick)If something doesn’t have an antecedent cause, it is a first cause. Many scientists believe there is not such a thing, that it is mysticism. You insist it is not, but you don’t prove it. You just maintain it, like someone with blind faith.

(Leonid)Uranium decay doesn't have antecedent cause,its action is inherent to its nature,so is the action of magnet.Stars are burning for billions of years without anything which is outside of them causes their actions.

(Nick)Not true. Scientists theorize there are reasons within the atomic and subatomic particles which cause Uranium decay, as well as the decay of other materials and the actions of magnets and stars. They may not know the exact cause of everything, but their mechanistic model is not refuted. It is still more plausible than things happening without reason, as in mysticism and magic.

(Leonid)Living things's action is driven by their final cause-survival.Free will is inconsistent with determinism that is antecedent cause,but perfectly consistent with Man's final cause-to exist as rational beign.Free will doesn't require validation,all validations based on it.However any attempt to place the source of free will outside of the realm of human consciousness-be it world of Tao,Becoming or quantum mechanics means that free will has antecedent cause which is contradiction in terms.

(Nick)The final cause or intrinsic goal of all living things is flourishing survival, but that goal is not enough to explain all behavior. There is interaction with genetic unfolding and external stimuli as it moves toward flourishing survival. Some scientists maintain that all behavior can be so explained, that all actions have reasons. If that is true, then free-will is a myth. It is inconsistent to maintain causality and also free-will and first causes.

(Nick)"She(Rand) departs from the strictly mechanistic views as soon as they conflict with her views. However, this means she is inconsistent. One has to be inconsistent to believe in complete causality and also first causes and free-will."

(Leonid)Rand couldn't depart from mechanistic views since she never had any such views and one doesn't have to be inconsistent if one understands the nature of casuality as identity applied to action.Identity of Man is of such a nature that he can act only via free will.The cause of free will is Man's final cause-to be rational being,the only way he can survive.

(Nick)Anyone who talks about the importance of causality is doing so in the context of a mechanistic view, where cause and effect take effect. However, when they talk about first causes and free-will, they leave the mechanistic view and become inconsistent. Rand seems part mechanistic and rational and part idealistic and mystical. Basically, she is just all messed up.

(Nick)"All you had to do was clarify that you were not saying that all living entities had free-will but that they did have first cause."

(Leonid)But I've said it times and again and you knew that before you've made your assumption,thus it was deliberate misinterpretation.So you shouldn't complain.And you shouldn't flatter yourself by thinking that you are exposing flaws in Objectivism.You simply don't understand and misinterpret it.

(Nick)I didn’t even make an assumption. I said, “If you are saying all living things have free-will, then you are not talking about Objectivism.” This is not an assumption, not an ascription, not a misinterpretation, not a misquote. It is a conditional statement. If you don’t meet the condition, all you have to do is say so, not make false accusations and call me dishonest. I am exposing flaws in Objectivism and flaws in your comprehension skills and honor.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
1."I’m still waiting for you to show me how to get from A is A to if A, then B."
This is simply means that things have identity and act or interact according to it.Without A=A and B=B cannot be if A then B.It would be no A,no B,no identity,no casuality,no existence.

2." She (Rand) sloughs over the distinction between extrospective and introspective awareness. "
Extrospection-awareness of what is exist.Introspection-awareness of content of one own consciousness-perception,tought,memory and so on by means of integration,not break down.Rand never spoke about analizing consciousness as axiom.What she said that one may observe it by means of introspection and formulate concepts about different aspects of consciousness by means of integration.There is no contradiction to observe existence which is also axiom, and to make concepts about its attributes.The same thing applies to consciousness.

3."Free-will is inconsistent with unbroken cause and effect."
Not if you understand the difference between determinism and casuality.
Free will is an example of one of these cases in which entity acts without antecedent cause.Uranium decay doesn't have antecedent cause,its action is inherent to its nature,so is the action of magnet.Stars are burning for billions of years without anything which is outside of them causes their actions.Living things's action is driven by their final cause-survival.Free will is inconsistent with determinism that is antecedent cause,but perfectly consistent with Man's final cause-to exist as rational beign.Free will doesn't require validation,all validations based on it.However any attempt to place the source of free will outside of the realm of human consciousness-be it world of Tao,Flux or quantum mechanics means that free will has antecedent cause which is contradiction in terms.

4."She(Rand) departs from the strictly mechanistic views as soon as they conflict with her views. However, this means she is inconsistent. One has to be inconsistent to believe in complete causality and also first causes and free-will."

Rand couldn't depart from mechanistic views since she never had any such views and one doesn't have to be inconsistent if one understands the nature of casuality as identity applied to action.Identity of Man is of such a nature that he can act only via free will.The cause of free will is Man's final cause-to be rational being,the only way he can survive.

5."All you had to do was clarify that you were not saying that all living entities had free-will but that they did have first cause."
But I've said it times and again and you knew that before you've made your assumption,thus it was deliberate misinterpretation.So you shouldn't complain.And you shouldn't flatter yourself by thinking that you are exposing flaws in Objectivism.You simply don't understand and misinterpret it.

(Leonid)1.Nick it is nowhere I implicated that all living things have free will.If you can demonstrate where and how I wanted to say that then I apologize.Until then I consider your statement as malicious misinterpretation since you know very well that I didn't and couldn't want to say such a thing.

Let’s go back and review the record:
I said, "If man’s nature doesn’t have antecedent cause, then man is a first cause of his behavior. This requires a break in the chain of causality. If there is no break, then there has to be determinism. Either way, there are unanswered questions. How can one believe in cause and effect and also suspend belief in it when it comes to men acting from free-will? How can this be rationally consistent?"
You said, “You have answered your question-man is a first cause of his behavior and not only man but every living thing.Life's identity is essentialy different from that of unanimated matter and so its casuation. It is not a break in Laplace casuality but different kind of casuality alltogether.For example I cannot predict whether you're going to answer my post or not.Does it means that you don't have fixed nature?”
I said, “First, Rand and company do not hold that non-human entities have free-will. This is something reserved for conceptual beings, humans, according to Rand and company. If you want to say it applies to all living things, then you are not talking about Objectivism.”

Notice that I did not misquote you. I was asking how one can be consistent and also believe in cause and effect with free-will, which requires first cause, a break in cause and effect. You said that I answered my own question, that man is first cause and not only man but every living thing. I said that Rand and company do not hold that non-human entities have free will. I said that if you want to say it applies to all living things, then you are not talking about Objectivism. In your next post, you accused me of misquoting you and called me dishonest. The statement, “If you want to say it applies to all living things, then you are not talking about Objectivism,” is not a misquote, not an ascription of what you said, not a malicious misinterpretation. It is a natural statement to make given its context. All you had to do was clarify that you were not saying that all living entities had free-will but that they did have first cause. You would still be w