An assortment of my philosophical ponderings.

 
On Thoughts...

Assuming that each existent is physical, and that we do, indeed, 'think', we *must* make the correlation that thoughts are based in the physical realm.

When you look at a firetruck, you can properly refer to it as 'red' even though there is nothing 'red' about the firetruck (it is a pattern of reflecting light-waves). In this context, however, red is a useful and true descriptor of the firetruck; you are making an abstraction of certain physical phenomona and neatly packaging them all into one little useful bundle: red.

What do we know of thoughts? Perhaps not enough, but, following the Objectivist understanding of reality, we *must* accept that each concept is an abstraction of reality (i.e. just like 'red'). In this case, thoughts are the conceptual abstractions associated with the chemical balances and electrical impulses of the physical brain. As with any other concept, you remove the 'degree' of measurement, so, each thought must have some content (a certain arrangement of neurons, etc.?), but can have any particular contents. Thus your thoughts are real, but only to the degree that they are abstractions of physical reality.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense, but perhaps its a start.
posted by onceuponapriori at 10:48 ص

 
This is a portion of a discussion on causality and freedom I am having at the capitalism magazine forum. You might want to look there for the full context of the discussion. Critiques are welcome.

"Your rebuttle, quoted above, is akin to the argument of fatalism, that thoughts and actions are determined by outside forces, that human consciousness is passive and reactionary. If this is the case, what is the first cause?"

Please clearly state what you are implying by questioning what a 'first cause' would be? Are you denying that each effect is proceeded by a cause? When the other posters are referring to the Law of Causality, they are not referring to the true (according to Rand) definition. It would do this discussion much good to understand how they are defining the Law of Causality:

Each cause has a resultant effect; each effect has a preceding cause.

Perhaps it would help to refer to it as the LOCb.

You properly defines axiom as "...a self-evident collolary, which, in trying to deny, you use." and then ignore the implications and definition that you stated (this may have been first stated by Tarin, if you disagree with the definition, please say why). The use of the concept 'axiom' must be strictly defined and only carefully used; else, everything becomes 'self-evident!' and 'axiomatic'.

"In attempting to deny free will, you will note that disagreement is possible. Since disagreement is possible, it shows that people have choice."

This does *not* necessarily prove the existence of Free Will. This simply means that something that *feels* like a 'choice' is possible; there is little or no sensory evidence to prove that some'thing' is occuring outside the causal chain (as described by the LOCb). I specifically state 'outside' because IF each effect has a *physical* (i.e. not spiritual i.e. not mystical i.e. *real*) cause, this extends to the machinations of consciousness.

"The very fact that I disagree with you shows that we have differing opinions which CAN change once one is convinced of the other's arguments. I am sure that you have noted this in your lifetime and can thus induce this on your own."

The fact that people's opinions can change says nothing about *how* they change. Is it Free Will? Perhaps, but this is certainly not *evidence*.

"Of course, your next question might be: what if we were preprogrammed to disagree? If everyone were pre-programmed in their opinions, then their opinions would never change."

This deduction is certainly not axiomatic. No one is claiming that some Greater Entity is programming the minds of men and preventing them from agreeing or disagreeing; the argument is that each thought that enters a man's mind is based upon some physical cause - a perception (causal behavior based on the identity of our perceptual organs) or an act of integration (causal behavior based upon the physical makeup of our brains). Thus, even the supposed primary choice, 'to focus or not' is determined by prior perceptions and thoughts.

"If opinions can change, what can explain this? Free will."

Chemical and electrical (i.e. physical) changes in the brain.

"To summarize, by denying axioms and engaging in this argument, you implicitly acknowledge disagreement and the possibility of convincing the other party to your point of view, which is possible only if free will exists whereby you and I can both choose what we believe in. "

You have yet to prove the axiomatic nature of Free Will. Simply referring to it as axiomatic does not suffice. You must prove it; unlike true axioms, proof does not presuppose free will. You must exist to argue, you must have consciousness (a faculty of identification and integration) to argue, but the same logic does not necessitate Free Will to argue. For instance, a computer *can* be programmed to 'disagree' until a certain condition is met; the same argument can be made for a man - that the physical condition (i.e. the integrated whole of all of the man's knowledge and prior experience) of the brain controls one's propensity to agree with a particular argument. (cont...)

"Do you believe in free will or not?"

This question was not directed at me, but I'll answer it 'for the record'. I *want* to believe in free will, and I *expect* to find some evidence or answer to my quandary, but I've yet to be convinced by any of the arguments I've yet been exposed to (including Peikoff's in OPAR). However, it may be possible that I am simply 'missing' some itegral part (i.e. that I have not 'thought it out properly'). I have not *rejected* the concept of Free Will, I've simply yet to be convinced of it *as we define it*.

"if...it were true that thoughts are determined by external stimuli, with no intervention by free will (as you state clearly above), and if thoughts determine actions, then NO ONE would be held accountable for ANYTHING...Just imagine the consequences."

This says *nothing* concerning the reality of Free Will, you are simply stating things how you'd *like* them to be, not necessarily as they *are*. This is the equivalent of a man in the 400 AD stating, "But if Celsus is correct, where will men get their morality?".
posted by onceuponapriori at 11:35 م

 
"Let’s say I see a boulder in the distance. It’s a boulder, right? But on closer inspection it turns out be made out of paper mache. Is it a boulder, a bundle of paper mache shaped like a boulder, or should the definition be a stage prop, perhaps? "

Again, a mistake in the identification process does not alter the underlying identity of the object. It was, in *fact*, a paper mache prop. Nothing more, nothing less. It would be an arbitrary assertion to state that the object was a boulder until closer inspection. You might even convince yourself and others that you are correct, but if you tried to hide behind it to avoid gunfire, you'd see just how objective reality is...

posted by onceuponapriori at 2:50 م

 
Statements fall into three categories: true, false, arbitrary. Consider again the identity of a painted, metal wall, and three statements pertaining to it:

1. That wall has paint on it. (this can be objectively proven; it conforms to reality, it is true.).
2. That wall does not have paint on it (this can be objectively disproven; it is contradictory to reality, it is false)
3. That metal from that wall is not worth much to me. (this cannot be objectively proven, it might conform to reality, it is arbitrary)

posted by onceuponapriori at 2:49 م

 
Concerning Objective Reality...

Reality is objective. Existence exists, existence is (identity) an entity, entities have identity, consciousness (*identification* and integration) presupposes identity...

We identify entities and their attributes with our senses, which are based on causal behaviours that are inexorably linked to the (absolute, non-cantradictory, existential) identity of each entity involved (retina,receptors, et al). Of course, this is an a priori exercise; our senses are the foundation of all proof (i.e. the foundation of our concepts) and thus their validity *must* be accepted to engage in *any* discussion (including discussions about them). To deny us our senses, is to renounce that denial as arbitrary; such claims *must* be dismissed out of hand by *rational* human beings...

An example of this?

The act of disagreeing upon aspects of reality *cannot* alter the identity of reality. Consider the following case:

Three men are brought into a room (Tom, Dick, and Harry) which has 3 curtains (1,2,3). Behind one of the curtains (2) lies a cash prize. The moderator of the exercise approaches each man, and explains to them the situation concerning the cash. Now, he approaches Tom and whispers, "Tom, if you split the cash prize with me, I'll tell you which curtain it's behind." When Tom agrees, the moderator *lies* and tells him the cash is behind curtain 1. He then approaches Dick, and tells him the *truth* (i.e. 'a statement that conforms to reality'), that the cash is behind curtain 2. Finally, the moderator approaches Harry, making a similar deal, and *deceptively* states that the cash is behind curtain number 3. He asks each man to write down his name and the number of the curtain he wishes to reveal.

Now, the 'primacy of consciousness' school would suggest that each man's answer is correct (true). This claim, as we know, is contradictory, and while each man may be acting *honestly*, he is not providing a *true* statement. It doesn't matter how much each man *wishes* or *believes* that the cash is behind each curtain; the only thing that matters is where the cash *actually is*.

Imagine the dismay as Tom and Harry so *honestly* give their predictions, and they are shown to be incorrect (*un-true*), constrasted to the jubilation (though anti-climatic) claims of Dick - who was expecting to win anyways.

As you can see, the "conflicting ideologies, theories and concepts" had *no bearing whatsoever* on the actual outcome of the game. This is the difference between the theories of objective reality and subjective reality; the *truth* existed independtly of the 3 men. Dick was correct and was in the possession of "objective truth"...

The actual position (or even removal) of the cash does not remove the feature of its identity that pertains to its location, it simply changes it. The location is based upon *where it actually is*, not where certain people *believe* (or *want*) it to be. Now, the producer could move it, but he is actually moving it; he is not capable of altering its properties without action to back up his desire to see its location be changed. So, if he moved it to curtain #1, Tom would in fact be the bearer of *truth*. If he removed it, *none* of the men could make such a claim, but that does not mean that it does not have an objective location.
posted by onceuponapriori at 2:49 م

 
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in
the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself;
and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." --Alexander
Hamilton
posted by onceuponapriori at 11:23 ص