About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, now it's time to for me to ask you what you had asked me: "Please read what I say carefully and try to understand my argument." ...


Ed, if you decide after focusing on an issue that it's not worth thinking about, then you won't think about it. I'm not saying that you have to think about an issue once you've focused on it, if that's what you're suggesting.
When I said that you've said that, after focusing, someone will do what that want to (whether it's to think or not to think), I wasn't saying that you say that they'd have to think at all. Just the opposite. Instead, my criticism of your notions here is -- as it has been all along! -- that you give unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking (i.e., that you even go so far as to "extract intellectuality"). It surprises me that you'd miss that.

I'm not choosing to believe as false an idea that I'm convinced is true. You can claim that people make this kind of choice, but I've never done it, and I don't see how it's possible for anyone else to do it either.
Actually, the kind of choice that I claim folks make all the time is not one of "choosing to believe as false an idea that they're convinced is true" -- and I'm surprised that you'd characterize my position that way. My point about there being no choice in the matter in certain instances -- e.g., after one knows that 2+2=4, for example -- should have made this clear to you. Rather, my point about folks choosing not to conclude (i.e., choosing to suspend judgment) deals with:

=========
(1) all matters of opinion

and

(2) matters of fact wherein incomplete knowledge (whether unavailable or purposefully-avoided) prevents us from being convinced one way or the other
=========


Bill, please give me more credit as a thinker than that.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- "equally actualized in our common rationality." What are you saying here?
 When I say that you would have to defend a universal position for all folks about when is the right time to reach conclusions (or to continue to suspend judgment), I mean to say that some folks require more to get to conclusions than others -- and that some folks jump to conclusions. Now, if it wasn't a choice to do this -- i.e., if we were all similarly "hard-wired" to conclude on a matter when X amount of supportive evidence is known -- then there wouldn't be human disagreements.

I'll stop there.

Ed


Post 21

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed wrote,
When I said that you've said that, after focusing, someone will do what that want to (whether it's to think or not to think), I wasn't saying that you say that they'd have to think at all. Just the opposite. Instead, my criticism of your notions here is -- as it has been all along! -- that you give unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking (i.e., that you even go so far as to "extract intellectuality"). It surprises me that you'd miss that.
I don't know why you say that I give unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking. There is no conflict between the two. One chooses to think, because one evaluates it as worth doing, and based on one's thinking, forms certain values, which one then "desires" to pursue. How does this constituted an unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking?

I wrote, "I'm not choosing to believe as false an idea that I'm convinced is true. You can claim that people make this kind of choice, but I've never done it, and I don't see how it's possible for anyone else to do it either."
Actually, the kind of choice that I claim folks make all the time is not one of "choosing to believe as false an idea that they're convinced is true" -- and I'm surprised that you'd characterize my position that way.
But I've characterized MY position that way, Ed. That's MY position, which YOU were claiming to criticize! Are you now saying that you agree with me?
When I say that you would have to defend a universal position for all folks about when is the right time to reach conclusions (or to continue to suspend judgment), I mean to say that some folks require more to get to conclusions than others -- and that some folks jump to conclusions. Now, if it wasn't a choice to do this -- i.e., if we were all similarly "hard-wired" to conclude on a matter when X amount of supportive evidence is known -- then there wouldn't be human disagreements.
Determinism does not say that we're all similarly "hard-wired" to draw the same conclusions when the same amount of supporting evidence is known. People have different levels of intelligence and knowledge, different experiences and different interests, so they will not necessarily draw the same conclusions from the same amount of supporting evidence. But that doesn't mean that they're actions are not determined by antecedent causes; it just means that the antecedent causes are different for different people.

- Bill


Post 22

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you write ...

I don't know why you say that I give unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking. There is no conflict between the two.
But precedence doesn't require conflict. You're mischaracterizing what I said. I'm specifically NOT saying that thoughts & feelings aren't dependently linked to each other in some way. But just the opposite. I'm surprised that you'd miss that. When I said that you give precedence to feeling over thinking, I'm saying -- as I've been saying all along -- that you put feelings first. I think it might be properly characterized as an ordinal precedence, but it amounts to the notion that people will think when they most-feel like it. That's how I've been characterizing your position (review my 3-step analysis of your view on human decision-making -- found in post 17).

One chooses to think, because one evaluates it as worth doing, and based on one's thinking, forms certain values, which one then "desires" to pursue.
Okay. Now I -- known in certain circles as "Mr. Ed" -- have got it from the horse's mouth. Here it is ...

(1) non-thinking "evaluation"
(2) thinking
(3) value-forming
(4) desiring (a "feeling")

Bill, in the interest of generosity, does the 4-step process above accurately outline your explanation of the dynamics of human decision-making?

How does this constituted an unwarranted precedence of feeling over thinking?
You say that we think when we most-feel like it, and that we'll think about what we most-feel like thinking about, in the manner that we most-feel like thinking about it, and to the extent that we most-feel like continuing to think about it. Bill, do you see a common theme here of feelings preceding thoughts, or not? Is it really some kind of thoughtless feelings that control our thinking in the manner in which you've characterized our thinking to be under control (i.e., determined)? Or is it okay to start, midstream, with a thought -- and then always just presume that there must've been some kind of a mysterious feeling which preceded it?

Is it really feelings that give rise to thoughts, or is it thoughts and thinking (e.g. evaluating) which gives rise to feelings? And, if feelings stem from thoughts, do thoughts stem from something, too? Something besides those same feelings which come from thinking? Maybe even something with such a power as "executive functioning"?

And after I brought up the criticism that folks choose to deny drawing conclusions all of the time (i.e., that they evade), and how that choice isn't explained in the same manner that conclusively-justified conclusions are (like folks being convinced that 2+2=4) -- you ignore my criticism and simply restate your limited-scope position (e.g. regarding things like 2+2=4) ...
 
But I've characterized MY position that way, Ed. That's MY position, which YOU were claiming to criticize! Are you now saying that you agree with me?
No. I'm not agreeing with you. I realize that your position (e.g., that you can't choose 2+2=5, etc) is true -- I'm just saying that it is not sufficiently relevant. The point at hand is whether folks always "choose" (freely or NOT) their conclusions. You say it's a passive process, and that you can't evade the facts when they're in front of you (i.e., that you're "convinced" of conclusions -- you don't have any choice in the matter). I'm saying that there are times -- perhaps the majority of times where the majority of folks are making their decisions -- that there's a personally-chosen level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion.

You're saying that the level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion is always the precise level of mental effort that was most-wanted.

Do you see the difference?

People have different levels of intelligence and knowledge, different experiences and different interests, so they will not necessarily draw the same conclusions from the same amount of supporting evidence. But that doesn't mean that they're actions are not determined by antecedent causes; it just means that the antecedent causes are different for different people.
And what about when these antecendent causes were chosen thoughts? You speak as if the only kind of antecedent causes allowed are feelings (desires). Is that an accurate characterization of your position on the psychological factors leading up to human decision-making?

Ed


Post 23

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, in a previous thread on free will, you wrote,
Thoughts are the key to decision-making, not feelings -- feelings are dependent on prior and current thoughts.
I replied: "Then what is the motive for the initial choice to think or to focus one's mind? According to Rand, 'an infant or young child learns to focus his mind in the form of wanting to know something -- to understand clearly.' (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 154) In other words, the infant's desire to know is the motive for his choice."

You've said that you agree with Rand's statement. If you do, then you're admitting that the desire to know is the motive for the child's choice to focus his mind, in which case, I don't understand why you disagree with me that there must be a motive for the choice to think. In other words, I don't understand why you say that the choice to think or to focus one's mind must precede all motives or desires.

You characterize my position as follows:

(1) non-thinking "evaluation"
(2) thinking
(3) value-forming
(4) desiring (a "feeling")

You left out the choice to focus -- the choice to raise one's awareness from a lower level to a higher one. As for "(1) non-thinking 'evaluation'," the term "evaluation" suggests a process of higher-level thinking. However, it must be remembered that the desire to focus one's mind is the motive for initially raising one's level of awareness. Obviously, even at a lower level, one can value the acquisition of knowledge and therefore the choice to increase one's awareness and to engage in a process of higher level thinking, which eventuates in the formation of conceptual values.
You say that we think when we most-feel like it, and that we'll think about what we most-feel like thinking about, in the manner that we most-feel like thinking about it, and to the extent that we most-feel like continuing to think about it.
This is a caricature of my position. It's not that we choose to focus or to think whenever we most "feel like it." We choose to think, because we have a goal that we want to achieve -- namely, a heightened or expanded level of awareness.
Bill, do you see a common theme here of feelings preceding thoughts, or not? Is it really some kind of thoughtless feelings that control our thinking in the manner in which you've characterized our thinking to be under control (i.e., determined)?
Look, we choose to think because we value a higher, more focused level of knowledge or understanding, but that doesn't mean that the choice is entirely "thoughtless" in the sense of having no basis in our awareness of its value. Obviously, we have to be aware of the choice in order to make it; you can't make a conscious choice with no awareness of the alternatives; nor can you make it with no appreciation of its value. The term "thinking," as Objectivism defines it in this context, refers to a process of abstract cognition; it does not refer to conscious awareness as such.
Is it really feelings that give rise to thoughts, or is it thoughts and thinking (e.g. evaluating) which gives rise to feelings?
You asked this question before, and I answered it. Again, the desire to expand one's awareness is the motive for choosing to engage in an abstract process of thought, and it is that process that leads to the formation of conceptual values, which in turn give rise to emotional responses on behalf of those values.
And, if feelings stem from thoughts, do thoughts stem from something, too?
Yes, once again, focused thought comes from the desire to expand one's knowledge and awareness.
The point at hand is whether folks always "choose" (freely or NOT) their conclusions. You say it's a passive process, and that you can't evade the facts when they're in front of you (i.e., that you're "convinced" of conclusions -- you don't have any choice in the matter).
I'm saying that a conclusion is the unchosen culmination of an active process of thought -- unchosen, because once you see the implication of the premises, you must draw the conclusion. You cannot choose to "evade" it in the sense of denying its validity. You can certainly choose not to think about it after you've drawn the conclusion, but that's not the same as willfully and consciously repudiating it.
I'm saying that there are times -- perhaps the majority of times where the majority of folks are making their decisions -- that there's a personally-chosen level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion.
I agree. What I'm saying is that once someone draws a conclusion, however much effort he puts into it, he cannot then simply choose to believe otherwise. He can certainly convince himself that the conclusion is invalid, if he identifies evidence that he thinks refutes it, but he cannot simply choose to disbelieve it.
You're saying that the level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion is always the precise level of mental effort that was most-wanted.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Do you see the difference?
Between that and a "personally chosen level of mental effort"? Not really. The personally chosen level of mental effort is itself one which the person values most; otherwise he wouldn't have chosen it.

I wrote, "People have different levels of intelligence and knowledge, different experiences and different interests, so they will not necessarily draw the same conclusions from the same amount of supporting evidence. But that doesn't mean that they're actions are not determined by antecedent causes; it just means that the antecedent causes are different for different people."
And what about when these antecedent causes were chosen thoughts? You speak as if the only kind of antecedent causes allowed are feelings (desires). Is that an accurate characterization of your position on the psychological factors leading up to human decision-making?
No, the thinking that a person engages in is itself an antecedent cause leading to human decision-making.

- Bill



Post 24

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Then what is the motive for the initial choice to think or to focus one's mind?
It's usually -- but not always -- a felt pain. Here is a great example of this:

As a toddler I used to run around the house. I could run from the dining room to the kitchen to the living room and back into the dining room again (the doors connected the 3 rooms in a circuit). My mother warned me about entering the dining room so fast -- because the edge of the dining room table was at about the same height as my forehead.

I personally chose to avoid spending time validating the merit of her warning (I chose not to come to any kind of conclusion). Instead, I ran around and around until I banged my forehead against the table. Bam! Now, I was focusing alright. I was focusing on the pain; staring at the edge of the table to try to understand this thing that just hurt me so. I mentally grasped the permanence of the table and the hardness of its edge; realizing that -- if I start up running again tomorrow -- that the table would still be there and I'd be running the risk of pain again.

You've said that you agree with Rand's statement. If you do, then you're admitting that the desire to know is the motive for the child's choice to focus his mind, in which case, I don't understand why you disagree with me that there must be a motive for the choice to think.
Aristotle said that all men, by nature, desire to know -- but that they might not maintain their "natural curiosity" into adulthood (they may come to "choose" or "prefer" the comfort of ignorance). Baby animals show similarly natural behavior; interacting with their surroundings moreso than adult animals of their species. There are motives for the choice to think. One of them is the desire to know. Another motive might be the desire to shift focus to something more comfortable (i.e., the desire to NOT know -- or NOT focus on -- something).

I agree that sapient creatures have common motives for common actions (i.e., that their common behaviors -- eating, sleeping, working, etc. -- are goal-directed). However, as I said above, I don't believe that there's only one motive for the choice to think. Some folks think in order to avoid punishment or danger; some think just for the love of contemplating beautitude. I could go on, but won't. The point is that there's no common motive to think.

Other problem-areas (for your view) are the -- temporal, methodological, intensity and choice of subject-matter -- continuity of willful thought. There might be an initial choice to think or focus; but thought thoughts continuously update any initial motives. Think of the initial motives as the intentionality, and the thought thoughts as the intellectuality.

In my view, Bill, you've been guilty of focusing on what Henri Bergson calls the "finalism" -- (the initial motives; the intentionality of action) -- and what Henri Bergson calls the  "mechanism" (the value, or desire, seeking) while glossing over the thought thoughts (the intellectuality of action).

Maybe because it's so hard -- perhaps impossible -- to go into any depth whatsoever about somebody else's thought thoughts. That should be instructive to folks who seek to explain human behavior. I have not seen you ever integrate all 3 of these mutually-important dynamics of human decision-making. Instead, you'll just say that after some mysterious motive to focus, folks will. And after some mysteriously sufficient, relevant, and appropriate thoughts, folks will form values to aim their actions at.

Here's a refined characterization of your view on the dynamics of human decision-making:

(0) choice to focus
(1) rudimentary "evaluation"
(2) higher thoughts
(3) value-forming
(4) desiring (a "feeling")

Is that an accurate portrayal of your view of the process, Bill?

We choose to think, because we have a goal that we want to achieve -- namely, a heightened or expanded level of awareness. ...

... Look, we choose to think because we value a higher, more focused level of knowledge or understanding, ...

... the desire to expand one's awareness is the motive for choosing to engage in an abstract process of thought ...

... once again, focused thought comes from the desire to expand one's knowledge and awareness. ...
But some people choose to think (about something distracting) in order to have a lowered or restricted level of awareness.

The term "thinking," as Objectivism defines it in this context, refers to a process of abstract cognition; it does not refer to conscious awareness as such.
Good point. I integrated this point into the 5-step process of human action above (by referring to thinking as having "higher thoughts").

You can certainly choose not to think about it after you've drawn the conclusion, but that's not the same as willfully and consciously repudiating it.
As I alluded to before, in many matters -- perhaps most of them -- clear-cut conclusions aren't so readily-available. Instead, there is an active mental process of incremental validation of rival conclusions -- depending on the choosing agent's thought thoughts. It's true that, once you know that 2+2=4, you're stuck with it -- but how many of life's decisions are based on something so straightforwardly clear and unmistakable?

... he cannot then simply choose to believe otherwise. He can certainly convince himself that the conclusion is invalid, if he identifies evidence that he thinks refutes it, but he cannot simply choose to disbelieve it.
In other words, he can (must) choose to actively dupe himself. All that you are saying is that he has to choose a process involving some mental effort in order to get into the position where he believes otherwise -- instead of merely snapping his fingers and doing so! He's going to have a new conclusion, but it's going to take some rationalization on his part. You're saying it can't be a simple choice; you're not effectively saying it can't be any kind of a choice, however (one involving the mental effort of rationalization).

The personally chosen level of mental effort is itself one which the person values most; otherwise he wouldn't have chosen it.
True, but insufficient. A sufficient explanation of human behavior would integrate thought thoughts -- which continually update a sapient being's values; which continuously modifies original intentions.

It's not just antecedent factors which determine action, our instantaneous train of thought plays a part -- perhaps the predominant part -- in this process.

Ed


Post 25

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ED:

     You're a better masochist than I.

     I've given up on dear, well-intentioned, absolutely non-troll, 'need-to-have-an-explanation-in-terms-of-Laplacian-'causality',  Bill.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/17, 4:05pm)


Post 26

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
There are people in this world that are not possible to reach intellectually.
Gordon 


Post 27

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are people in this world that are not possible to reach intellectually.

People who don't think???  -  WOW......;-)


Post 28

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

Even if Bill and I never reach common ground on this issue -- I sense that we'll both become better men from having had this opportunity to lock intellectual horns. There is a certain edification in participating in a dialectic journey toward Truth -- a level of edification which is more tightly-linked to the direction of travel than it is to the measurable progress. And even if Bill and I do not become that much better men by our interaction, at the very least there is that value of a preserved, instructional dialect for the 3rd-party observer to refer to in the appropriate time.

;-)


Gordon,

I do realize the kind of (sympathetic) frustration it takes to say what you did in evaluation of my intellectual adversary here. However, I most emphatically disagree with this sentiment. Bill's mind is one of the most critically-thinking machines with which I have ever had the pleasure to interact. I've even seen him change his own heart-felt opinions after integrating the advancements and refinements of issue-debate. He's a rare thinker, that Bill. A real gem and an all-around stand-up guy.

I look up to him.

Ed



Post 29

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ED:

    Am totally agreed re your observation and evaluation of Bill and discussing things (mainly 'volition') with him. In my case, though, I've been on this subject with him since ATL and ATLII, and can neither say nor read much more which isn't repetitive, other than discussing new scenario/examples to replace earlier ones.

LLAP
J:D


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.