The conversation so far...

I was happy to find your brand new blog with the continuing conversation on Ayn Rand, science, and all things political.

I'll be putting together a long post on the Ayn Rand discussion, including material I've written in a number of my posts on Colson's thread, in my blog sometime later this weekend.

For now,I'll just say, as a Hayekian, I agree with and disagree with a number of Rand's points. I'll respond below to a few of the posts above.

Thanks for setting up the blog.

"Ayn Rand's objectivism is perhaps the most loathsome of all philosophies. It is the perfect combination of intellectual and moral stupidity."

I can think of many worse ones: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Mercantilism, Islamofascism...

"She says that all knowledge comes from reason. In other words, our senses––what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell––have no effect on our ability to understand the world. In other words, she sees man as a thinking machine, a computer. It's a perfectly souless, spiritless view of humanity."

Here, Rand was wrong. Human knowledge comes from trial and much error, guessing, traditions, and of course, our senses, without which we would not be able to construct any mental models of the world.

"She also believes that man is an end to himself. In other words, we have no connection with the rest of humanity or the rest of the world, and so we should therefore have no care or concern for the rest of humanity or the rest of the world."

She was right in saying our lives belong to each of us alone. That we don't and cant' belong to another, to dispose as they will. If that means we have no connection with others...well, I believe that's a nonsequiter.

"She also believes that reality is objective––facts are facts. This has been shown to be wrong through quantum theory. There is no objective reality, there is no reality without an observer. There is no object without a subject. Nor is there such a thing as a subject without an object."

Reality exists. But, I believe Rand was way overly optimistic about how much reality we limited humans can really grasp.

"The fact that there are so many people out there who consider this woman and her philosophy to be even remotely coherent or admirable is deeply disturbing."

Even with her errors, the fact that Rand was able to punch holes into a number of unexamined assumptions by statists was an extremely useful philosophical exercise and should be valued by conservatives...even Christian conservatives.

"I agree "you cannot get capitalism from altruism" but you do get altruism from capitalism, the whole point of Adam Smith's invisible hand."

"the persuit of happiness is not altruistic. Individual rights are not altruistic. If you try to justify these things on altruistic grounds, then you agree with the socialists about morality, you just prefer a different method of achieving your goals. Their goals are sacrifice, and in that regard, the socialists are much better(and more consistant) than us."

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor was his attempt at explaining what in the 18th century was inexplicable--the existence of self-organizing systems in human societies that permit the unintended benefit to large numbers of people from actions intended to benefit the entrepreneur.

This is something that Hayek grapsed and Rand did not. Intentional acts leading to unintended consequences are powerful drivers of historical trends in human history, including the rise and dominance of capitalistic economic systems.

I posted and TH seems to have disposed.
I'll try again.

...Tocqueville's "self-interest properly understood" when she used the word "selfish."

So in her terms, self-interest and selfishness meant the same thing.

I believe selfishness denotates something much more negative than Ayn Rand did.

I also believe that Tocqueville and Adam Smith were very much on the same page as regards to self-interest.

Also, Smith's point about one's self-interested acts leading to unintended and often unimaginable good amongst millions is a point that people who wish to differentiate self-interest from altruism don't comprehend.

Unintended consequences can cut both ways. You can have the loveliest intentions in the world, but your incompetent actions can lead to horrors untold. Witness the actions and unintended effects of the dupes of Communism.

The above was written as a response to Jay's post about selfishness.

I'd like to skip the does-existence-existence-exist part because I don't know how to talk to ghosts.

My first question is does quantum randomness translate to the macroscopic level? You quoted Schrodinger but I thought others think that the microtubule in the brain may be macroscopic evidence of randomness.
My sources are, Jeffrey Satinover in "The Quantum Brain" (MD and soon to be Phd. physicist) and Roy A. Clouser in "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" (Phd philosopher).

I have some other things I would like to see your take on but TH seems to want it to stay short and sweet. Well anyway short.

Firstly, I fear I may have done exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do - I think I may have split the conservation up leading to a lower quality discussion on both pages, but nonetheless - I tried.

Thanks to all who've wanted to come and discuss.

Also, one of my goals of this was that I thought maybe I would be able to control the allowed length of comments since it is 'my blog'. I think everyone has been frustrated with the limited space. Its really hard to put together even one real, coherent thought in 2000 characters. But it seems that TH won't let me do that, so there goes that idea.

Now I want to respond to a few people in subsequent posts

I don't think I'm going to be able to get it.
Maybe its because you're wrong...
Maybe its because these posts are too short to explain it...
Maybe I can't cut through the jargon...
Maybe I'm too stupid...

(The last one is probably it)

But I don't think that any scientist could ever agree with you. If it is not possible to conceptualize absolute Truth, then what we're doing is really pointless. I just don't see it. Especially in the case of the string theorists, supersymmetry guys, and the like (not me) - These guys are operating under the idea that they can ultimately understand the universe. If what you're saying is true, then they can't, or at least they can't ever know that they truly did, or something...

A few more questions if you're still reading this stuff...

How could it be that Absolute Truth is only This Moment? If you acknowledge that This Moment is Absolute Truth, then you must therefore acknowledge that This Moment happened. Therefore, nothing can ever take away the fact that This Moment happened. Therefore there is a such thing as a past and it is the history of all of the 'This Moments' that have happened so far. Therefore time must exist.

Also if Absolute Truth is perceivable but not conceivable, then how can you argue for it? If it is not possible to conceptualize it, then how can you make any arguement for its existence?

RODVAL: "My first question is does quantum randomness translate to the macroscopic level? You quoted Schrodinger but I thought others think that the microtubule in the brain may be macroscopic evidence of randomness"

CS: I certainly haven't seen this book you refer to "The Quantum Brain" but that actually sounds really interesting to me. I have pondered this just a little bit, though only in simple, recreational thinking terms. I think here we have to ask ourselves the proper questions.

First can quantum randomness translate to macroscopic level? I think the answer is no, in the traditional sense. I think that statistics wins the day here. I mean, you're just not going to throw a baseball at a wall and have it 'tunnel' through to the other side. Its not gonna happen - you can't put a macroscopic object in a quantum state.

Now, I think a better question is whether or not a thought is a microscopic event. Honestly, even at the level of neurons transmitting signals, I think statistics wins and there really isn't any true quantum randomness. But I really don't know the origin of a thought, and I doubt the people who study that stuff actually know for sure yet either. But its interesting....

...But better yet, in either scenario, what would explain volition?

I mean, lets say that classical mechanics were still the prevailing physics theory. This is a completely deterministic theory. So even through it would actually be impossible to solve - if you told me initial conditions of all of the particles in the universe, I could, in principle, predict the future. (Maybe it would be better to say not that I could predict it, but that a definite future must exist.) Therefore there is no volition - no free will. But if quantum mechanics rules over our thought, then decisions are based on probability. So you would do the most likely result most of the time, but some of the time you would do something else. I still don't see room for free will in that situation - its not random, but its not willful either. Maybe your book sheds some light on something I'm missing there.

Of course, I really don't have a good answer at all. You would all know my name if I did, and you don't (I hope).

But here's an aside.

Have you ever thought about those fortune-tellers and soothsayers and the like? These people are most definitely liberals 99% of the time (Yes I do mean to stereotype - its true). They are always the type to complain about how they should have the freedom to do what ever they want, and its their natural right to not be stopped by anything. (I'm not knocking free will - I'm fairly close to being Libertarian myself - I'm just pointing out something ridiculous). But anyway, they've obviously never considered the fact that if they have the power to foretell the future, then it must be determined, and so they actually have no free will. Just a thought.

You would read Satinover like a dime novel (means fast and with interest in 1950's speak) where I have to keep studying it due to the physics and philosophy.

OK, I follow and agree up to the point where you say, "But if quantum mechanics rules over our thought, then decisions are based on probability. So you would do the most likely result most of the time, but some of the time you would do something else. I still don't see room for free will in that situation - its not random, but its not willful either."
Ah, there's the rub.
If random quarks, or electrons, have a determining influence on outcomes, do we have free will? Or does Nature just determine everything? Or God? I get lost here.
Another way I think of this is that humans may indeed create a heuristic computer that is more powerful, more intelligent, and even more capable of creating more intelligent computers than humans. But will it truly be conscious?

If computers are conscious then they would have a mind.
Would they be able to go one step further and have emotion?
Could they truly love?
With all the physiological reactions and vaso-reactions, dilatations and contrations and increased heart beats, of love?
You see, I don't think so and the people who envision these computers don't either: even though they are Darwinists, so to speak.
If they have a soul is it truly a part of the brain?
Before you write that one off let's analyze it a little.
The new supercomputer should be quantum based, as the brain is, (see Satinover). You wouldn't even have to turn it on to ask it a question. It would answer.
Again, bear with me.
This is based on the ubiquitous electron which is shown to be capable of being in 2 places at the same time (and at different times.) See Satinover and Schrodinger. (I think Schrodinger is Satinover's source but I am re-reading to see.)
Thus the soul may not even be brain based, even though I think it probably is. And yet I don't think a computer can develop one.
cont.....

This made sense to me on a rational basis so it wasn't hard for me to step one more small step (for man) to understand maybe there could be a God and God was love would be an adequate description.

Believe me when I say I am not proselyting nor in any way trying to convince anyone here: I'm just stating how I got here.

One more step was in Roy A. Clouser pointing out in, "The Myth of Religious Neutrality", that everyone had a faith based belief whether they think so or not.
I could not disagree with his "proof" that whether you were Mach, Einstein, Heisenberg, Mill, Russell, or Dewey, you ultimately based your claims on the unprovable. He didn't include Rand but it was easy for me to see she was right in there with the rest.
I still don't quite understand his conclusion unless I oversimplify it so I'm still working on it.
But it did enable me to come to my conclusions. (Does that make him an enabler in making me an "opium eater"? -- see Marx, et. al.)

I would like to see your thoughts about randomness and free will.

dilatations and contrations = contractions

By the way, Satinover is hard for me to understand because he is a physicist, a part time philosopher, and his Stanford Binet is much higher than mine.
He would be easy to read for you on those points, though.
He is easy for me to understand about the brain because he is an M.D. (from the same medical school I graduated from).
The neurons and axons and dendrites and embryology are easy to fathom but hard for me to integrate into the wave stuff.
I do think he shows the micro to macro conversion (that Schrodinger says can't occur) in the brain though.
This makes it predictable in a quantum computer if built.

Goodnight.

First, I looked up Satinover on the web, and I think this book looks really good. I'm always really skeptical about books like this because the quantum stuff is usually mischaracterized. However, Dr. Shankar at Yale gave it a good review, so that's saying something because he (quite literally) wrote the book on quantum mechanics (or at least one of them). I'm definitely going to read this whenever I get a chance.

But anyway, I may have misrepresented my point earlier - I very much believe in free will - I hate the idea of fate. However with that said, I don't understand the basis of free will. I do believe that the mind and our ability to think is totally physiologically based. (Now, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in God - I do.) I believe that there must be some scientific basis for free will, though, but that we don't understand it and we may not for a while.

Free will implies control. I have complete control over a decision. You know, maybe the brains workings are based on quantum properties or maybe its not. Who knows? But either way you get an input, and then some computation occurs, and an output is spit out. Any computation, quantum or otherwise is deterministic or else it wouldn't be a very good computer ( it has to give the right answer).

No - what I'm curious about is where do I get that ability to control something up there in my brain, in order to make a firm decision one way or the other? I do believe that this ability IS there, though. A component for my extremely unscientific evidence for this is that it seems that most people who believe they are in control of their lives, take more responsibility in their decisions, and therefore end up being successful and control their lives very well, whereas those who believe they have no power over their outcomes end up doing poorly and never make something of themselves...

Now, you say, what does that prove? Well, nothing but... A universe where fate rules would mean that the future is determined, completely. Therefore all of the particles and events in the universe are already determined. Ok so that would mean that even those particles and events in your brain that made you believe either of the above options are predetermined. (Meaning that your belief in free will vs fate is predetermined). But at the same time, all of the particles and events in your brain that lead you to make decisions in everyday life would also be predetermined. (Meaning that your success and/or responsibility in decision making are predetermined). But now I ask, in a predetermined universe like that, why would the two be correlated? I mean those two are separate and independent events in the brain - why are they related? In that type of universe, it would seem like there would be no correlation between a belief in free will, and in persons who believe they are successful (however they measure it). I mean of course you could argue that the two are predetermined to be related, but why? Why would the events in one part of the brain that determine beliefs need to be tied to events in another part of the brain determining day to day decision making. I mean, it isn’t that a deterministic universe would preclude the two from being related (which is why this isn’t a profound argument) – instead, its just that in a deterministic universe, there is NO NEED for the two to be correlated.

However, a universe where we do have free will easily explains this. The person who believes in free will, willfully decides to takes great responsibility in his day-to-day decision making - striving to make the best decisions and then implement them. I mean of course mistakes are made and success is not always achieved, but I think anyone would have to admit that those who believe in free will, ultimately take more responsibility in their decision making, which makes my case equally well.

Now I understand that this is a very flimsy argument at best, but then again it wouldn't matter in a predetermined world because all arguments against determinism would be predetermined. I mean there are no characteristics of individual arguments or people or whatever in a predetermined world, only characteristics of a specific moment in time.

So I do believe in free will, but I don't understand where it comes from physiologically. I don't think randomness gets you there. There's no control in randomness, just accidents. Something has to give us the control.