Semantics; Determinism and Free Will as Necessary Concomitants

At the top of this blog page, in what is called the "site description" right
underneath the site "title" which are both in the orange areas, the "description"
is this: "Ontological rationality in secular Naturalism. "Existence is Identity,
Consciousness is Identification." Ayn Rand"

This was not the first description I used, and I can't now remember what it was.
It doesn't matter; it was lame. It was lame because the more I came to know about
Naturalism, the more I realized how divided it was, how semantic could be the
users of the terms. I change that description to be more denotational according my
concept of it; but concepts of this nature are not easy to integrate without
contradiction.

Some Naturalists claim ontology is not compatible with Naturalism; but the world
"compatibalism" has nothing to do with that, yet "compatibalism" is one of those
semantic divisions within the field. Compatibalism concerns the issue of "free
will."

An "ontological object" is defined in this context as, "The real or existing

object of an act of knowledge as distinguished from the epistemological object."
Dict. of Phil; Runes; http://www.ditext.com/runes/o.html And so what I mean by
placing that statement in the description of the purpose of the Academy of MN, is
to say that not only metaphysics but naturalism are objects of an act of
knowledge, not acts of brain physiology acting in accord with genetics,
environment, and the laws of nature.

When the semantics become overwhelming (see the AofMN blog 9.5.08 "Variations on a
Theme of Naturalism) they destroy the nature of knowledge by splitting it into
incompatible and almost irreconcilable fragments, over which men argue and refuse
to find compromise (where that compromise is not compromise of principles, of
course.)

Hopefully, by pointing out how "compatibalism" on the subject of free will, and
free will in context of "determinism" can explain free will and compatibalism at
the same time as necessary concomitants, is a compromise the two sides can accept.
"The problem of free choice can stand at the same place, it is changing. There
were proposed two main conceptions which have the powers to produce some kind of
solution the problem. So, there are the conception of determinism and the
conception of compatibalism. Let’s see the essence of these two conceptions. But
before we start the descriptive talking it is very important to be sure that we
have a certain question concerning a free choice. The notion of a free choice and
just a choice can be regarded as synonyms. The meaning of choice is rather
general; it means the decision that could be done by the person. So, such under
the necessary interpretation of choice we see action of the person and it turned
to be a kind of guide line for us. Well, the problem of free choice lies on the
next statement: whether we are able to choose or not. If we remember that choice
is a kind of decision, we should redo the question and ask whether we are able to
make a decision at a certain period of time without using different alternative
prepositions which could be limited." ANDREW SCHWARTZ
http://www.amazines.com/Art_and_Culture/article_detail.cfm/327934?articleid=327934
[Note: It would seem English is not Mr. Schwartz's first language. All grammatical
errors are his. This quote is a literal cut/paste.]

"The compatibalistic point of view has some similarities with the deterministic
point of view; they also suppose that the idea of free choice is not real as all
our decisions are determined by the causes. But the fact is that compatibalists
think that it is possible to connect the notion of free choice and the notion of
caused choice. According to their name they try to prove that free choice and
determination could be compatible, in other word they have the opportunity to co-
operate in one field." Andrew Schwartz
http://www.amazines.com/Art_and_Culture/article_detail.cfm/327973?articleid=327973

But this next author equates it with God being in control.

"I cannot count the number of times that I have heard or read the phrase.."God is
in control..." This phrase can be recited in connection with everything from death
and disease to happiness and health and everything else in between. Do we really
believe, as Christians, that God IS in control..or is it just "lip service"? Is it
just religious lingo or is it a firmly held and scripturally understood belief?
Compatibalism attempts to explain how it is that "God IS in control AND that human
responsibility and accountability is also in full effect. We see this supposed
dichotomy in full view in the following scripture: (Jesus) "..being delivered by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken , and by wicked
hands have crucified and slain." Dave Van
http://areformedlaymansperspective.blogspot.com/2008/06/compatibalism.html

Ok, so most of the semantics discern "compatibalism" against "determinism." The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) says, "Causal determinism is, roughly
speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and
conditions together with the laws of nature."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Roughly speaking this means that we are not free to make choices of free will,
because every choice open to us is "determined" by the events of the world around
us.

Well, that is absolutely true--the part about what our choices are. We can't
decide to order a T-bone steak at McDonald's; we can't decide to take aspirin for
depression; we can't decide to refuse to pay child support when the court ordered
its payment unless we are willing to go to jail. And if we are willing to go to
jail for it, we are not free in our will to avoid jail; the choices are laid out
by the circumstances around us.

In spite of these "deterministic" machinations of the universe upon our desire to

be free of them, it is precisely the world around us that give us choices in the
first place! No world; no choices. No choices; no consciousness. Consciousness
itself consists of choices that are put before us at birth, namely to start
identifying the objects of cognition (which are technically called cognoscenti);
which means that in the semantics of "determinism" we have no "free choice"
because the choices are the cognoscenti placed before us. A newborn cannot decide
to identify a basketball because its not his choice.

"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

On the other hand, "When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he
chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic
principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be
commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can
achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of
reality." [italics added]
Ayn Rand; “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”; The Objectivist Newsletter

The facts of reality are those placed before us by the existence of existents, be
it a thing, an attribute or an action; i.e., by those things in life which cause
men the need to make choices in the first place. If you were the only existent in
existence, you would have no choices. But you are not. Everything in your
environment is an existent, and as concepts so are the things in your mind upon
which you may make choices.

Free will is the freedom to think or not to think, Rand said.

Another word with semantic distinctions is "selfish." OMG! What exactly does
"selfish" mean? The Tibetans are said to have two words for it, whereas in English
we have two complicated definitions, not two words with their own simple
definition. The Tibetans have these:

1. Selfishness is taking advantage of others and not caring, (or something to that
effect. Feel free to put it in your own vocabulary, because everyone knows
precisely their own opinion about this subject.

2. Rational self-interest.

Rational self-interest as a definition of selfishness; who these days would have

thought, had it already not been thought of and much discussed over the many
decades, if not longer. Such self-interest is "the promotion of one’s own
interests [as] always in accordance with reason."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm But "in accordance" itself has implications as
a semantic division.

"Epistemologically, [objectivity] is the recognition of the fact that a

perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain
means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [italics added] Ayn
Rand; “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”; The Objectivist Newsletter

Yet, in another place Rand wrote, "[The] valid definition of man, within the
context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A
rational animal.'
(Rational,” in this context, does not mean 'acting invariably in accordance with
reason'; it means 'possessing the faculty of reason.' [italics added] Rand
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology These distinctions are vitally important
to understanding the place of reason in the life of man, and how it is to be
applied, and in what contexts.

"The idea of determinism is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and
mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected
with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions,
on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both
of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or
even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency
would be in either case." [SEP ibid]

No, there can be no agreement so long as the two sides argue over semantics. It
was my attempt to dispel the dichotomy when I said, above, "it is precisely the
world around us that give us choices in the first place! No world; no choices. No
choices; no consciousness." A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a
contradiction in terms, Rand famously said. (Aside from "Who is John Galt?" it
might be the second most famous thing she ever said.)

Determinism is true only in the sense that we have no choices but those given us
by the circumstances of existence itself; and equally true that without such
choices arbitrarily given to us by life, without any bias on its part, we would
not exist.
It is the amoeba and other simple forms of life, forms that have no "conscious"
sense of choices, that are ruled by determinism. Man must accept that his choices
are determined, but at the same time, he has the choice to think or not to think.

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.
This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Posted by Curtis Edward Clark; Dean