11/6/16,
“Choices”
Atlanta,
Georgia
Life is
about choices, and the most fundamental choice we make is the choice to
live. To choose to live is the epitome
of morality. Everything else is secondary
to it. We then must choose how we wish to live our lives. Do we live a life of morality, where we choose freedom over
slavery, reason over superstition, and rationality over irrationality, or do we
do the opposite? Do we choose to
interact with our fellow men through logic and verbal persuasion, or do we
choose to interact through force and physical persuasion?
Objectivism answers these questions in a
crystal clear fashion, and it is the very basis of the philosophy itself. To deny any one of these ideas is to deny who
we are as men and to reduce ourselves to the level of animals. My reader should note that I, of course, also
mean female members of the human species when I say “men.” However, what if this appearance of choice is
nothing but an illusion? What if free
will does not exist, and we really do not have these choices that we think we
have. It is on that note that the last
day of the conference came to a close.
There is not much more to report today, as I only attended two sessions
in the morning before heading off on my own.
The first speaker this morning talked from a more abstract perspective
about mental processes. She started off
with a mental experiment that proved that our mind has a tendency to wander,
which means we can’t always control our mental processes. Instead, we must actively choose to seize
control of our thoughts. Seizing control
of our mental processes is the first step we must take, but it is not
sufficient. We can choose how we want to
shape our mental processes, and we have the ability to use reason to shape our
mental thought processes and act accordingly, or not.
She then brought up the concept of
emotions. While our emotions provide guidance,
we do not need to act in strict accordance with our emotions. We can control our emotions. They do not control us. Instead, we should evaluate our emotions and
try to figure out why they are telling us what they are and then act
accordingly. They are merely another
tool in our rational thought processes.
She then gave us some practical advice in using these tools.
The next speaker addressed the more concrete
neuroscience of free will. This was the
moment for which I was waiting. It was
the missing link that I needed in order to accept the arguments in favor of
free will. The speaker brought the
well-known Libet experiment, of which I had never previously heard. Apparently it proved that the mental
processes responsible for motor control happen earlier than the corresponding
mental processes that relate to consciousness, which would discount the idea of
conscious control of motor activities, or something like that. The speaker said that, while that may be
true, it does not take into account that free will relates to larger decision
making than pressing a button or flicking a wrist. I did not find that to be a satisfying
rebuttal. He also brought up the idea of
how the concepts of free will relate to religious beliefs. How do we explain concepts of consciousness
and free will without a religious explanation?
It is a hard question.
When it was
my turn to ask a question, I raised both points. First, I claimed that he was attempting to
overcomplicate the issue of free will be claiming the minor component decisions
are irrelevant. I said that every
decision we make is the result of smaller decisions, that choosing to go to
Colorado instead of Hawaii can be broken down all the way to the moment you
click the “Confirm Booking” button on the travel website. He rejected that idea, continuing to argue
that, while clicking the button may have an explanation that can be defined
through motor activity, the larger mental processes of making that decision
cannot be given such an explanation. I
was not satisfied with that response.
The other part of my question allowed that religion can give an
explanation for mental causation, but I asked if he believed that neuroscience
will one day be able to give an explanation for mental causation. He deflected my question and did not answer,
instead saying that we must look to neuroscience for explanations of free will
rather than religion, which he believed to argue for compatibilism, rather than
libertarian free will. He did not say
whether or not he thought neuroscience would ever be able to explain mental
causation.
After the sessions, as I was
waiting for my car, another student approached me, saying he didn’t think the
speaker gave an adequate answer. I told
him that the speaker didn’t answer the question at all, not that the answer was
inadequate. We talked a bit, and I
explained that I saw the problem of mental causation as the more fundamental
question. If mental causation does not
exist, then neither can free will.
However, if we can prove mental causation, free will becomes that much
more plausible. In fact, if mental
causation is proven, I would then argue that free will is most likely
true. He then tried to argue that mental
causation was only possible through a mystical explanation, but I disagreed
there.
We know with absolute certainty
that the physical world can affect our mental processes, so it is not that much
of a stretch that it can work the other direction, but we simply do not know if
that is true. Is it merely a one-way
street, or does it work both directions? I believe that last bit was my biggest take away from the
conference. Here it is in one
sentence. Reality consists of both
physical elements and mental processes, and we know that the physical world can
affect mental processes, but we do not know if mental processes can affect the
physical world, though it is highly plausible that they can.
All right, so, when I closed last night, I
was about to head out to the party. I
hated it. Being expected to socialize
with a bunch of strangers. I just wanted
to get out of there from the moment I walked in the building. I had forgotten my cigars in the car, so
sitting outside and smoking a cigar like I did last year wasn’t even an option
either. We each got a free drink, and
they had a huge spread. I got a bourbon
and made myself a big plate, which served as my dinner. I sat quietly on my own and ate and
drank.
After I finished my first plate,
I had another and finished my drink.
This took about 20 minutes. I
then decided it was time to leave, but, as I was leaving, I saw Dr. Ghate, and
I asked him about the problem of mental causation. “What problem?” He said it wasn’t a problem, that it wasn’t
necessary to understand mental causation.
He completely sidestepped the question.
A few other students were gathering, and they were asking him some
questions about Objectivist ethics. I
stepped in and answered the questions quite ably. When Dr. Ghate realized that I was answering
the questions as ably as he could, he let me take over, and I answered every
question they had.
After that, I went
back to the hotel. I went to the garage
and retrieved my cigars and smoked half of a Graycliff outside before SNL. I went up to the room to watch SNL, which was
a fun last episode before the election.
I fell asleep a few minutes after it ended. I woke up as late as possible to pack and
finish my cigar before the morning session.
I retrieved my cigar from last night and walked to the famous, historic
Fox Theatre, a National Historic Landmark that used to a lavish movie
palace. I walked back and met my
roommate at the front desk so that we could check out. Then came the morning sessions, and I left
around 11:30 AM to head to two National Park Sites near Atlanta.
I lit up a Gurkha for the drive. The first site was Kennesaw Mountain NBP,
which I had attempted to visit when I was in Atlanta four years ago, but I had
arrived after the VC closed. I
recognized it all like it was yesterday.
My heart was not in it today. I
just did my business at the VC and took a ceremonial picture on the
battlefield. I then headed to the next
site, Chattahoochee River NRA, and my heart was still not in it.
Same story.
I did my business in the VC and then took a ceremonial picture along the
river. I headed back to the hotel,
arriving just as lunch was ending. It
was a general Q&A session about Objectivism, and I wished that I hadn’t
missed it. I would later realize that
the better play would have been to stay for the session and then do my two NPSs
afterwards on my way to the airport, but I had figured that I would have missed
the conference check-out procedures if I did that.
I was wrong, as check-out had started at the
end of lunch, so I did that and ate my lunch during the end of the Q&A. Afterwards, I talked some more with Dr. Ghate
and other students. Then, the conference
was over, and I headed outside to my usual spot, where I sat down, lit up an
Aroma de Cuba, and proceeded to write this entry, which I will now close so
that I can head to the airport.
Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport, Georgia (ATL)
And so the
trip comes to a close. In about five
hours I will be back at my apartment, and I will get the chance to further
develop these ideas and see how they relate to my life. This would usually be the point where I
reflect on the trip, but this was a different kind of trip. I have been to Atlanta a bunch of times
already, so that is not new for me, and the sites I saw were just a small
addition to the bulk of the trip, which was the conference. I have already reflected enough on the
philosophy of the conference, and my trip to Mexico last weekend allowed me to
reflect on my future travel.
I suppose
there is not much to do, then, other than begin to close out this trip. Another person might have reflected on all
the new friends and connections he made, but that is not me. I came here to observe, to learn about new
ideas, not to meet new people. In fact,
my social interaction at the conference was a bare minimum, talking only to my
roommate and a few people who came up to me, along with the conversations
moderations by Drs. Brook and Ghate. The
ideas that were discussed at this conference were important, and I have come
away with a new understanding of the world and some new thoughts, but those
have already been recorded. I guess that’s
all I have to say about the conference.
After I closed at the hotel, I got my car and headed to the
airport. I dropped off my car and took
the train to the terminal. Security was
quick enough, and I walked to the smoking lounge, where I sat down, lit up an
Ardor, and proceeded to write this entry, which I will now close, along with
closing out this trip. Next stop: my
Thanksgiving trip, which I am only calling “Because It’s There: The Experience”,
though I suppose I can say that the trip will be flying into London to begin
that trip, though the rest of the itinerary I will keep under wraps for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment