This is the log of a discussion on #GeekSpeak on the Undernet, made on February 9, 1996. This log is copyrighted by the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena (pankaj@uic.edu) and Tom Wright (tlwright@umich.edu). This log may not be copied or distributed in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Copyright 1996, Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Tonight's discussion will be moderated by Tym Parsons. The topic is "How force paralyzes thought." With that, I'll turn the channel over to Tym. Withal... Go, Tym :) "How force paralyses thought" is an aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I think is poorly understood by most Objectivists. I've heard that it is a matter of confusion and contention even among leading Objectivists. Objectivists readily un The account I'm following for this discussion is Gary Hull's article "How Force Stops Thinking" in the September 1994 issue of TIA. I don't claim to speak for Dr. Hull, and am only presenting the matter as I understand it. I strongly recom OK, to get the ball rolling.. Thinking has a specific identity, like everything else in reality, and will only work under specific conditions. Thinking is a process of grasping reality whereby one follows a chain of conceptual relationships, connecting each item of know Thinking has a specific identity, like everything else in reality, and will only work under specific conditions. Thinking is a process of grasping reality whereby one follows a chain of conceptual relationships, connecting each item of know argh First question: what are some examples of significant thinking? How are they valid examples? <> Tym loves cut and paste. <> Tym counts the seconds. <> Tym taps his fingers. Doing a difficult engineering or mathematical problem? Grasping Objectivism. Am I to understand that nobody here KNOWS WHAT A SIGNIFICANT THOUGHT IS? It takes many steps to do those, and there are several conditions that would inhibit the thinking process... Good Tom. "Significant" thinking would be where one forms new abstractions about the nature of reality? An example of "significant" thinking is decided what career to pursue. It has implications on the events of the rest of your life. Tym: I've read Hull's essay, and am not clear why we have to separate Significant thinking from regular thinking, in regards to how force and mind are opposites. I'm waiting for that part of the discussion. Tym: I'm thinking about how to answer that last question...is that significant? ;) Freeman: what sorts of things would you have to consider? Are you speaking of "significant" as scope of cognitive context, or scope of potential results? steve: cognitive context. Exactly. Force inherently inhibits one's acting abilites... and the ultimate effect of thought is action... hence all thought thats end is eliminated by force, no longer becomes a helpfull one. Was Newton, for example, an signif. thinker? Why? Tym: Significant as oposed to thinking about what the pope had for dinner today? a signif. Fredrik: right. Tym: well, certainly newton was a significant tinker.. would you like a list? I'd say really significant thinking is that done above the perceptual level which requires abstraction from abstraction and involves the use of logic. Deciding how to spend my evening requires integration, but I'm not sure that would constitute Significant thinking as Gull uses it. What do consider: Where you want to be in 20, 50 years. How to get there. Midas: no, I want to know what it was that Newton did that qualified him. Gull = Hull. The difference then is in the nature of the abstractions or their complexity, or both? Isn't all thinking done above the perceptual level? All: signif. thinking is _original_ thought. I think Gary hull meant "significant" as anything not range of the moment thinking...long term vs short term. iami: Simple thinking involves only abstractions from perceptions. 3 year-olds and the mentally retarded can do that. we need to move on... Tym: I'd say the significance lies in the results it has for your life. Newton showed that the same laws directed then havens as did direct eartly phenomena. (sorry, been a while since I read that article). Let's contrast significant thinking with _low-level_ thinking. Maybe that'll help. Betsy: But thinking how to spend my evening my require all sorts of non-perceptual thoughts, but as I said, it doesn't seem that Hull would consider that significant thinking. non-perceptual thoughts = abstractions above the perceptual level. Question: what is low-level thinking? How does it differ from significant thinking? I think Tym hit it when he said it is thoughts newly formed by oneself. What is low-level thinking? Low level thinking would be when you're processing stuff you already know to make new integrations, come to new conclusions about it or with it? When discussing the issue of force, did Rand ever distinguish between significant and low-level thinking? I don't recall that being an issue in Galt's speach. Tym: thinking that requires a minimal amount of abstractions... direct identificatory relationships between percepts wouild be a good example. low-level: thinking about idea already existing? Tym: Low-level would be considering something you considered before. Though originally it would be "significant", once some intergrations have been made, it is different from the really big thoughts (new thoughts). Betsy gave a useful desideratum. But I'm mystified as to how that distinction matters in what may affect a thinking process. Subetai: you mean applying principles already formed to concretes? I would assume low level thinking is not repetitive thinking; it is simply thinking that is not highly abstracted... ie, mostly relating to observable facts. I think TomM had it nailed. Tym: yes. Aside from that a long conceptual chain has more steps, farther from referents, and thus has more scope for potential error. Jim: I heard Hull's speech and as far as I know, that was Hull's own identification, not Rand's. <> TomM holds up his hammer. Jim: I think it was implied at least. You mean, where new wings are added on to a conceptual structure, so to speak? From the horse's mouth: Low-level thinking is the application of _previously_ automatised, habituated integrations and identifications wait--cant low level thoughts be NEW thoughts? Midas: no, habits that are formed are low level tasks. ..when you first master a skill for example--that's significant thinking. Tym: So no new abstractions are formed? Old concepts are applied to a particular situation. right, Subetai. OK... Subetai: Not applications per se, but coming up with new integrations. Tym: so you mean low-level as automatized. What are some examples of low-level thinking? Midas: right. Tym: Figuring out how to send irc msgs. Tom: To apply it, you need to make an integration too, unless it's an application you've made before. Driving a car. Freeman: good. Tym: i think your example is best. Skills, mostly manual skills--like sports for example are the epitemy of what becomes automatized, or low level Midas: good. OK... Subetai: hmmm...that might be mid-level thinking. i dont think anything abstract ever qualifies as low-level... ..here's the where the hard stuff begins :) low-level thinking? What will I make for dinner? What road will I take to work? low level thinking is stuff you can do without actually having to *think* about it. Habits, emotional and subconscious integration, perceptual identifications. <> Tym thinks that people undrstand what low-level thinking is now. Betsy: emotional and subconscious imply that no concious thought is involved... which i dont think applies here Midas: I was going to say that! Next question: why can low-level thinking occur under the compulsion of force for a time? betsy: skills--like building a machine, or integrating percepts... those are all consciously done. they seem automatic, but at some point have to be solidified, and get to be almost reflexive. Emotions and the subconcious are always automa Tym: Well, if all you have to think about is how to fill a wheelbarrel, that could be done under force. since it's automatic, it can be performed even with some distracton. Tym: because mostly low level thought is practical thought--ie, neccessary functions for production Tym: You need no 'big hunk' of percepts for it, you can do it without searching peposefully for new thinking-matterial. perposefully Tym: Isn't that assuming a premise? *Can* it so exist? Good. What are some particular examples of low-level thinking under force in the world today? Tym: because it doesn't require a great deal of focus, you can do it even in situations that prevent you from focussing on the thought, such as when force is applied against you. low-level thought is neccessary, and at least 'allowed' even in an enslaved society. manual skills and others are "encourraged" so to say. paying your taxes steve: if you can instantiate it, yes :) filling out tax forms waiting in line at the damn DMV. Tym: Making liscense plates in prison (if they really do that there). Antioch: *laugh* sure amen freeman antioch: I wish. Tax forms take a LOT of creativity! <> Tym wonders if there are some more dramatic examples. Tym: following orders Tym: Marching. russian scientists building a nuclear weapon Tym: opening up the safe for a robber about to shoot you if you don't. shooting an enemy because you are ordered Someone can be forced to do a physical task. But who is doing the thinking? The one forced, or the one forcing? TomM: good. tax forms are pretty abstract... think about a country like canada... while sports, manual labor, the like exists. So does a doctors practice... at some point most illness and surgery becomes low-level, so despite having socialized health Force in such a case isn't so much stopping thought as *replacing* thought. Midas: But note that those countries do not make the significant break-throughs. What about under a dictatorship? What sorts of tasks can be done? same with education, and at some levels, scientific discoveries that are mostly based on trial and error (like russian space program) TomM: noted Tym: Depends on the price of the whip. :) Midas: Which technoloy they stole from the West. Finding remainings of earlier civilastions:) How about consumer goods made by Chinese political prisoners? Tym: Showing up at "work." russian space program=tin cans and dynamite Tym: that which is neccessary. obviously--to loot, someone has to produce. in many cases, production is low-level... which is why such exists and encourages dictatorship. Midas: Even down to the wiring, it was usages of Western technologies. OK... Next question... This is the crux of the biscuit folks.. huh? Tym: i'm begining to see Hull's point more clearly. ..why can't significant thinking occur under force? because you are not able to translate it into action Question as crux: Was was man always stagnant in those times when he was not free? Tym: because action is what is prohibited in force I think it can only it is the most dangerous thing you can do TomM: man's always been free in practise to a least some degree. I think the crux of "significant" thinking is the intensity of focus required for it. When force is applied, you can't focus on the thought because you have to focus (at least partly) on the force instead. Also, there is the question of How about... Tym: And advanced only to the degree he was free to think and to act. Tym: You are not free to select the focus of your attention, thus unable to gather and store material nessesary for it, i.e. the ban of Gallileos telescope finings. TomM: Because, even when someone had a significant thought, they were prohibited from acting on it. findings If you look at anthem: what cant you do? You cannot build a lightbulb... first, its against the law to have individual thoughts... its against the law to have individual actions--so experimentation is out of the question... its against the Fredrik: yr getting close :) Jim: i would maintain no significant thought was forthcoming. it's impossible for significant thought to occur under force, _even if a person *wants* to think_. This is because: **Force paralyses the process of thinking by preventing new integrations**. In the sense that when the force prevents one from effectively pursuing the thought or profiting by it, the motivation to think (which helps achieve that focus) is diminished. Force does create an epistemologically inefficient process, in that the scope of new material is restricted. Subetai: but even if motivation exists, force precludes any ability to act on thoughts... to integrate, advance, produce... Besides, if the culture is based on force, no one has the *time* to sit back and think new thoughts. Force kills the motivation for abstract thinking (which requires more effort and therefore more motivation). Tom: more than that. Tym: i know, taking it one step at a time. much like slavery of old..slaves were killed or beaten if they knew how to read if you are using signifgant thought, you will find a way out of force Betsy: my point is that a person can't think under force *even if he wants to* Midas: That too. I think he can only it is a danger to himself Tym: thoughts require action. the very nature of thoughts is a relationship between action--ie, to advance and produce. thoughts are based on reality.. when means of percieving reality are eliminated so are many thoughts. Tym: I'm not sure I'd agree with that. It depends on the kind of force applied, and the determination of the person. Tym: What Subetai just said. What's "force"? How does it *prevent* integrations? Restrict raw material, steal time, sap motivations, all true. Less ability to act on new integrations, obvious. Tym: Force does shift focus away from personal cognitive goals. tym: Validate that. Explain how the process of force prevents the person from thinking about anything significant? As a counter example, Rearden thought up the new design of the Rearden Bridge right after a high degree of force had been Tym: Significant thinking on grand scale, presupposes intellectual division of labor, which cant be persued under force or threat of force. But isn't it more crucial that a gun substitutes someone else's judgment (or whim) for one's own, especially in how one can act upon such judgments? steve007: More crucial in what respect? OK, I think it's time to home in on a concrete example... Jim: However, he had "automatised" that type of thinking...and was still somewhat free to think and to act (and he had plenty of time to think...he was not made to do menial labor). Fredrik: significant thinking doesnt presuppose intellectual division of labor. that is a bonus, but not primary neccessity Hold on here. "Significant" thinking occurs only when seeking a positive goal -- something to gain. Using force eliminates that possibility and changes the motivation to a negative goal -- to not lose a value. The brain just doens't work that way TomM: Right, but force was still being used against him. It is an example worth looking at to see exactly how he was still able to think in some areas, but not in others. To concretise this point, imagine there's a certain economic historian living in the 18th Century. He has scrupulously researched the facts and conscientiously integrated them in an effort to understand where material values come from. He comes up with the labor theory of value: the idea that wealth is primarily created by physical effor Wasn't there that Jewish mathematician (Trendlenberg?) who thought some pretty abstract math while at Auschwitz or Dachau? I agree that force inhibits thought, but so long as one is capable of thinking (not in intense pain or drugged), t More crucial in the sense of what is allowed to become part of the process of thinking (and from whom) in the first place. <> Kimi -> JayA All: I'm asking you to focus on a concrete that will hopefully get across my point better. ok, tym TYm: You're speaking of Adam Smith. Now imagine the impossible, and suppose that we go back to the 18th Century and establish an "enlightened" dictatorship. Only objectively good and true ideas will be allowed to flourish. The teaching of the fallacious labor theory of value Subetai that was Tractenberg. Btsy: right +e Tym: If they are not free to come to their own conclusions, why--how?-- could they think? TomM; hold on :) Our economic historian will still be allowed to teach and publish, but nothing in the context of the labor theory of value. This means that if the authorities find anything that pertains to this false idea: be it one note, one private discu Does everyone have the context so far? I do. Tym: Yes. re yup Tym: Go on please. yep You've been clear about it, yes OK, here is the question I want to discuss for the remainder of the hour: Tym: Fear is one of those emotions that tends to paralyze cognition. If a thinker senses that a certain line of investigation will lead to fearful conclusions, his mind will tend to shut down in those areas. Our economic historian will still be allowed to teach and publish, but nothing in the context of the labor theory of value. This means that if the authorities find anything that pertains to this false idea: be it one note, one private discu oops :) try again Tym? Betsy: so yr saying he can't engage in signif. thought here? What if he was brave? Then he is in jail. You didn't post the question, Tym. How about Galileo? At least for a time he did think. However, once catholic clamped down his output stopped... betsy is he not able to think or has he already thought of the fate which awaits him if he were to think (a significant thought) Question: can our scholar make engage in significant, original thinking under these circumstances? Why or why not? Tym: One good point about significant thought is the need to validate it...can't be done in a dictatorship. What's the punchline of your scenario? Tym, Betsy: Also, if fear is what stops thought, then fear of loosing a job in a free market could be argued to stop thought. But there is a difference, beyond the issue of fear. That was the question Tym was about to paste. He had an accident. Tym: He could be brave -- but not stupid. He might a la John Galt continue to think but keep the results to himself. Jim: Fear of losing a job in a free market is not that big of a deal...one can always get another job...one *can't* get another life. Betsy: Ah, so he can think, yet keep the results to himself, i.e. think but be prevented from acting on them. Jim: Nope. yes He would be psychologically paralised. he has mad a significant thought in that assesment TomM: That's the point I was raising. Antioch: I think a thinker would think (under those circumstances) that "I think this is something I had better not think about." Betsy: Galt *was* free in the valley. How about "Anthem"? The entire theme is the individual mind operating under force and ultimately fighting back and destroying the irrationality.. The scenario omits context. Any regime that can prohibit one doctrine is unlikely to stick to only *that* doctrine. Thus the scope of permissible action is cut off. as did kira in "We the Living" That can have nothing to do with the scope of the thinking one chooses to undertake. It does affect what one can *act upon.* Point of notice: We have yet to find *any* significant thoughts from the dark ages where a loner wrote down his thoughts, buried them, and only later get discovered. And one can only keep so much in one's mind. philtwo: "Anthem" is an excellent and more comprehensive scenario. The spark wasn't annihilated, it just had nothing readily at hand to act upon. TomM: The number of really creative, good thinkers in any era is always a small % tho phil: Only because he could escape. Right. phil: But there were *none*. TomM: To your knowledge phil: I go by available evidence. TomM: To a degree, Leonardo's writing was encrypted, he wrote in a mirror phil: Not out of fear of being discovered, but out of privacy rights. TomM: If you can 't read it, you can't discover the meaning Was Leonardo de Vinci ever threatened with force by the powers that be? why must all thought be put on paper? TomM, only for the pedophilia thing Antioch: there is a very small limit on what can be retained without using words and writing those down. because if you write it in the air, it will blow away. All: my point is that force forces you to progressively delimit yr context, until you can't get anything done at all. TomM: The point isn't what happens in a totalitarian state, but whether or not force at any level is harmful to man. This issue of paralyzing thought is not Rand's central point. Her point was that force can't make someone integrate, and Jim: You are missing the point. Why indeed? Tractenberg (mentioned earlier) got a whole book of math theory into his thoughts while at Dachau, without paper. TomM: What point is that? significnt thought of the scope that is punishable is not that common, that one needs to write a book on it The freedom of thought includes the freedom to act on those thoughts. You can't have one wihtout the other. Of course, he wrote it down and published it later, for I read it :) steve: That is very much the exception. Jim: that force prevents new thoughts. Hull is making a different point then Rand (though not contradicting hers). Tom: how so? Ayn Rand "wrote" a lot of novels in her head when she lived in Russia -- and they were all lost. freedom of thought doesn't imply freedom to act. I think that what we've established is that force inhibits thought, not prevents it. The higher the level of thought, the more the effort required for it, the more it is inhibited. Was tractenberg mathematical discoveries implicit in his precamp work? A good example is Galt and the end of AS. They couldn't force him to fix the country. Subetai: if it inhibits thought, the less of it you get done, right? Tym: right Force literally *paralyzes* thought in the sense of inhibiting action upon it. That's not the same claim as that it *prevents* thought. Freeman: An entirely different point...they wanted him to violate the nature of existence. Tym: Hull is trying to argue that force paralysis significant thought. Rand's primary point is that integration can't be force, and that force prevents one from acting on one's thoughts in that area. Jim: do you understand why mankind was stagnant for so long? steve007: Right. Force stops you from acting on your thoughts, thus making reason irrelevent to one's life. TomM: Because they were not free to act on their thoughts. Jim: Can you think of a better prohibitor ot thought than not being free to act on it? TomM: When ever an innovator did come up with a significant thought, he was punished. He wasn't stopped from thinking, but from acting on it. TomM: Example: Galileo. I think that "acting on it " is getting ahead in the game here. One personal example: I had once wanted to invent a nuclear power automobile engine...i won't even think about it now, since the US gov would prohit it's manufacturing. Tom: good example. these are examples of punishment of acting on significant thought not having it Musta been a pretty fast car! Jim: Galileo had no significant thoughts *after* the threat of force. he did Tym: Why? The point of Atlas Shrugged was to show the role of the mind in human life, that reasoning is necessary to live. She then showed that force stops one from acting according to reason, thus showing that force and mind are opposit and died for it Antioch: Expalin. Jim: he couldn't do any research in that direction; it'd be squelched. explain the church beheaded galileo for his action, not for the thought of them Jim: If force and mind are oppostiesd, then why fight Hull's integration? Jim: reasoning doesn't happen in a vacuum tho. <> JayA -> Kimi Tym: But people do continue to do research in secret when their government becomes forceful. The men of the mind go on strike, but they don't stop thinking, unless they are being physically tortured, that is. <> TomM does not remember Galileo being beheaded. jim_n yes he was Jim: can they do _as much_? No. So thought that _would_ have occurred can't now. ..it's a gradual withering. Galileo was under house arrest until he died (from my recollection). It was some sort of death, macbey burned I though Galileo was confined to house arrest for the duration of his life.. And they only do it in secret because the govt is inefficient. Tym: good point. Okay. I'm going to remove the keyword from the channel. Please continue with the discussion. and then he continued by releasing more of his findings and was killed Antioch: Hmmm...I think you are thinking about someone else. Tym: Is your point that you cannot do significant thinking with an everr shrinking context? Rand's point was that her philosophy was one for "living on earth." To inhibit the actions needed for such living, including acting on conceptual thought ... Galileo wasn't physically murdered Tym: But that is a different issue than not being able to integrate. Eventually one does loose one's motivation for thinking when one can't act on it. just a few years ago the church admitted they were wrong about galileo ... is to enforce a standard of death, not of life, in its ultimate scope. That makes force antithetical to life as standard of *all* values. perhaps Tym: And I agree, that much less with be thought about than what is thought about when progress occurs in a free society. Jim: only because yr significant thinking told you so :) Antioch, just a few years ago, the catholic church acknowledged that the world was indeed, round. yes I have the article for that. "Vatican admits Galileo was right" and they went back on their ruling of galileo as a heritich Have to go myself. Go see the black crepe at www.aynrand.org I suppose that would mean that the churches official position was that the earth was flat, even after human beings had been off planet Fredrik: in order to do the most significant thinking, you have to be able to continually widen yr context. I'm going also. Thanks for the topic Tym. Goodnight. Tym: Ok, I agree wwith you. no day is wasted if you learn something...thanks ya'll chatta later Sub: Thankyou. Thanks for the discusion, Tym. :) Thanks Tym. Subetai: yr welcome :)