The following is the transcript of the discussion held on 3/16/96 on #GeekSpeak, on how force stops thought, part III, moderated by Tym Parsons. This transcript is copyright 1996 by Tom Wright and Pankaj Saxena. No reproduction without permission is allowed except for personal use. [21:10] OK, first I've noticed some difficulties in understanding the relevance of significant vs. low level thought in Dr. Hull's article. [21:11] The point I want to stress is that the issue is: what kind of thinking, if any, can be compelled, and why? [21:12] Tym: Can I ask a question? [21:12] Jim: sure. [21:12] Tym: If the issue is, "what kind of thinking, if any, can be compelled", why wasn't the topic "How Force can't force thinking" rather than "How force paralyses thought"? [21:13] Jim: because you *can* force someone to perform low level thinking, you *can't* force them to perform significant thought. [21:13] FLlW (dolee@slip129-37-154-22.on.ca.ibm.net) joined #geekspeak. [21:14] TomR (flunky@ppp1-21.INRE.ASU.EDU) joined #geekspeak. [21:14] Is everyone clear on that? [21:15] Examples to the contrary, anyone? [21:16] Could you just define "low-level thinking" quickly? [21:17] Could we, for example, force our scholar in the example I provided to do multiplication tables? [21:17] Tym: I thought the example in Hull's essay was how a person can't think when he's forced to think something he doesn't agree with, i.e. the historian wants to look at history from an economic perspective and is stoped from doing so. The example doesn't highlight the issue of him NOT being able to integrate the philosophic view, but of being forbiden to think of the economic view. [21:17] Jay: ...or balance a ledger, if we threatened him with dire consequences if he didn't? [21:18] Tym: You could also force him to perform differential equations. But that's not what I would refer to as "low-level thinking". [21:18] Jay: it's low level if you've made it a routine, no? Piece o cake, no? [21:19] I don't think that's the prope rdifferentia here. I'm leaning more towards Jim's view. [21:19] Jim: I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophic view" in this context. [21:20] 21 members, 6 chops, 12o 1m 0d, 0 bans [21:20] Tym, that would mean low-level thinking is relative to the individual...is that what Jay meant? [21:21] Tym: The example was of Objectivists dictators outlawing an economic theory of history (that economics determines history) rather than that philosophy determines history. [21:21] Jay: significant thinking is when yr making a certain connection for the first time, not the umpteenth. [21:21] dictators = "dictators" [21:21] Well, I can't argue with significant thought, but what is "low-level" thought? [21:22] If he had aquired the mathematical skill, perhaps [21:22] Jim: he can't understand the "philosophic view" as long as he's convinced economics is primary. [21:22] Tym: But the process Hull had the historian go through wasn't an attempt to grasp the Objectivist view, but continuing to see only the false view, but knowing he's not allowed to pursue it. [21:23] Ousey: after you've acquired the skill, using the skill is a process of low level thought. [21:23] I think low-level is a horrible term. Calling it *automated* thought, or automated ideas, would be much clearer. [21:24] Jim: it doesn't matter WHICH view he's pursuing. [21:24] So, Tym, significant thought is creating new integrations [21:24] Ousey: right. [21:24] Low-level thought is acting through an established pattern? [21:25] Jim: the whole point is that we build conclusions from previous thought, whether true or false. That's all we can do. [21:25] OK. Works well enough for me [21:25] ..and you can't *force* the scholar to adopt the correct view. [21:27] Tym: True, you can't force him to accept the right view, but I see that as a different issue than what it means for his mind to be paralysed. It is paralysed in that he isn't able to act on his thoughts. Force prevents one from guiding one's actions by one's own thought. [21:27] Jay, that's what i was just thinking...the sole or almost complete use of the subconcious rather than the concious [21:28] Jim: MY point is that you CAN force someone to do low-level thinking, but not significant thought. All I'm saying. [21:28] Jim: do you disagree? [21:28] In other words, you can force them to apply old ideas, but not grasp (in the full, objective meaning of tha term) new ideas? [21:29] +t [21:29] Jim: Tyme is not saying anything about what force prevents, just that it cannot cause thought [21:29] Jay: they can't grasp them to the FULLEST extent possible. [21:29] Tym: No, I don't disagree. I just see that as a different issue than before. As I've said, force is anti-mind in two respects: 1) It prevents thought from guiding action and 2) Force can't substitute for a syllogism. [21:30] Ousey: wrong. I'm saying that force prevents significant thought. [21:30] it is.. it's just not manufactured any more [21:30] Yes, but not just a few lines back:) [21:30] Toni- (vatcher@204.245.16.27) joined #geekspeak. [21:31] Jim: why should, say, a cynical egoist care? If he can FORCE people to think for him, it's all the same to him. It makes force PRACTICAL. [21:31] JayA (allenjk@mail.frontiernet.net) left irc: brb [21:31] ..my aim is to show that it isn't. [21:32] Tym: If it were practical, then Soviet Russia would have been a technological powerhouse. [21:32] Tym: Not at all. I've already said he can't force them to think for him. My point is this: To the extent a person uses force to stop you from acting on your thoughts, he's paralysed both significant AND low-level thinking. [21:32] Dino: That's his point...that it's not practical. [21:32] Dino: oh, but they just applied force the wrong way. My gang can do it better ;) [21:33] Tym, first of all he'd have to kill off all those who can think...they might overthrow him. So the people of intelligence who _would_ be the ones forced to think would be...unavailabe. [21:33] Jim: true. But he doesn't care. As long as he can *force you to think significantly for him*. [21:33] Tym: Force is force. There is no better way. [21:34] In Nazi Germany, a handful of top level scientists left, many more were killed ... jews [21:34] FLlW: naw, he's the strongest baboon in the jungle ;) [21:34] Tym: I already said he can't force you to think. The question in the first to parts was: Can he stop you from thinking? [21:35] Dino: sure there is. I can force you to produce for me; it's practical ;) [21:35] Gardner (mjg@solar.eclipse.net) joined #GeekSpeak. [21:36] Jim, yes. [21:36] Tym: yeah, but you can't force me to think for you. You can't force me to seek better ways to produce for you. [21:36] brb [21:36] Tym: Criminals aren't trying to force you to think, they're trying to force you to act against your thought, i.e. do what you have determined is not what you would otherwise have done. [21:36] Jim: Does his force stop you, or does your recognition of that force paralyze your ability to integrate those things he doesn't like? [21:36] Betsy (Betsy@ip046.lax.primenet.com) joined #geekspeak. [21:37] Jim: sure they're trying to force you to think. Look at when Galt was captured by the looters. They wanted him a dictator. [21:38] tym: Nope, they didnt' want Galt to think. That's what Galt kept showing them in various ways. Galt told them his conclusion, that you can't save the economy by force, and they didn't want his conclusion. They wanted him to accept their assertion that there must be a way to force it. [21:38] Dino: better? Hmm, at yr present level is sufficient ;) [21:39] Jim: force what? Galt to think of a way to save the economy? [21:39] Tym: They told Galt, "Save the economy." Galt said, "Get out of the way." They said, "No, we don't like your thinking. Accept our conclusion that it's possible." [21:39] Tym: then that's all you get... no self-improvement on my part = no improvement in production for you. You get a static quantity, no growth. [21:40] Jim: right. They wanted Galt to think of a way to save the economy, but evade his conclusion that that wasn't possible. [21:40] ...i.e. split his thinking in two. [21:40] Dino: Tym is not trying to grow. He's trying to subsist [21:41] Tym: Think by evasion...That's the contradiction. As I said, they really didn't want his thought, but his willingness to accept their wishes as reality. [21:41] Dino: hmm, that'l do. I could exist as a parasite for decades ;) [21:41] Ousey: That will not work. It didn't work in Russia or any other communist state. [21:42] Jim: of *course* it's a contradiction. Thinking can't work by such schizoid means.. [21:42] Let's look at this in essentials. Shouldn't it be possible to show that *any* amount of force has negative consequences on thinking, to show the principle? And the more, the worse the impact? [21:42] Tym isn't concerned with long-term planning, the five-year plan is all that matters [21:42] ...which is why in any objective sense they didn't want him to think; they wanted him to produce causelessly. [21:43] Tym: Right. That's why I said, a force initator doesn't want thought. His goal is to stop the thought he doesn't like, to force the victim to accept his wishes instead of the victims thought. [21:44] philtwo: Answer why thinking is important to human life. That's the key to why force is hostile to human life. [21:44] Toni- (vatcher@204.245.16.27) left irc: [21:44] Jim: from an irrational perspective, they want him to think, disregarding the nature of thought. I'm showing the impracticality of such a view. [21:45] 21 members, 6 chops, 12o 1m 0d, 0 bans [21:45] Tym: Sometimes the forcers want to loot the PRODUCT of thought. [21:45] Betsy: yes, of course. [21:45] Tym: Without realizing that thought is where the values come from. [21:45] Jim, that's the ultimate concequense. However, the dictator DOES want his slaves to think...to think about prodcution and think that production for HIM and HIM ALONE is a noble goal. This works with many individuals...look at the US today...seen any altuists lately? [21:45] philtwo: Yes, the greater the amount of force the more disruptive to all cognitive processes, "low" level or "significant" [21:46] For example: How does taxation across the board reduce someone's *desire* to think and produce? [21:46] They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- but they value to eggs. [21:46] re: Betsy's remark, applied to current national scale [21:46] tym: The impracticality of that view is that it prevents the victim from acting according to his actual thought, acting against his own integrations. Since integration is the only way to validated the soundness of a thought, anything that stops integration invalidates thought, and thus leaves actions unguided. [21:47] Jim: right. And integration is what occurs only with *significant thought*. [21:47] Phil: that's also a reply to yr question. [21:47] The motivation to think has to be factored into the ability the think [21:47] phil: no, motivation is secondary... [21:47] Tym: I disagree [21:47] Tym: Not true. My thought to spend my money on rent is a simple, low-level thought, that is integrated. A robber who steals my rent money is invalidating that thought. [21:48] Phil: The motivastion to think is _essential_ to factor in. Thought is volitional -- i.e., motivated. [21:48] ...you have to have *thought* that you should be motivated in the first place. [21:48] motivation secondary? i think not [21:48] Betsy: Yes, I agree [21:48] Tym: I maintain that force is hostile to thought at all levels, low and significant...hostile in that it cuts off one's thoughts from guiding one's actions. [21:48] Betsy, phil: motivated? For what *reason*? :) [21:48] Stardust_ (general2@iguana.microserve.com) joined #geekspeak. [21:49] Jim: I would agree with that. [21:49] Tym: one must integrate that one needs to integrate? [21:49] Tym: We aren't Vulcans. Thinking is not an end in itself. This is the key to rationalism. vs rationality, chess playing vs. reality: Thinking for a personal reason [21:49] Jim: the force-wielder doesn't care tho. He just wants you to think significantly. All he needs. ;) [21:50] 22 members, 6 chops, 12o 1m 0d, 0 bans [21:50] Toni- (vatcher@ip16-027.phx.primenet.com) joined #geekspeak. [21:50] phil: not at all. Altruists conclude that they *should* sacrifice themselves. Erroneous thought process leads to erroneous motivation. [21:51] Tym: It doesn't matter whether the force-wielder cares. He can't force me to think (to engage in objective thought), and by his actions he's preventing me from acting on my thoughts. [21:51] Perception then trumps motivation? That is, the perception that one needs to think... [21:52] Some altruists conclude that _they_ should sacrifice _you_. [21:52] GlennM (martind@204.120.67.154) left irc: [21:52] Jim, but they can...so long as the thinkers compartmentalize. Most people aren't that honest....especially when placed under such circumstances. [21:53] Jim: it's indisputable that he can force you to perform low-level thinking. But the force wielder thinks he can compel significant thought *too*. [21:53] One is motivated to think when one knows that one's thoughts will result in some benefit (or prevention of harm) to one's life. If force cuts off one's ability to act on one's thoughts, making one's thoughts irrellevent to benefiting one's life, one looses the motivation to think. [21:53] Betsy, nope. that's cynical egoist...the other side of the sacrificial coin. [21:53] Toni- (vatcher@ip16-027.phx.primenet.com) got netsplit. [21:53] FLlW (dolee@slip129-37-154-22.on.ca.ibm.net) got netsplit. [21:54] Freeman-1 (mshilton@pdial28.onslowonline.net) left #geekspeak. [21:54] A rational person under threat of force will feel fear, and that fear will dis-integrate, that's de-motivating [21:55] Jim: simply untrue. There is no "instinct of self-preservation". You have to *think* you oughta live and be happy before you can do it. [21:55] FLlW (dolee@slip129-37-154-22.on.ca.ibm.net) returned to #geekspeak. [21:55] John: Fear is also psycho-epistemologically discumbooberating. It is hard to think clearly when you fear for your values. [21:55] Toni- (vatcher@ip16-027.phx.primenet.com) returned to #geekspeak. [21:56] Betsy: that's exactly what I meant [21:56] FLlW: I believe Betsy meant those who will sacrifice you to society, not to themselves. [21:56] Action: Gardner notes a new Speicherism... "psycho-epistemologically discumbooberating"..... ;-) [21:56] Tym, what the hell happened? [21:56] Ghaki, Betsy: my point is that cognition has primacy, not motivation. [21:57] hello? [21:57] I agree with Tym, motivation comes after cognition of the necessities [21:57] Tym: Which came first.. the chicken or the egg? [21:57] Jim_N (jim_n@ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Jim_N[ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com] [21:57] Betsy: depends on whether yr accept altruism or egoism. [21:57] Jim_N (jim_n@ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #geekspeak. [21:58] Betsy: motivation is not a causeless primary. It's not an instinct. [21:58] Tym: I think this is a fundamental biological issue -- the role of emotions in enabling motivation to think [21:58] ..it comes from *cognition*. [21:58] Tym: We are not Vulcans! [21:59] phil: emotions aren't primary; cognition is. Emotions respond. [21:59] People think for a _purpose_. [21:59] Stardust_ (general2@iguana.microserve.com) left irc: Read error to Stardust_[iguana.microserve.com]: Connection reset by peer [21:59] Betsy: Right. [21:59] If volition is voluntary, what motivates that enabling or disabling? [21:59] Betsy: only if they accept the purpose first. [21:59] No purpose, no thinking or as Francisco put it, "What for?" [22:00] Writing user file ... [22:00] phil: volition does. All you can say. [22:00] which is motivation. [22:00] Kpart (wjc@ppp88.cac.psu.edu) left irc: Leaving [22:01] Tym: No. If you think today "If I spend 10 years of hard thought I might come up with great invention that will make me many $$ ... but in the end (and in between) It'll get taken away ..." Will you keep thinking? [22:01] The capacity for motivation is a part of the human identity, but the object of motivation (such as the motivation to think) must be chosen [22:01] phil, Betsy, FLlW: so yr equating motivation with volition? [22:01] phil: don't understand the relevance of that. [22:01] Tym: Motivation is associated with volition. Saying that volition is not mechanistically predictable by antecedents does not mean that it's causeless [22:02] JayA (allenjk@mail.frontiernet.net) joined #geekspeak. [22:02] I think y'all are getting hung up on what Peikoff calls "the choice to focus or not" in OPAR. [22:02] Volition is the capacity. Motivation is the reason you exercise the capacity. [22:02] phil: never said it was causeless. [22:02] Action: Ousey thinks Gardner is onto something [22:02] Mode change '-k mindfreeze ' by Wright!tlwright@rep00836.reshall.umich.edu [22:03] Betsy: True, so long as you also point out that one must choose to focus before one can consider possible motivations for further thinking. [22:03] Gardener: expalin. [22:03] Ousey: Fundamental epistemoloil issues are my home turf. :-) [22:03] Epistemology is where the action is;) [22:03] Er, epistemological. [22:04] Choice=focus, You choose by focusing or not. [22:04] Jim, Betsy: I think I have a better idea of where yr coming from now. [22:05] Tym: On which issue? [22:05] Jim: the original one :) [22:05] Force is the antithesis of volition, thus the threat/presence of force also negates volition and thus all thought [22:05] it's that stolen concept idea(or whatever it's called). Even choosing to unfocus requires focus. [22:05] Betsy: "Focus" is a better term, though, because there azre many sub-choices after the initial volition kicks in. [22:05] -z [22:06] FLIW: No it doesn't. You just drift. [22:06] phil, Betsy, Gard: I think we need to validate both terms here. [22:06] What gives rise to "motivation", "volition"? [22:07] FLIW: An unfocused mind is the closest a human can get to animal-level consciousness. [22:07] Gard, but then how will you choose to unfocus? choice requires focus and if to think or not to think is by choic then unfocusing requires focus...after that well.... [22:07] Tym: Before any thought occurs, before even the consideration of one percept out of any occurs, a volitional consciousness must choose to focus. [22:07] Gard, i'm not talking about AFTER i'm talking about the just-before [22:08] Why are people in a happy, free society more likely to focus than the inhabitants of a concentration camp? [22:08] Tym: The object of motivation must be chosen [22:08] because they want to see. [22:08] FLlW: No. Choosing *to think* requires focus. Choosing not to think can only be done in a haze. [22:08] FL: *want* to see and to live [22:08] James_N (jim_n@ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #geekspeak. [22:08] re Jim [22:08] Sorry, I was disconnected. [22:08] tym: Did you see my question? [22:08] FLIW: It's not a hall of mirrors. It's analogous to a switch, or better yet, a gas pedal. You let go. [22:09] Jim_N (jim_n@ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Jim_N[ix-dfw9-10.ix.netcom.com] [22:09] Nick change: James_N -> Jim_N [22:09] Gard, but gard that mean you had to have it befor letting go...which is what i've been saying [22:09] JayA: Which leads to an unmotivated mind [22:10] FLIW: No. Keeping one's mind focused on reality is a constant action of your consciousness. When one unfocuses, it's just the ceasing of that action. [22:11] FLlW: One could just sit in the car and never turn it on... [22:11] Jay, you mean that the mind starts out in a haze? How in the world in all the haze does a person choose to focus? [22:11] FLIW: It's the mental equivalent of letting a muscle go slack. [22:12] FLlW: via percepts at first, I think [22:12] What does all this have to do with force? [22:12] focusing on reality is is a concious action? i thought trying to unfocus was a concious action [22:12] FLIW: No, focus is not automatic nor the default. [22:13] It can be automatized, though -- become second nature. (One would hope.) [22:13] Gard, right...give me a sec [22:14] Focus can't be automatized ... if so, you'd never go to sleep ;) [22:14] (Um, did this conversation just peter out when I jumped in...?) [22:14] phil: Sleep? What's that? [22:14] p2: No, not focus, but the choice to focus. It becomes easier than it is initially (usually in infancy). [22:14] Action: Ousey needs sleep [22:14] FLlW: There is a condition where unfocusing does take a conscious action. It's called "evasion." It's when you do focus and make a connection but then decide that you don't want to know what you saw, so you actively work to avoid the thought. [22:14] Jay: I see you've been under the corrupting influence of Kimi [22:14] Actually, staying in focus is a choice that requires lots of effort -- and a desire to expend the effort. [22:15] An example of staying in focus is staying on the topic of Force :) [22:16] Dino (dino@uhura15.slip.yorku.ca) left irc: night all [22:16] Most people aren't evaders, but they aren't clearly in focus either. [22:16] Betsy: preconceptual motivation is simply conditioned response. [22:16] JD trying to hint? [22:16] If focus isn't automatic than neither is unfocusing. If neither is automatic than how does a baby choose? it knows no desire, thus motivations, thus purpose. How does a person choose to choose? Is choice a primary or an effect? [22:16] Gardner: No, I'm screaming [22:16] Tym: I don't think so. Watch a baby sometime. [22:17] John, right [22:17] FLIW: The choice to focus is a primary -- it is the basic function of the faculty of volition. [22:17] Betsy: hmm, wait, if they have volition. [22:17] Babies usually WANT something. They pratice reaching for things. They taste things. [22:17] FL: There's many things going on ... the desire to study (consciously focus upon) something comes from one's personal hierarchy of value, expressed immediately by emotions [22:17] JohnD: I would be more persistent on keeping with the topic of force, but the hour is over, so I thought it was free time. [22:18] Jim: OK [22:18] Gard, but you just said that focusing is not automatic. [22:18] how can it then be a primary? [22:18] John: have to read the transcript first ;) [22:18] Tym: NO [22:18] A baiy's desire to explore reality is probably originally motivated by biological drives. [22:18] TyM; I have not yet [22:18] FLIW: By primary I meant that it's the first thing that happens cognitively. [22:19] John: no, I mean the transcript for this discussion. [22:19] Betsy: so yr talking about innate desires? [22:20] Betsy: I was just reading Rand's discussion on volition in ITOE 2nd Ed. She said that at the pre-conceptual level, a child just wills to understand. [22:20] Betsy: I know in the old Objectivist literature, Branden discussed the desire for efficacy that a child acts on. [22:20] Tym: I'm talking about physical needs and the pleasure/pain mechanism. [22:21] Tym: Rand wrote about pleasure/pain awareness as our first awareness of values. [22:21] Betsy: I think that's what I was getting at when I mentioned conditioned response. But there's volition in there somewhere too. [22:22] Tym: But to a child, the choice seems obvious? [22:22] It's not conditioned. It's built-in -- but it's not innate as in "innate ideas". [22:22] JohnD (enigroup@enigroup.mnsinc.com) left #geekspeak. [22:22] Ousey, Betsy: if a child simply "chose" pleasure everytime it wouldn't be volition. [22:23] Harper_ (rgood@slip19.qb.island.net) joined #geekspeak. [22:23] Tym: Right, even for a child, desiring to understand, he still must exert the effort. It's not automatic even to the child. [22:23] hey all :-) [22:23] Tym: A child does choose pleasure, he just doesn't know how to get it [22:23] Ousey: right. [22:25] Topic changed by X!cservice@undernet.org: The Geek SpeakEasy [22:25] Tym: What happens -- usually by the age of 2 -- is that a child concludes "this thinking business is wonderful and I love the results" or "If I have to think to get what I want, to hell with what I want. It's too much trouble." [22:25] Tym, about that topic we were talking about...it was how force stops thought right? not how force prevents it. [22:25] As far as exploring his ability to act in the world, it just seems like the right thing to do. [22:25] Lost dcc connection to Wright!tlwright@rep00836.reshall.umich.edu/1048 [22:25] goodnight, everyone.. I'll have the transcript tomorrow [22:25] ok. never mind [22:25] Thanks Wright. [22:25] night Wright [22:25] Not until he develops the abstract conceptual machinery can he choose. [22:25] Thanks Tym, for continuing to raise the issue of force. [22:25] nite [22:26] Wright (tlwright@rep00836.reshall.umich.edu) left irc: Go Forbes Go! [22:26] Jim: thanks for contributing :)