25 Nov 2013

Clarification on Methodological Individualism

Austrian School 96 Comments

On that great intellectual forum known as Facebook, there is an argument over methodological individualism. (I’m not naming names since, what happens on Facebook…) Someone argued that if the standard Austrian position is that it doesn’t make sense to say, “The US government bombed Germany,” then such a person can’t stop the reduction at the individual. Why not push it to the neurons inside the individual’s nervous system?

To that, my neurons replied:

It’s not that I’m saying…that an action has to be performed by a heart, lungs, brain, and skin, but that it makes no sense to say it can be performed by “US Govermernt” or “a neuron.” Rather, I’m saying an action is performed by an individual agent who has goals and reason. I’m not mapping an action to a certain collection of body parts, I’m linking it to an actor. And neither the US government nor a neuron is an actor, given the rest of our knowledge.

96 Responses to “Clarification on Methodological Individualism”

  1. Wonks Anonymous says:
    • Bob Murphy says:

      Thanks, cool stuff Wonks Anon. But when you say a neuron performs an action, you’re using the term in a different way. Unless you really think it makes sense to view the neuron as having free will, and “wanting” to fire (or not fire), as opposed to exhibiting blindly the laws of physics.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        That equivocation of “action” is rampant in the non-Austrian camp when they engage Austrian theory. There is really no excuse for this other than intellectual laziness, given the material available that clarifies this issue.

      • Wonks Anonymous says:

        I don’t need the concept of free will or “wanting” to say that something performs an action.

        • Bharat says:

          Wonks, in order to say someone purposefully acts, concepts such as will, preference, choice, etc. are necessarily implied.

          If you are saying those aren’t needed to perform an “action”, then you’re committing the equivocation MF and Murphy are talking about. You’re referring to a ball rolling down the hill as “action.” Was the ball purposefully acting? Obviously not.

          • Ken B says:

            When a flower bends towards the sun is that purposeful?

            • Bharat says:

              Not in the same sense of purposeful human actors. But Ken, you sound like you believe in A-T metaphysics! I thought you were a naturalist this whole time.

              • Ken B says:

                No. I believe various kinds of systems exhibit purposeful behavior. The flower is a sophisticated information processing machine developed over time By evolution. It’s Ben’s towards the sun for a reason.
                I reject the claim that only people behave purposively.

              • Bharat says:

                Do you agree that the purposefulness exhibited by human beings is, in a very real sense, different from that of flowers, etc.?

            • NicTheNZer says:

              I think this distinction fails on a very simple level. To make a similar analogy lets say that we claim the Miami Dolphins won a foot ball match.

              If we can draw no distinction between the individual actions and the group actions on what basis can we objectively say they won the match? At best you end up with a collection of individuals actions, so we might conclude that 3 of their wings ran in touch downs and that 2 of the opposition did the same and that nobody won (which is obviously absurd) and would not be a healthy result for competitive sports. One could hardly argue that either the individuals actions, or the groups actions, in this case were not purposeful in achieving this result, however.

              The correct way to interpret this statement is that the Miami Dolphins won the match and that certain individuals in the team contributed to (were responsible for) that through their individual actions to that result, and exactly the same thing applies to a government or any other group.

    • valueprax says:

      Let’s all try an experiment:

      Can we describe the concept we’re referring to with the contentious term “action”, without using that contentious word?

      So, let’s describe what “action” is in terms of a human, and what “action” is in terms of a neuron, and then let’s see how these things might be difference.

      No need to war over the word itself.

  2. Wonks Anonymous says:

    Also, it makes perfect sense to say a neuron performed an action, like sending a signal. That’s what neurons do.

    • RPLong says:

      Meh… kind of depends on where you want to draw the line. Did my hand type this message on a keyboard? After all, hands don’t type, they merely respond to muscle contractions. My neurons certainly didn’t type this, since neurons don’t contract muscles; muscles contract themselves.

      Etc. etc… I think by the time we find ourselves this far down the rabbit hole we’ve obscured the meaningfulness of the discussion.

      • Michael says:

        With our current understanding, only individual humans act. When groups act, they must do so through individuals. Acting is defined as using a means to achieve an end. To claim neurons act is to claim conscious behaviour on their part. The evidence that humans are conscious is provided by our own subjective experience.

        At this point, I am unaware of any valid theory or evidence that neurons are themselves conscious. However, were it to be satisfactorily proven that the indeed really ARE conscious, then praxeology would have to be expanded to include neurons as the base unit. Thus, while methodological individualism would be preserved, it would be focused on the actions of individual neurons and not individual humans.

        Luckily for us, that isn’t necessary at this time.

        • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

          I say we must emancipate the neurons in our hands from their cruel slavemasters in our brains. The hand neurons should be free to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit, rather than be forced to obey the edicts and decrees of their supposed betters in the brain.

        • RPLong says:

          I do agree.

        • Ken B says:

          At this point, I am unaware of any valid theory or evidence that neurons are themselves able to speak. However, were it to be satisfactorily proven that the indeed really ARE able to speak, then linguistics would have to be expanded to include neurons as the base unit. Thus, while methodological individualism would be preserved, it would be focused on the actions of individual neurons and not individual humans.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            At this point, I am unaware of any valid theory or evidence that neurons are themselves able to speak. However, were it to be satisfactorily proven that the indeed really ARE able to speak, then linguistics would have to be expanded to include neurons as the base unit. Thus, while methodological individualism would be preserved, it would be focused on the speech of individual neurons and not individual humans.

            FTFY

          • Michael says:

            Maybe I misunderstand, but….sure? I agree? I don’t see your point here.

            • Ken B says:

              You agree people speak, neurons don’t right? But you concededspeech is a function of neurons operating.
              People “act”, neurons don’t right? But you deny action is a function of neurons operating.

              • Michael says:

                I did no such thing, and you never claimed that either until now.

                I would instead say that while operational neurons may be a requirement of human experience, they are not the causal factor in action.

                The causal factor of human action is a subject mind desiring a change in experience. Action itself is the attemped use of means to achieve the end of that change in experience.

      • Wonks Anonymous says:

        If it makes sense to say that hands respond, which is an action, why not say they type? Could an anti-methodological individualist say than an individual “merely” responds to social forces?

        • Michael says:

          Sure, you can say that. But it implies a mechanistic view of human action that you probably don’t agree with.

    • valueprax says:

      There is line-drawing, sure. But there is also word-manipulation.

      This is a form of equivocation. If a man choosing Corn Flakes over Cheerios is the same as a neuron firing, we’re actually losing information about the way the world works, not gaining it.

      Let’s call a bullet a car and analyze them the same way. They both go fast.

      • Ken B says:

        *A* neuron. Hmm, interesting.
        A book cannot convey ideas because a single drop of ink on the page cannot convey ideas.

      • valueprax says:

        Too subtle for me, Kenny B! You got this ol’ Rothbardian good and hard, like always. Aw, shucks!

        • Ken B says:

          Which in particular valueprax? Covers such a lot of things.Such a lot.

        • valueprax says:

          I know, that’s my point. I think I’ll just start appending this to all your replies to my replies, kind of like Roddis with the DK and LK quotes and such.

  3. Lord Keynes says:

    “Someone argued that if the standard Austrian position is..

    A reading of the Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics (2010) shows that some Austrians these days have a very different version of methodological individualism from the “standard” one that “allows for the causal role of social customs” (Evans 2010: 9) and that recognises that “social phenomena are not strictly reducible to [sc. individuals]” (Evans 2010: 11). At one point this method even seems to get the name “institutional individualism” (Evans 2010: 11).

    So is there even a “standard” Austrian position at all?

    Evans, A. J. 2010. “Only Individuals Choose,” in Peter R. Boettke (ed.), Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, Mass. 3–13.

    • Ken B says:

      “Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, Mass”

      A man walks into a bar. “I’ll have an Elgar on the rocks.”
      Bartender scratches his head. “What’s an Elgar.”
      “Brahms and water.”

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Oh come on, Elgar’s Enigma Variations are not altogether tasteless.

        Most of us graduate with one of his pieces playing as well.

        • Ken B says:

          I wish I could tell you my Shostakovich joke but it includes sound effects.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      As Lord Keynes proved long ago, non-Euclidean geometry destroyed the Austrian notion of individual action as did evidence of significant levels of mark-up pricing in Norway.

      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/11/mark-up-pricing-in-norway.html

      • Lord Keynes says:

        Yes, roddis, you sound like one frustrated individual who foams at the mouth every time I make a comment here.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Yes. The milk always shoots out of my nose whenever I think of you.

          • Ken B says:

            Goodbye Fetz, hello Bob Rodiss!

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Frustrated? Lord Keynes is the greatest thing that’s happened to Austrian Economics since Rothbard.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            LK is still coming to terms with the fact that he behaves as an anarcho-capitalist, in that he refrains from violating individual property rights, he doesn’t point his gun at people to prevent them from trading at a price below some threshold, he doesn’t use force to collectivize means of production, and he doesn’t tax anyone, nor engage in any Keynesian activity himself.

            Yet LK’s advocacies almost always contradict his own actions.

            LK the practising anarcho-capitalist is trying to reconcile his activities with his beliefs. That’s why he’s so angry all the time such that he goes over the top in his rhetoric. He’s at war with himself.

            The good thing is that he’s around good people on this blog. He is getting here what he never got, what none of us got, going through school. He’s found a home with anarcho-capitalists. He knows he can say anything he wants.

            The reason I am so patient with him, which suprises so many people, is that I took Murphy’s advice a long time ago: Everyone on the planet is trying to understand the world and themselves, and they’re often stuck in ruts they cannot explain. So instead of hating people who are troubled (but peaceful), just help yourself by using them as a means just like they use you as a means.

            • Lord Keynes says:

              “LK is still coming to terms with the fact that he behaves as an … etc. etc”

              A perfect example of the inductive fallacy of hasty generalization.

              Bu using the same illogic, we could say that M_F actually is a New Keynesian.

              M_F thinks — as New Keynesians do — that laws and some degree of property rights must exist. Therefore M_F is a “practical” New Keynesian!

              He can’t come to terms with this fact, and he is clearly mentally disturbed because he can’t fact the truth.

              Or for that matter — and for the same reasons – – he behaves as a Walrasian too, or New Classical or monetarist, or Post Keynesian.

              • Ben says:

                LK,

                Aren’t you conflating an economic science with an ethical position? One doesn’t have to know anything about economics in order to be an anarcho-capitalist; all they have to do is act peacefully and voluntarily with other individuals.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            In his quest, LK actually locates various examples of writers explaining Austrian concepts in ways that have bothered me for years as unclear and/or wrong headed. He’s doing work that we now do not have to do ourselves.

            No joke.

    • valueprax says:

      No. So you have to refute the individual arguments of each one of them independently. You have a long way to go, LK. Get cracking!

      (Argumentational individualism)

  4. Scott Lazarowitz says:

    Government (or, the “State”) is a fiction:

    http://www.strike-the-root.com/great-fictions

  5. Ken B says:

    What you’re sayiong Bob is that “action” as used in say Mises is a concept appropriate to the level at which we look at human beings, rather than the level at which we look at individual neurons. Fine and correct. “Action” in this sense is an emergent notion. This is like my point about “software” or “memory” being emergent notions in electronics, at a higher level than circuits. So, no disagreement here. Mises style “action” is a higher lewvel notion than neurons.
    But people aren’t the only level. There are functional units and “software” in the brain, and there are groups of people. You summarily dismiss these other levels, and claim apodictic truth for just one particular one. This is unjustified. And it is also incorrect.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      It’s incorrect? Nobody has proven that “social conditions” determine consciousness. It’s a philosophy of the mind.

      What are you talking about?

      • Ken B says:

        Back at you. Social conditions, I didn’t mention social conditions.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      What you’re sayiong Bob is that “action” as used in say Mises is a concept appropriate to the level at which we look at human beings, rather than the level at which we look at individual neurons. Fine and correct. “Action” in this sense is an emergent notion. This is like my point about “software” or “memory” being emergent notions in electronics, at a higher level than circuits. So, no disagreement here. Mises style “action” is a higher lewvel notion than neurons.
      But people aren’t the only level. There are functional units and “software” in the brain, and there are groups of people. You summarily dismiss these other levels, and claim apodictic truth for just one particular one. This is unjustified. And it is also incorrect.

      Apparently my remarks on this topic are both correct and incorrect. If this were a theological post, Ken would have just proven his irrationality. But it’s only Christians who contradict themselves.

      (Yeah Ken, I “get” what you’re saying above, but all I was saying was what you initially concede as correct. That’s the whole point.)

      • Ken B says:

        Yes Bob your comments are both correct and incorrect. Don’t tell me let me guess, your hands are both left and right.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Ken B., thanks for the cute witticisms. It’s funny how I’m always the uncharitable one in our disputes. You patiently explain how I am full of rudeness, contradiction, hypocrisy, immorality, etc. And on top of it all, you have to endure me saying you are “patronizing.” One wonders why you keep coming back, amidst such shabby treatment.

          • Ken B says:

            I think Bob I am making the same point that you made when you said that on occasion I support Obama and another occasions I do not. I perhaps used a little more wit.

            I do not recall accusing you of hypocrisy. I think your opinion on this thread is arguably immoral but I do not recall ever having accused you of personal morality.

          • Ken B says:

            By the way Bob I do agree, I do patiently explain things. I don’t call people trolls, I don’t call people liars, I don’t call people patronizing, I don’t swear at people, and I don’t tell people to go to hell.

        • valueprax says:

          Despite his free will, he can’t help himself. He’s DETERMINED to have an unhappy ending here at Free Advice.

    • Lord Keynes says:

      Right. “Action” as defined in the dictionary and normal English usage can mean activity or motion etc. without any human agency:

      “The process or condition of acting or doing; the exertion of energy or influence; working, agency, operation

      The way in which an instrument acts; the mechanism effecting this. ”

      The expression “action at a distance” shows the usage.

      • RIchard Moss says:

        Right. “Action” as defined in the dictionary and normal English usage can mean activity or motion etc. without any human agency:

        Yes, and Mises never denied action could be used to describe a response to a stimulus, for instance, as opposed to ‘human’ action – or purposeful behavior.

        Mises was not trying to re-define action. He was only noting that everyday human beings make such distinctions with regard to action in describing why people do the things they do.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        He titled his book “Human Action”.

        Not “Action”.

        Equivocating redefining semantic straw man ad hominem red herring contempible dishonesty!

  6. Major_Freedom says:

    Someone argued that if the standard Austrian position is that it doesn’t make sense to say, “The US government bombed Germany,” then such a person can’t stop the reduction at the individual. Why not push it to the neurons inside the individual’s nervous system?

    There is an even greater problem with that comment. Consider the implications. This poster is claiming that if we can’t impute action to a holistic concept such as a group of individuals, such as “The US” (who bombed Germany), then we can’t impute action to the individual human, and must go down to the neuron.

    But suppose we were going the other way. Suppose that poster on Facebook says that we can’t start and stop at individual strings (String Theory) when imputing action. That in order to get to action we have to go “bigger”. OK, then why stop at groups such as “The US”? Why not go to whole planets, solar systems, indeed, the whole universe as an actor? OMG the perhaps atheist on Facebook just made an argument about this belief in the existence of God.

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      Indeed. In a sense, there’s no non-arbitrary place to draw the line. But “at the individual human” seems to be the most reasonable level.

      You’ll notice that in works of science fiction where alien species are present, everything seems to be judged at a species-wide level. There’s always that scene of the peace-loving aliens learning about the holocaust and deploring the wretched state of humanity as a whole, they don’t commonly distinguish between Germans and Americans, or between Nazis and Libertarians.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        “Indeed. In a sense, there’s no non-arbitrary place to draw the line. But “at the individual human” seems to be the most reasonable level.”

        Mises argued, and I agree with this, that all attempts to dissolve the Ego and unmask it as an illusion are idle. The Ego cannot be reduced via any reason or quibbling. It would be impossible because any argument would have to be attributed to a consciousness proposing that argument. Consciousness requiures more than neurons in abstracta.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Since you’re an atheist, what is your reason for believing that consciousness cannot be reduced to neurons?

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Emergent behavior.

            Even if everything about my consciousness is the result of matter than in isolation behaves according to constant causal relations, it does not imply that such matter in a collected orientation would exhibit the same physics.

            For example, hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in isolation do not behave the same as they do as when they are in a particular orientation, called H20. This is a simple example of emergent behavior.

            My belief is that consciousness is an emergent behavior, that just so happens to have a physics that cannot be coherently regarded as past causally determined.

            I don’t see any reason why free will cannot arise spontaneously out of matter. I don’t see any reason why there can’t be a coexistence of objects some of which have free will and some of which do not, depending on the emergent behavior of the collections of matter.

            I think the argument that because we’re made of atoms, where in isolation they behave according to constant causal relations, that the same thing must be true for those same atoms when collected together and oriented in a particular way that we call a human.

            In order words, I don’t see why we can’t hold that hydrogen atoms have a potentiality to escape their determinism if only they interacted and become collected in a particular way. I think it’s a bias to extrapolate what’s true for isolated atoms, to make the same judgment about the physics of collections of atoms.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              I don’t understand how that could be possible. If you believe that you can move your hand either up or down, in a way that is not causally determined by past events, then doesn’t that mean that the question of whether any given atom on your hand is going to move up or down is also not causally determined by past events? But isn’t the behavior of any given atom right now determined by the forces from its surrounding atoms, and aren’t the forces from those atoms due to their behavior a moment ago? And can’t you keep tracing that chain back in time until before you were born and presumably not conscious?

              So clearly you cannot consistently believe that A) you are a collection of atoms, B) you can move your hand up or down in a way that is not causally determined by past events, and C) the behavior of any given atom is completely determined by the behavior of its surrounding atoms a moment ago. So which of the three do you reject?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                “If you believe that you can move your hand either up or down, in a way that is not causally determined by past events, then doesn’t that mean that the question of whether any given atom on your hand is going to move up or down is also not causally determined by past events?”

                But are the atoms in my hand doing the moving, or is it “me” that is moving my hand?

                My hand is not floating in the air. It’s connected to my torso, which is connected to my brain.

                It’s not really only my hand that is moving. I am what is moving.

                “But isn’t the behavior of any given atom right now determined by the forces from its surrounding atoms, and aren’t the forces from those atoms due to their behavior a moment ago?”

                Keep going with that analysis, and you’re going to run out of atoms. Once you get to the “last” atom, you’re still in a “this atom was influenced by other atoms” intuition.

                You’d be in a circle…

                Unless you introduce a new premise, which is of the form “this atom and that atom and that atom and that atom…and this last atom, when taken together, behave as a system differently than any individual atom or succession of atoms.”

                “And can’t you keep tracing that chain back in time until before you were born and presumably not conscious?”

                But that is the past, when the emergent behavior I am positing did not yet exist.

                “So clearly you cannot consistently believe that A) you are a collection of atoms, B) you can move your hand up or down in a way that is not causally determined by past events, and C) the behavior of any given atom is completely determined by the behavior of its surrounding atoms a moment ago. So which of the three do you reject?”

                Three, but that’s actually because what we know through quantum mechanics precludes deterministic physics with individual atoms.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Major_Freedom, do you agree that if we have a system of N interacting particles, then the behavior of any given particle in the system is completely determined by past events? If your only disagreement with that is that in quantum mechanics particles behave non-deterministically, then I have a few questions for you: first of all, if you lived in the 1800’s before the advent of quantum mechanics, so that you thought that Newton’s laws were true, would you think that free will is impossible?

                Second of all, at the scale of neurons, quantum effects don’t really matter (try calculating the de Broglie wavelength of a neuron), so the behavior of neurons, nd thus the brain, can be modeled using classical mechanics. So how can free will be due to quantum mechanics?

                Finally, if your position is that free will is due to quantum mechanics? Are you familiar with how quantum mechanics works? It works according to probabilities. Do you believe tha what a given human Is going to do in a given situation is determined entirely by a probability that could in principle be calculated by a computer? That doesn’t sound like free will to me?

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Most science fiction writers during the golden age of sci-fi writing (1950s) were partial to left wing ideology. There are of course notable examples of Libertarian oriented sci-fi writers, such as Robert Heinlein (Moon is a Harsh Mistress) and Ursula K. Le Guin (The Dispossessed), but they are dominated by the collectivist anti-capitalists (Asimov, Sagan, Herbert, etc).

        Every time some “superior” specifies is presented, 99 times out of 100 they are a species akin to ants and termites.

        • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

          Oh no doubt. I just think it’s interesting that no major science fiction work (that I’m aware of at least) goes all the way and embraces collectivization across the entire galaxy/universe.

          Like, other than incredibly limited short-term deals to oppose a common military foe, you never really see any one-universe government represented. Just to use Star Trek as an example, we’re supposed to be impressed that racism has been eliminated and all humans now serve under a one-world government. Yet nobody in the entire Trek universe seems to advocate for a one-galaxy government. Why do humans and klingons have to be separate? Why do the benefits of collectivism not apply cross-species?

          Pretty off topic here but I just find it interesting.

          • Bharat says:

            Do the Borg satisfy that condition? Although I guess they’re the bad guys so it would prove your real point in a way.

  7. Major_Freedom says:

    “From the pluralis logicus (and from the merely ceremonial pluralis majestaticus) we must distinguish the pluralis gloriosus. If a Canadian who never tried skating says, “We are the world’s foremost ice hockey players,” or if an Italian boor proudly contends, “We are the world’s most eminent painters,” nobody is fooled. But with reference to political and economic problems the pluralis gloriosus evolves into the pluralis imperialis and as such plays a significant role in paving the way for the acceptance of doctrines determining international economic policies.” – HA, Ch 2, 4.

    Still true.

  8. Bala says:

    I should admit that I am extremely confused by this entire discussion. I was under the impression that Austrians identify Methodological Individualism as the proper approach to economic theorising because
    1. They are rooted in causal-realism
    2. They see the role of economic theorising as explaining economic phenomena, especially price
    3. They see human action as the ultimate, irreducible cause of economic phenomena

    Thus, they see the individual as the proper unit of economic analysis and that economic theorising must start from the individual and not from any collective like a nation, state, city, tribe, community or even family.

    I am just unable to wrap my head around all this discussion on neurons and systems of neurons and how they are relevant to a discussion of methodological individualism as the proper approach for economic theorising.

    I hope someone is considerate enough to help me comprehend what’s happening. Thanks in advance.

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      Well, the issue is that a lot of people (especially atheists) believe that a human being is a collection of interacting particles, so how can you have an irreducible cause, if all behavior of human beings can be reduced to the behavior of particles and interactions between particles?

      • Bala says:

        I mean isn’t the onus of demonstrating that this mass of interacting particles influences human behaviour, how it does so and how that connects to economic phenomena on the shoulders of the people making this claim? As I see it, I only see a lot of claims with no substantiation.

        • Ken B says:

          You’re right about the onus. You were wrong about the evidence. When you get a headache you can take an aspirin.

          Bob will object that little witticism but the point is a serious one. There is ample evidence that brain states and mental states are intimately related and affecting the brain affects the mind. There’s ample evidence that damage to the brain damage is the mind.

          • Bala says:

            You misunderstand me. Correlation to mental states is insufficient. You have to explain the choices.

      • Bala says:

        As it was famously said “Everything begins with choice”

      • Bala says:

        “if all behavior of human beings can be reduced to the behavior of particles and interactions between particles?”

        So are you denying volition and subscribing to determinism?

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          Notice the word “if”. I was saying that it’s hard for atheist who believes that a human is a system of interacting particles to consistently subscribe to methodological individualism. If you’re asking about my own views, I believe that people have souls, and I believe in fate.

          • Bala says:

            I don’t see where atheism comes into it. I can hold the idea that a human being is a system of interacting particles and still consider choice as an irreducible primary simply because no one has shown the causal connection between the particles, their interactions and human choice.

            • Bala says:

              I say this as a self-proclaimed, practising atheist.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Well, if you believe that a human being is a system of interactin particles, then how can you not believe that the behavior of a human being is not the behavior of that system of particles and their interactions?

              • Bala says:

                I am not saying that it is not but I am waiting for the explanation of choice from the level of the particles and the system. Do you have one?

              • Bala says:

                Until then, I have the good old notion of human choice as an irreducible primary.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                But do you at least agree that there must exist such an explanation (even if scientists haven’t found it yet) if humans are really collections of particles?

              • Bala says:

                There might and there might not. The whole can be more than or very different from the sum of the parts.

                So, until you come up with an explanation, why should I take the claim of the possibility seriously?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “The whole is more than the sum of the parts” is fine as a metaphor, but really, if you have something that is composed of parts, then it seems impossible to me that some property of the whole would not be explicable in terms of its parts.

              • Bala says:

                It’s more than a metaphor. That apart, all I am saying is that I see no reason to take you and your claims seriously until you have explained choice from the nature of the particles that constitute man.

                Until then, since you have no basis to question methodological individualism as the appropriate method for economic theorising, it would be best that we rest this discussion.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Bala, can you at least give me an example of any physical system whose behavior is known to be inexplicable in terms of its parts and their interactions?

              • Bala says:

                Why should I do this when the onus is on you to outline the precise explanation of choice from the particles that constitute man?

              • Bala says:

                Keshav,

                Just to make the issue clearer, here I am with a pretty good explanation of economic phenomena using a causal-realist framework working on the foundational principle of methodological individualism. Along you come and tell me that since there is a possibility of an explanation of human behaviour based on the nature of the particles that constitute man, I should abandon my current approach and choose…….

                From your name, I am hazarding the guess that you understand Tamil and will be able to understand transliterated Tamil. So, here goes.

                arasanai nambi purushanai vitta kadhaiyAi mudiyappOguthu

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                For those who don’t speak Tamil, Bala quoted an old proverb that means roughly “Leaving your husband on the king’s say-so will end in disaster.”

                But here’s the thing. You’ve already put your trust in the king, by embracing the view that’ a human being is a system of interacting particles. And that statement logically implies that the behavior of a human being is the behavior of those particles. And that implies that there.exists a complete explanation of human behavior in terms of what is responsible for the behavior of those particles (presumably physics). Now you can say that you believe that P is true, where P implies Q, and that you doubt Q, but to the extent that you doubt Q, you are also doubting P.

                So if you think it is possible that some human behavior is not reducible to what the particles do, the logical implication is that you must have the same kind of skepticism sbout whether humans are actually just systems of particles. In other words, if you’re reluctant to leave your husband, maybe you don’t really trust the king.

              • Bala says:

                Keshav,

                That proverb was for you to understand what you are asking me to do. As of now, all I have is your say-so.

                You’ve already put your trust in the king….

                No. I have not. I used that to indicate that I am not so stupid/enamoured as to do that.

                As I do not wish to engage in a lengthy reply, I will only reiterate my demand.

                Will you please provide a complete explanation of choice starting from the nature of the particles? If you can’t, can we please rest this debate till you do so and may I continue with my chosen approach methodological individualism (which makes so much more sense to me and explains so much of what happens in the real world) in peace?

                And yeah! I don’t trust the king because I think he’s peddling snake oil.

              • Bala says:

                One last word…

                if you’re reluctant to leave your husband, maybe you don’t really trust the king

                Wrong interpretation. My husband is a rock solid, dependable guy who makes sense and whose advice seems to have my best interest at root. I love him and find him worthy of my respect.

                As for the king, he has no clue what he is talking of. He is just shooting his mouth off in hypotheticals and possibilities.

          • Ken B says:

            Are you a dualist Keshav?

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Yes, I am.

              • Ken B says:

                Well, you clearly understand the issues. Still someday I like to learn how you reconcile that with evolution. Or even embryology.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Souls are given to certain collections of particles and not others due to divine will. Did you have some specific questions?

              • Ken B says:

                I do, but I don’t want to smutz up this classy thread with such low concerns as I have. I’ll try to ask you sometime soon. My main questions will be aout how brains evolved, when does the soul start driving the machine, and how.

Leave a Reply to NicTheNZer

Cancel Reply