It seems to me that part of resolving tensions in what you want is resolving what you can or could do.You are resolving tensions in what you want, not in what you can or could do. So you still have the choices, you just don't want it anymore... so I would say no it doesn't limit your choices, it just give you a more clear idea of what you really want so you don't get pulled in all direction getting nowhere ultimately. — ChatteringMonkey
With the idea of a strong will to eat chocolate there may be conflict between the conscious and subconscious aspects of will. A person may enjoy chocolate but realise a need to not do so, especially for health reasons. This may create a complex dynamic and subconscious aspects, such as comfort, may be a stumbling block.
The other part of this may be where an intention or aspects of will fit in within the larger system of one's motivation and gratification. If one is trying to make change in one area of life a certain amount of stability in various other aspects may be important. That is because to deal with too much conflict and change at once may be too difficult. — Jack Cummins
It seems quite obvious that we can. You just need to look at the many people that have been able to break their dependence on drugs, change their lifestyle to be healthier, manage their anger, etc. You can change your behavior. You just need to want it more than eating chocolate or taking drugs. You have one will that is faced with multiple options, not multiple wills fighting over one option.Can we change our own thoughts and behavior? — Jack Cummins
Are you questioning how doubt could arise due to neurobiological processes or how they could be resolved? We don't know how neurobiological processes could cause all sorts of brain states, such as thoughts, feelings, etc. So the answer to the first question is that we don't know. The answer to the second question is, that although we know that doubts are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain, the brain cannot possibly resolve doubts since the brain is a deterministic entity. Therefore, I think that doubts are resolved by the mind which has the ability to freely decide.It is an odd thought that all the movements of particles/energy in our brains could cause feelings of doubt about the resolution as they all resolve into the only brain state into which they could possibly resolve. — Patterner
I don't think that doubts can be resolved by a deterministic entity such as the brain since doubts are not deterministic states. Hence, I think doubts are resolved by the mind that has the ability to freely decide.Doubts may be experienced so often by an individual. I certainly feel in a maze, or even a fog of confusion of possibilities on a frequent basis. That is often because it is difficult to see the larger picture, especially of the unknown future. What I like about Watson and Skinner's picture of rats iand mouses n mazes isn't the actual deterministic picture of behaviorism but the metaphor of the creatures within the maze.
Behaviorism certainly paints a picture of determinism. However, the later development of cognitive behavioral approaches may alter this. That is cognition plays a part in making sense of it all, including the mazes, even if there are not any easy solutions. — Jack Cummins
You speak as if everyone has split personality disorder where multiple personalities, or wills (subconscious and conscious) battle to control the decision-making process. There is one will that has many options at any given moment. I enjoy chocolate but I also like to be healthy. I have a decision to make. It doesn't necessarily have to be a black and white issue. I can eat chocolate in moderation thereby achieving both eating chocolate and being healthy. Notice how I was able to explain it using just one will - I. — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that part of resolving tensions in what you want is resolving what you can or could do. — Harry Hindu
One thing with many aspects, or many things that combine and "fight" to result in one outcome at a particular time seem philosophically the same to me. I'm not sure how one would differentiate between to two empirically?
So it seems like maybe this is just quibling over how we would want to name and frame the same underlying thing.
And ultimately I think my kind of framing is closer to how I experience it. I really do sometimes seem to be torn between two minds. One simple example is, I want to stay fit as a longer term goal, but then I also like eating food that isn't the best for reaching that longer term goal. Is that one will with two aspects, or two wills that battle with eachother? Does it really matter how we frame it ultimately? — ChatteringMonkey
I figure Spinoza made short work of this. We deliberate between choices as means to achieve our ends. Whatever is making it possible for this to happen is not a copy of our nature.
If the agency we experience gives us no conception of what is happening, presuming a 'determinism' is not an argument against the reality of deliberation. — Paine
I haven't heard of any guess as to why evolution would select for the illusion of choice, or any subjective experience, that makes sense. If the physical processes of determinism can only happen the one way they do in every instance, bringing about the only possible outcome every moment of our lives, regardless of our feeling that we are truly able to go in different directions, what is the value of the feeling? What is the value of of any subjective experience at all? Why do these physical processes not take place "in the dark"?The alternative is saying something is a choice, then saying it was the only possible outcome
— Patterner
That's one other alternative. Some people would say there is no choice, that it's illusiory, and want to avoid that word. But even those who do not take that position can say that the word choice refers to when we mull over two or more actions and have the subjective experience that it could have gone either way or any of the ways, when in fact it was always going to be the way it went. So, the word 'choice' is built on subjective experience. — Bylaw
No, he is not. he is talking about something that would seem to be less complex then free will. If there is no physicalist explanation for the simple thing, I don't see how there can be a physicalist explanation for the more complicated thing that It makes possible.He's not, there, writing about free will. — Bylaw
I don't. I thought free will was obvious long before I ever heard of him. I only point out that there is no hint of a physicalist explanation for it, according to one of the experts in physics. If what seems obvious is wrong - which is certainly not impossible - I would like to hear the evidence. I am not aware of any. Physicalism seems to be saying that, since the physical is all we can detect and study, it must be the answer. I think that, since we are aware of something that we cannot detect or study with the tools of physicalism, there is something else in play.Notice that you hinge the truth of free will on the fact that someone says something. — Bylaw
I would love to see this! Not being sarcastic. Please tell me where I can find a scientist explaining how the "mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise." How "mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), [which] seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience" nevertheless give rise to subjective experiences.There are scientists who disagree with him. — Bylaw
It is certainly a two-way connection. And that's only logical. Why would the physical lead to the mental, but things not go in the other direction?So, mental properties can cause matter to do things and there is no causation in the other direction? — Bylaw
The way I'm using it, free will means free from the one-and-only possibility offered every moment by physicalist determinism. Freedom from the rules that billiard balls must follow, which allow nothing that deviates in the slightest from exactly X.And why is there free will in the non-physical? What don't processes in that substance cause the next processes/phenomena to happen? Is there no causation in the non-physical, yet it can cause things to happen in the physical? — Bylaw
I don't know why you think I think the physical is particles only. No, I don't think that. Sure, there are certainly a lot of particles. Aside from all the matter everywhere, my understanding is that energy, such as light and electricity, is streams of particles, photons and electrons respectively.What do you think the physical is? It seems you think the physical is particles only. Is that true? — Bylaw
They aren't particles, and we don't know what they are. Still, they are physical properties.I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. — Brian Greene
Another very interesting question. :grin: No. American. Mainly Irish, English, German, and Dutch ancestry.[are you Swedish?] — Bylaw
These physical causes are why I'm thinking about Bach at all. They aren't why I decide whether or not to listen to his music, or which pieces I listen to. I'm not programmed like a robot that receives sensory input, and has no choice but to do a specific thing. The robot walks at times; sits at times; makes noises at times; etc. But when it perceives sensory input X, it can do nothing but act in the one specific way it is programmed to act. It has no option, despite the many things it is physically capable of doing. I have options.In any case, so these physical causes are leading to your decision, it seems. — Bylaw
No, I'm not thinking determinism means only external causes. Many things within us are involved, from memories, to the feel of our own heartbeat, the physiological reactions we get when seeing someone we consider attractive, to upset stomaches...But what is making you decide: desire, interest, curiosity, preference? ARe you by any chance thinking that determinism means only causes external to the person lead to what the person does/chooses? That's not most people's idea of determinism. — Bylaw
They may lead to a fork in the road. They don't dictate which way I turn.So, changes in the physical lead to choice? — Bylaw
I am sure I sometimes choose randomly. I'm always getting grief for taking so long to order food. I debate endlessly. I'm told it's called Analysis Paralysis. LoL. I usually ask the waitress which one comes with the most food. That seems like a good way to break a tie.And what do you think motivates you to choose between two desserts that you've never tried? What is the motivation? Is your choice in that situation motivated or random? — Bylaw
I don't know why you think I'm arguing that. I'm not. But my memories don't determine that there is one-and-only-one option I am able to pick from among the possibilities.You seem to be arguing here that it has nothing to do with memory, so it is free. But what motivates the choice? — Bylaw
I'm saying the way physics forces all the particles in the head to move around is not determining the choices I make.Is it random? Is it motivated by desires and goals you have? why are these causes not determined causes in a causal chain? The physical vs. mental to me is a non-issue here. Determinism is the idea that each effect is caused by what went before and in turn is a cause. Doesn't matter if these are mental causes or physical causes or some others. — Bylaw
Not being capable of making a choice at any instant of our lives other than one determined by the laws of physics doesn't seem to be 'freedom' at all.Something leads to your decision/choice. If you chose because of your desires, for example, well these were causes by prior mental states and external causes also. If the choice is not caused by what went before and not caused by you and what you are, it seems a pyrrhic 'freedom' and random. — Bylaw
This poses the problem that humans have lack of capability to change, at the level of thoughts and neurochemistry.
...
I am interested in research and also the nature of personal change and self mastery? Do you think that self-mastery is possible? — Jack Cummins
I'm not sure I understanding all of this. I don't know if my response is relevant.Yes, by definition, the first choice was a free choice. If it's not free, it's not a choice
— Patterner
So you don't have to have chosen your motivations or your will, in order for a choice that your will chooses to be your choice. In other words, the whole "self-authorship" requirement some people have for free will, is not in fact a requirement you have for free will - someone can make a free choice with no self authorship at all.
Your first choice can be a choice, despite being the product of countless things you didn't choose, and 0 things you did choose - like you had no choice but to make that choice, right?
And please recall, the quote that opened this conversation between you and I was T Clark saying "if we don't determine our will, we don't have free will."
If your first choice is free, despite being based on a will you had no choice in creating or designing, then you're disagreeing with that quote from Mr Clark. You're saying we can make free choices even if we haven't determined one single iota of our will. — flannel jesus
I'm not sure I understanding all of this. I don't know if my response is relevant. — Patterner
And there is a reason you would go against your (usual) preferences. Your mood is different. You have a preference for trying new things. Whatever the reason, it is a motivation, based on your preferences. It could be at a meta-level: for example you prefer to explore occasionally.I don't think these preferences are motivations. I'm sometimes motivated to choose in agreement with my preferences, and I listen to something I'm very familiar with and love. I'm sometimes motivated to choose against my preferences, and I listen to something new. Are those opposing motivations also built-in preferences? — Patterner
I believe I am free from the physics-driven interacting constituents of my brain, and am not listening to the one I'm listening to because there was no possibility that I could listen to anything else. — Patterner
Believing that human beings can be understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. — Jack Cummins
Gray argues that the illusion of lack of freedom and free will enables people to be 'like fairground puppets', escaping the 'burden of choice'. In that respect, determinism is an ideology. — Jack Cummins
We are free to act on our will, but not free to choose our will.... We are our will, who would be the "we" apart from our will that wants to change the will. — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.