Simplified argument vs free will

[idav]

Yes the cake is an external influence you can choose to ignore.

That is where volition comes in.

 

[Koldo]

You could want both the pie and cake due to extreme want.

Okay, eating both is also possible and acceptable for my argument.
With this in mind, I will change my questions:

To exemplify, if you are presented with a choice to make between pie and/or cake ( or eating both ), and you don't want to choose between pie and/or cake or both, what event other than choosing none could possibly happen? Wouldn't choosing none and not choosing bring about the same state of affairs? If yes, wouldn't it be correct to say that at least for practical use, choosing none and not choosing are the same in this situation?

What if you want the cake but you choose not to want it?

Then your 'want' to eat it was lower than your 'want' to not eat it.
This is better explained by saying that whenever there is a conflict between 'wants' we always choose based on our highest ranked want.

 

[Nakosis]

If you want neither, then "neither" becomes a third option to choose. Wants lead to choice.

But if you simply don't decide--it's called withholding--then you no choice occurs.

Once you are aware of the cake you have to make a decision about it. Only if you are unaware of the cake does a decision not need to be made. Once presented with the information/stimulus you have to decide what to do with it.

 

[Koldo]

If you want neither, then "neither" becomes a third option to choose. Wants lead to choice.

But if you simply don't decide--it's called withholding--then you no choice occurs.

If my argument is that every conscious action/choice requires a want, then it follows that it is impossible to 'withhold' such as you mean to say it, because 'withholding' requires a want.

 

[Willamena]

Once you are aware of the cake you have to make a decision about it. Only if you are unaware of the cake does a decision not need to be made. Once presented with the information/stimulus you have to decide what to do with it.

You have to have a belief about it. You're talking about belief.

 

[Willamena]

If my argument is that every conscious action/choice requires a want, then it follows that it is impossible to 'withhold' such as you mean to say it, because 'withholding' requires a want.

Let's say two options face you: A and B.

Then I inform you that A is XYZ, while B is ZYX.

Where do your wants lie?

 

[Nakosis]

If my argument is that every conscious action/choice requires a want, then it follows that it is impossible to 'withhold' such as you mean to say it, because 'withholding' requires a want.

You are explaining these things well enough. Maybe I'm just confusing things?

The concepts are easy enough to grasp so I'm motivated to put my 2 cents in.

However I hope I'm not derailing the conversation by it.

 

[Nakosis]

Let's say two options face you: A and B.

Then I inform you that A is XYZ, while B is ZYX.

Where do your wants lie?

You have to decide what to do about the information.
If ignore then then you have to want to ignore it.

Or you can decide to file it away for reference.

Like I tell you my cat's name is Toby. What do you do with that information now that you have it.

You can decide to do other then the scenario provided. But it is still a decision with a want driving it.

 

[Willamena]

You are explaining these things well enough. Maybe I'm just confusing things?

The concepts are easy enough to grasp so I'm motivated to put my 2 cents in.

However I hope I'm not derailing the conversation by it.

The image of 'a belief' as a decision or choice isn't a bad one. At its heart, a belief is a proposition: a subject and a predicate. The predicate says something about the subject, and in order to say something about it, you must have "decided" something about it.

But when we talk about wants leading to choices, I think we're talking about another image.

 

[Nakosis]

That is where volition comes in.

Then volition involves a decision driven by a desire.

 

[Koldo]

Let's say two options face you: A and B.

Then I inform you that A is XYZ, while B is ZYX.

Where do your wants lie?

I want none because XYZ and ZYX are meaningless to me.
Can you tell me what are 'XYZ' and 'ZYX' so i can say whether i, in fact, will want one of them?

 

[Willamena]

I want none because XYZ and ZYX are meaningless to me.
Can you tell me what are 'XYZ' and 'ZYX' so i can say whether i, in fact, will want one of them?

That's withholding.

 

[idav]

Then your 'want' to eat it was lower than your 'want' to not eat it.
This is better explained by saying that whenever there is a conflict between 'wants' we always choose based on our highest ranked want.

How can a person not 'want' to eat?

Lets say the answer were a yes or no, 1 or 0, another possible answer is null. Null is neither a yes or a no so it isn't a want.

 

[Koldo]

That's withholding.

What? :sarcastic
I didn't refuse to choose.

How can a person not 'want' to eat?

Not wanting to eat. :sarcastic

Lets say the answer were a yes or no, 1 or 0, another possible answer is null. Null is neither a yes or a no so it isn't a want.

How did you come to the conclusion that something that is neither 1 nor 0 isn't a want?

 

[Willamena]

What? :sarcastic
I didn't refuse to choose.

Withholding isn't a refusal to choose at all, but holding back choice until you can make a choice. Until you can, no choice (between A and B) is made.

Until you can, the conditions for you to choose (or even want) are not in place.

 

[Koldo]

Withholding isn't a refusal to choose at all, but holding back choice until you can make a choice. Until you can, no choice (between A and B) is made.

Until you can, the conditions for you to choose (or even want) are not in place.

But i did chose to ask you what are the meanings of those terms, because that is what i wanted to.
This is in itself an alternative to choosing between XYZ and ZYX ( that still involves a want ).

 

[idav]

How did you come to the conclusion that something that is neither 1 nor 0 isn't a want?

You could ask someone to choose a or b and then they could turn around and tell us to effe off. Not answering is neither a yes or no so it is a null, not a want.

 

[Koldo]

You could ask someone to choose a or b and then they could turn around and tell us to effe off. Not answering is neither a yes or no so it is a null, not a want.

If i ask someone to choose a or b and then they turn around and tell me to effe off, they chose to tell me to effe off because they wanted to. Their selected option was still based on their want. Wasn't it you who said there are alternatives to a and b?

 

[Willamena]

But i did chose to ask you what are the meanings of those terms, because that is what i wanted to.

Right. You certainly didn't withhold that choice.

This is in itself an alternative to choosing between XYZ and ZYX ( that still involves a want ).

It's a separate choice.

 

[Koldo]

It's a separate choice.

Not at all.
It is the same choice.