Simplified argument vs free will

[idav]

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?

It is an alternative to want. We could be starving to death and still the strongest urge to eat can be circumvented. There are just points where it gets harder to resist the urges we have but we still always have the choice despite what influences come at us.

 

[Koldo]

It is an alternative to want. We could be starving to death and still the strongest urge to eat can be circumvented. There are just points where it gets harder to resist the urges we have but we still always have the choice despite what influences come at us.

And you probably know what i am going to say , don't you?
That it is through your want that you are capable of supressing this urge to eat.
You want not to eat more than you want to eat.
As long as this situation stands you are not going to eat.
( Obviously unless someones literally forces food into your throat, or something like this ).

 

[idav]

And you probably know what i am going to say , don't you?
That it is through your want that you are capable of supressing this urge to eat.
You want not to eat more than you want to eat.
As long as this situation stands you are not going to eat.
( Obviously unless someones literally forces food into your throat, or something like this ).

Suppressing an urge is not the same as having an urge and going with the flow. The broadest example I can give is not being materialistic as in not wanting things. Saying that someone who is not materialistic 'wants' to 'not want' is circular logic (circular like saying altruism is always selfish). Not wanting something means exactly what it sounds like, not many do it but it's possible to actually not have a motive and possible to not make decisions based on perceived need.

 

[Nakosis]

Suppressing an urge is not the same as having an urge and going with the flow. The broadest example I can give is not being materialistic as in not wanting things. Saying that someone who is not materialistic 'wants' to 'not want' is circular logic (circular like saying altruism is always selfish). Not wanting something means exactly what it sounds like, not many do it but it's possible to actually not have a motive and possible to not make decisions based on perceived need.

I would imagine this person who wants to be non-materialistic want to be spiritual. So their want to be spiritual suppresses their want/desire to be materialistic.

So one want is suppressing another want. So then what caused the person to want to be spiritual? They probably saw a movie or read a book.

One urge suppressed by another urge.

 

[Koldo]

Suppressing an urge is not the same as having an urge and going with the flow. The broadest example I can give is not being materialistic as in not wanting things. Saying that someone who is not materialistic 'wants' to 'not want' is circular logic (circular like saying altruism is always selfish).

As i said, it is a 'want' supressing another 'want'.
The 'want' to not be materialistic is taking precedence over the 'want' to be materialistic.

Not wanting something means exactly what it sounds like, not many do it but it's possible to actually not have a motive and possible to not make decisions based on perceived need.

I understand what you are saying. And what i am saying is that what you are stating is incoherent, because not only every choice can justified by a 'want' ( or multiple ) it is also the case that choosing without a 'want' is inviable.

This is explained by my question where i ask you to select between A and B. Whatever action you perform requires a 'want'. In other words, you, ultimately, don't have a reason for doing what you do other than wanting to.

However, there is one other important fact about this quote. You are saying that " not many do it but it's possible to actually not have a motive and possible to not make decisions based on perceived need.". Does this mean that you consider that in the very least not many people make use of libertarian free will ? Is this it?

 

[idav]

I would imagine this person who wants to be non-materialistic want to be spiritual. So their want to be spiritual suppresses their want/desire to be materialistic.

So one want is suppressing another want. So then what caused the person to want to be spiritual? They probably saw a movie or read a book.

One urge suppressed by another urge.

You underestimate our ability to go against what we desire most. I'm talking about something that 'isn't wanted' which can overcome a strong desire. Ignoring an urge allows us rise above the influence. Rising above the influence without brainwashing yourself to do it.

 

[idav]

Does this mean that you consider that in the very least not many people make use of libertarian free will ? Is this it?

I think that is an accurate statement. It certainly isn't easy but I think we do have the potential. All the steps like letting go of ego and releasing of attachments is important as well as being able to essential remap your brain are all important factors in our ability to have some sort of real control. There is a reason that our brain is the most complex machine we know of, we just need to harness it's full potential.

 

[Willamena]

And what i am saying is that what you are stating is incoherent, because not only every choice can justified by a 'want' ( or multiple ) it is also the case that choosing without a 'want' is inviable.

Do people want to be hungry?

"Tom goes to the store for cookies."

By itself, it is a description of an event. A picture painted.

If we add "want" in front of it (assign), we have added a motive for the event. Painted a bit more into the picture.

We could add other motives for the event: Tom was hungry; Tom ran out of cookies at home; Tom's mom is coming to visit and she's a huge cookie fan. Now the picture is bigger. Never quite complete.

"Want" serves the same purpose, and adds no more or less additional information to "Tom" as any of the other motives that we assigned, or could assign. Not only that, but just as we could add "want" in front of anything and it fits, we can add any of the other motives in front and they would fit just as well.

 

[Nakosis]

You underestimate our ability to go against what we desire most. I'm talking about something that 'isn't wanted' which can overcome a strong desire. Ignoring an urge allows us rise above the influence. Rising above the influence without brainwashing yourself to do it.

Ok, fine...

But what would cause you to do this? :run:

 

[idav]

Ok, fine...

But what would cause you to do this? :run:

Knowledge.

When something is an illusion, knowledge of how it works gives us power and control over the reality of it.

As soon as you tell somebody they don't really have free will they could in turn start analyzing the motives of things which can then in turn free the person from the constraints that kept them from having free will in the first place.

 

[Nakosis]

Do people want to be hungry?

Hunger creates a want to be fed.

"Tom goes to the store for cookies."

By itself, it is a description of an event. A picture painted.

If we add "want" in front of it (assign), we have added a motive for the event. Painted a bit more into the picture.

We could add other motives for the event: Tom was hungry; Tom ran out of cookies at home; Tom's mom is coming to visit and she's a huge cookie fan. Now the picture is bigger. Never quite complete.

"Want" serves the same purpose, and adds no more or less additional information to "Tom" as any of the other motives that we assigned, or could assign. Not only that, but just as we could add "want" in front of anything and it fits, we can add any of the other motives in front and they would fit just as well.

Ok, then there is always a stimulation which creates the want. IOW the want is in response to something else. A lack of food causes Tom to be hungry which cause a want to be fed.

However maybe Tom wants to lose weight, because Tom wants sex. (He believe's being thinner will increase his chances of that.) If Tom wants sex more then he will choose to suppress his want for food.

What caused Tom to want sex more? He just got done watching porn on the internet.

So yes, one can go back through Tom's entire life finding wants and causes for his wants. A causal chain. That's determinism.

 

[idav]

All this talk of food makes me hungry but I can't see it being a good argument for determinism. We want to eat and I would say we are determined by want to eventually eat yet we are able to resist this determining factor.

edit: Depends on our will really.

 

[Nakosis]

All this talk of food makes me hungry but I can't see it being a good argument for determinism. We want to eat and I would say we are determined by want to eventually eat yet we are able to resist this determining factor.

Why resist?

 

[Willamena]

Hunger creates a want to be fed.

How does that differ from a need to be fed? (Or does it?)

 

[idav]

Why resist?

Because we can.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, then there is always a stimulation which creates the want. IOW the want is in response to something else. A lack of food causes Tom to be hungry which cause a want to be fed.

However maybe Tom wants to lose weight, because Tom wants sex. (He believe's being thinner will increase his chances of that.) If Tom wants sex more then he will choose to suppress his want for food.

What caused Tom to want sex more? He just got done watching porn on the internet.

So yes, one can go back through Tom's entire life finding wants and causes for his wants. A causal chain. That's determinism.

You paint the world in wants. It's not that different from painting the world in beliefs.

Something I read recently, about beilef and want (desire). Bold section is my emphasis.

Since Anscombe, desires are said to have a “direction of fit,” and one that is the opposite to the “direction of fit” of beliefs. One modest way of putting the point is this: beliefs are like declarative sentences, which are satisfied (made true) by whether the world as it is conforms to them. But desires are like imperative sentences, which are satisfied (fulfilled) by changes in the world bringing the world into conformity with them. But what exactly this analogy amounts to, literally, is controversial. Is it perhaps that one's beliefs ought to conform to the world, whereas the world ought to conform to one's desires? Is it perhaps that the world tends to cause satisfied beliefs (true beliefs), while desires tend to cause there to be a desire-satisfying (desire-fulfilling) world? This is still an area in which it is difficult to know just how to evaluate the proposals on offer, and there is little sign of a consensus emerging in the foreseeable future (see, e.g., Anscombe 2000; Schueler 1991; Smith 1994; Zangwill 1998).

Desire (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Koldo]

Do people want to be hungry?

"Tom goes to the store for cookies."

By itself, it is a description of an event. A picture painted.

If we add "want" in front of it (assign), we have added a motive for the event. Painted a bit more into the picture.

We could add other motives for the event: Tom was hungry; Tom ran out of cookies at home; Tom's mom is coming to visit and she's a huge cookie fan. Now the picture is bigger. Never quite complete.

"Want" serves the same purpose, and adds no more or less additional information to "Tom" as any of the other motives that we assigned, or could assign. Not only that, but just as we could add "want" in front of anything and it fits, we can add any of the other motives in front and they would fit just as well.

Being hungry, running out of cokkies at home, tom's mom coming to visit while she is a huge fan of cookies, all these motives require a single one to have importance in a choice. This motive is called 'wants'.

Even if Tom's hungry, why would he eat if he didn't want to?
It is because he wants to eat that he is able to choose to eat. To satisfy his want.
If the 'want' wasn't present he would have no reason to eat.

Even if he ran out of cookies, why would he buy more?
This only makes sense if he wants more cookies.

Even if Tom's mom is coming to visit him and she is a huge cookie fan, why would he buy cookies for her unless he wanted to make her happy ( or any other reason related to his want )?

All motives are only important for us if they are related to our 'wants'. Otherwise they become irrelevant.

A, B, C, D and so on, are different states of affairs, and they can only be motives to our choices if they are desired. A human being that tries to select between options without using his 'want' is left in the same situation as a machine that is given the task to choose between two objects without being able to do so neither randomly nor by any set parameter. The machine will last through eternity without being able to choose between any, always stuck in matter of which option it is going to take. That is, if it was even possible for the machine to start pondering over its options without first being compelled to do so.

 

[Nakosis]

You paint the world in wants. It's not that different from painting the world in beliefs.

Something I read recently, about beilef and want (desire). Bold section is my emphasis.

So then beliefs are what we accept to to be true and desires are what we want to be true?

So the world causes us to acceptance things. (ideally)
What causes us to desire things?

I paint human behavior in desire. Why shouldn't I? Why act if there is no desire?

You can believe the moon is made of cheese. There is no decision involved since this has already been accepted. However if you were hungry it may cause a desire to go to the moon.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I meant all wants, including "original wants". In other words, I don't think we are born with all our "original wants". Some wants would spring from those we are born with, and new wants-- new original wants-- would occur later as self-awareness developed.

In terms of the original post, a "new want" is simply a want that previously had no importance to its possessor. From there statement 3 is explanatory. We could even say that we are born with all possible wants, but most of them start with zero importance to us (this is like saying we have the potential to want them).

 

[CarlinKnew]

By the way I'm afraid I've created a monster with these two free will threads. There is so much great feedback and discussion that I can't possibly reply to it all, but I'm enjoying and learning from all of your excellent contributions.