Simplified argument vs free will

[Nakosis]

For someone who wants/needs to drink there is less free will involved because the desire is strong. The brain wants something and so the reasoning can go both ways but the reasoning to continue wouldn't stand up to debate. Like when people often say "I can stop if I wanted to". If it is actually possible to stop then it is through us making a free choice because the want is powerful. This is why chemical dependencies of the brain are an interesting test for free will because if your dependent you don't really have free will, or do you?

You are free to follow your desires, whichever is greater, the pleasure received from the chemicals or the pleasure of being free from them.

However if you were denied access to the chemicals then your freewill would be impinged upon by an outside force.

 

[OMEGA777]

iDAY said,

Like when people often say "I can stop if I wanted to"

If it is actually possible to stop then it is through us making a free choice because the want is powerful.
This is why chemical dependencies of the brain are an interesting test for free will because
if your dependent you don't really have free will, or do you?

Really, iDay, Let us have an Experiment in Self Control.

Let us see if you can NOT use profanity or take God's name in vain for one week,

I Bet you can't. hehehe .

OMEGA777

 

[Koldo]

For someone who wants/needs to drink there is less free will involved because the desire is strong. The brain wants something and so the reasoning can go both ways but the reasoning to continue wouldn't stand up to debate. Like when people often say "I can stop if I wanted to". If it is actually possible to stop then it is through us making a free choice because the want is powerful. This is why chemical dependencies of the brain are an interesting test for free will because if your dependent you don't really have free will, or do you?

I have a feeling nothing of this has anything to do with my post. :slap:

Either way, compatibilist free will fits perfectly well in what you consider to be the sort of free choice required to stop drinking.

 

[idav]

Actually it depends on the individual brain. Sorry, I forget specifically the names for the areas, however one part of the brain deals with emotions, the other reason. Some people, because of the circumstances of their life develop the reasoning/analytical portion of their brain to a greater degree then others. Like having the opportunity of higher education. So a brain that has greater development in the analytical area of the brain will be more able to counter the emotional wants and desires with reason.

IOW their wants come from reason instead of emotions. A person who has less development of the analytical area will be subject to the emotional wants. Not really a choice there. Just which portion of the brain has greater development/control and can fulfill it's wants and desires.

The split brain things is part of why we have free will at all and it gives the ability to even ignore strong influences completely. When we change our mind we are able to influence the way our brain is firing to get whatever result we choose.

 

[idav]

Either way, compatibilist free will fits perfectly well in what you consider to be the sort of free choice required to stop drinking.

What I'm saying is we are able to choose beyond the mere causality of things , beyond the greatest influence, but it takes effort. Swimming upstream isn't supposed to be easy.

 

[Nakosis]

The split brain things is part of why we have free will at all and it gives the ability to even ignore strong influences completely. When we change our mind we are able to influence the way our brain is firing to get whatever result we choose.

Your assumption? Is the self we refer to is not the brain...

We are the brain. The self is the brain.

When the brain decides on one course of action over the other it/we get the results it/we/the self chooses.

The brain can imagine alternate courses of action. What it/the brain/self imagines influences the course of action the brain chooses. However that is all prior to the actual decision. What the brain is able to imagine depends memories of it's past experiences. One's environment causes those experiences/memories the brain uses to imagine alternate possible futures. The brain imagines what might happen with a given course of action and what ever outcome is desired by the brain more determines the decision made.

 

[Koldo]

What I'm saying is we are able to choose beyond the mere causality of things , beyond the greatest influence, but it takes effort. Swimming upstream isn't supposed to be easy.

And what i have been saying is that it isn't possible.

I have been trying to explain that where you find room for libertarian free will, there is none.

 

[idav]

Your assumption? Is the self we refer to is not the brain...

We are the brain. The self is the brain.

When the brain decides on one course of action over the other it/we get the results it/we/the self chooses.

The brain can imagine alternate courses of action. What it/the brain/self imagines influences the course of action the brain chooses. However that is all prior to the actual decision. What the brain is able to imagine depends memories of it's past experiences. One's environment causes those experiences/memories the brain uses to imagine alternate possible futures. The brain imagines what might happen with a given course of action and what ever outcome is desired by the brain more determines the decision made.

Which neuron do you think makes the final decision? The self is a consensus of neurons making a decision. The neurons influence each other to form consensus but we really don't have to account for each influence because the decision is beyond what one neuron thinks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In other words, you disagree with premise #1.
You are saying that it is possible to select which 'want' to act upon without a want.

I'm not. I'm saying that given a multiplicity of wants, I can determine of my own volition using my cognitive capacities what to choose. Free will. The ability self-determine choices.

 

[Tathagata]

1. Our wants are not separate from ourselves.

2. Our wants are our will. What we want to do = what we will to do. I see no significant difference between personal want and personal will. If you like, you can call it "free want," or we could just admit that we have free will.


.

 

[Willamena]

Not saying some exterior causal agent must necessarily be involved, only that what we do has a cause, and because that particular cause is the operative agent we can do no differently than what it directs.

As I see the free will position (and have stated in other threads) it essentially claims that "I could have done differently if I had wanted to." The deterministic position is, "No you couldn't have."

How is "operative agent" supposed to differ from "some exterior causal agent"?

 

[Willamena]

Do we have a definition of free will that we're all working from here?

Yes: each their own.

 

[Nakosis]

What I'm saying is we are able to choose beyond the mere causality of things , beyond the greatest influence, but it takes effort. Swimming upstream isn't supposed to be easy.

If you were free to choose what you wanted the most. Why would you choose something you didn't want?

Why would you "swim upstream" if you didn't want to swim upstream? If you did/do want to swim upstream then your actions were determine by your desires.

Can you change what you desire? I suppose you could if your desire to change a particular desire was greater then any other desire. Your actions are determined by your desires. Your desires are determined by your past.

You may not always be conscious of the part of your past which causes you current desires. So it seems these desires were apparently self-caused.

 

[Nakosis]

Which neuron do you think makes the final decision? The self is a consensus of neurons making a decision. The neurons influence each other to form consensus but we really don't have to account for each influence because the decision is beyond what one neuron thinks.

As I mention before. Several areas of the brain are involved in the decision process.

Look at it this way. A computer program exists in memory storage. However it consists of a very simply logic scheme. 1's and 0's. It is very simple to determine if a bit is a 1 or a 0. However all programs, including AI is based on this very simple scheme.

If you try to understand what a program does by looking at all of the individual bits you won't. However it is very easy to mimic human behavior using a 1 and a zero. However the processing of this scheme occurs so fast it seems to be too complex to be accounted for by the scheme of ones and zeros.

The brain uses electricity and chemicals to store and process information. While it's easy to understand the basic process it is difficult to grasp the whole as a result of this simple scheme. Keeping in mind the brain is more complex then using binary math to store and process information information. However it remains sufficient to explain the whole.

 

[idav]

As I mention before. Several areas of the brain are involved in the decision process.

Look at it this way. A computer program exists in memory storage. However it consists of a very simply logic scheme. 1's and 0's. It is very simple to determine if a bit is a 1 or a 0. However all programs, including AI is based on this very simple scheme.

If you try to understand what a program does by looking at all of the individual bits you won't. However it is very easy to mimic human behavior using a 1 and a zero. However the processing of this scheme occurs so fast it seems to be too complex to be accounted for by the scheme of ones and zeros.

The brain uses electricity and chemicals to store and process information. While it's easy to understand the basic process it is difficult to grasp the whole as a result of this simple scheme. Keeping in mind the brain is more complex then using binary math to store and process information information. However it remains sufficient to explain the whole.

I understand what your saying. The trick would be to program a machine to do something that it wasn't programmed to do. That would be quite the trick. If your not programming the answer into the computer then the a decision would be outside it's programming. Cognition seems to be the point where volition truly comes into play.

 

[Skwim]

How is "operative agent" supposed to differ from "some exterior causal agent"?

An operative agent can be either exterior or interior to, within, the self. "Agent" here is synonymous with 'cause."

 

[Koldo]

I'm not. I'm saying that given a multiplicity of wants, I can determine of my own volition using my cognitive capacities what to choose. Free will. The ability self-determine choices.

To determine something you have to make a choice.
If you are saying this choice ( the act of determining something ) can be done without a 'want' in itself then you disagree with premise #1.
If not, then the bolded part of your post is on accordance with the opinion of the OP. That is simply because , as it is written, the bolded part of your post represents both the compatibilist free will and the libertarian free will.

 

[Koldo]

1. Our wants are not separate from ourselves.

2. Our wants are our will. What we want to do = what we will to do. I see no significant difference between personal want and personal will. If you like, you can call it "free want," or we could just admit that we have free will.

Compatibilist free will all the way, righto? :grill:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To determine something you have to make a choice.
If you are saying this choice ( the act of determining something ) can be done without a 'want' in itself then you disagree with premise #1.
If not, then the bolded part of your post is on accordance with the opinion of the OP. That is simply because , as it is written, the bolded part of your post represents both the compatibilist free will and the libertarian free will.

The OP states :

3. In order to change the importance of a want, we must have a more important want that is relevant to doing so.

As I said before, the the way this is phrased removes will or agency from the change of relevance.

 

[Willamena]

An operative agent can be either exterior or interior to, within, the self. "Agent" here is synonymous with 'cause."

What does it mean for a cause to be "interior to, within, the self"? For instance, if I pick up a rose because I want to smell the scent, are we to distinguish between "because I want to smell the scent" as a cause that "makes" someone do something, and the person having a reason for doing what they do?

As I said earlier, we don't do things without reason, but what's significant to self-determination is that we do it.