bahman wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:00 am
That is not the case when you cause
and decide a motivation at once (the second scenario). That is true since your decision always coincides with motivation.
So by “you cause” you mean the mind causes and decides on a motivation. My question remains, how does the mind do this with no prior causes?
Dimebag wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:00 am
The deeper question is, what is it that is choosing or creating or taking ownership of motivation, this “I”.
bahman wrote: What you call it "I", I call mind. Mind is essence of being/thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause. Mind is one of the fundamental entity of the reality, together with physical (thoughts, objects, etc.), what we experience and cause, makes our world.
Once again, how does the mind cause without any causes imposing on it? If it does have causes imposing on it, it is following a chain of causation. Or is there some point in which choice is inserted in that causal chain?
Here is my take on the free will determinism dichotomy.
Our brains are fully determined. We don’t have the kind of free will that is described as starting a causal chain, that is not commensurate with the concept of a mechanical deterministic system. It would essentially be a random fluctuation if it is not part of the causal system. Instead, my view is this.
Our brains job is to predict (or imagine, or entertain, or simulate) possible future outcomes. It is always trying to stay one step ahead of the external world, trying to predict what will happen next. It can also predict outcomes of its own action in the world and imagine those possibilities, and it simulates or models these possibilities.
When we have a situation which is unexpected where a choice needs to be made, where there is uncertainty, our brains imagine and simulate possible outcomes of choices or actions. When these possible choices are being compared, that is the sensation of choosing. Once a choice has been evaluated, the most favourable choice which is deemed to be of minimal risk to the organism is selected. There is no single internal entity which chooses, the system itself chooses, but takes advantage of all of the expert systems of the brain which might be relevant to make the choice. This is why the process is conscious, due to the need to broadcast to the entire brain network. When the choice is in line with internally held motivations and is not being forced by an external influence, it feels more free, not coerced.
So my view is that, free will is not what people typically think of in the traditional sense. There can still be choice, as there is the selection from imagined possibilities, there is uncertainty in the outcome.
Other times, we like to think we choose freely, we merely act out of habit. We are free from external coercion, but not free from our own habitual patterns. This is fine, as long as we don’t compromise our higher goals by these habitual behaviours. So there is an internal tension or struggle between satisfying habitual behaviours which might satisfy lower desires such as our need for immediate pleasure, and our higher goals which might require some kind of sacrifice of those habitual behaviours in service of that higher cause. If we have higher goals but our habitual behaviours are dominating our ability to act on those higher goals, we might feel a lack of freedom over ourselves.