the conquest of the will
the conquest of the will
Of all the things happening in the universe, indeed of all the things happening in your body, you have the hypothetical possibility of controlling precisely one, whatever you're paying attention to at the present moment. To what extent that control is meaningful must be reduced by things which are obviously beyond your control like the laws of physics and society, what will be allowed, and the physical location you currently inhabit. You must also reduce it by the amount of your own character; what kind of things would you definitely not/do because of their compatibility with your self-conception? You must also reduce it by whether what you want happens to be currently possible, regardless of whether you could do it hypothetically.
After all these discounts are applied, what exactly are you left controlling even if you do have free will?
After all these discounts are applied, what exactly are you left controlling even if you do have free will?
-
- Posts: 4410
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: the conquest of the will
ask Riefenstahl...
-Imp
-Imp
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: the conquest of the will
of all the things happening in your body you have the hypothetical possibility of controlling precisely one, whatever you're paying attention to at the present moment.
At the moment, a good chunk of my attention is focused on the cup of coffee I'm cravin' but haven't brewed yet.
Once I'm done with this post, I'll get up, walk to the kitchen, and set a pot to brewin'.
Sure seems to me I'll be controlling more than my attention...like the whole of my physicality, for example.
It's true many of the systems that comprise me are outside of my direct control, but, overall, I exercise a remarkable degree of control over the whole of me.
At the moment, a good chunk of my attention is focused on the cup of coffee I'm cravin' but haven't brewed yet.
Once I'm done with this post, I'll get up, walk to the kitchen, and set a pot to brewin'.
Sure seems to me I'll be controlling more than my attention...like the whole of my physicality, for example.
It's true many of the systems that comprise me are outside of my direct control, but, overall, I exercise a remarkable degree of control over the whole of me.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6520
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: the conquest of the will
Pull my finger, then we can answer the mystery of who really controls my butt hole.
If you see a hamster scurry away afterwards, that wasn't mine, I've never seen that hamster before.
If you see a hamster scurry away afterwards, that wasn't mine, I've never seen that hamster before.
Re: the conquest of the will
How do you differentiate between free will and habit combined with post hoc rationalisation. The confabulator in our minds essentially makes up stories to justify our actions, which we then take as our own reasons, whether they were actually the primary motivating factors, or some post hoc rationalisations.
What’s worse is, the more intelligent a person, the better their confabulator is at coming up with these stories, even when they are complete fabrications.
It all comes down to how our ego’s defend our actions, they must first own them in order to defend them, so, when any action is carried out if it is aligned with some goal, some motivation or some habit, we will automatically own that action as our own intentional act.
Sometimes actions happen which were not intended, such as involuntary movements, spasms, etc. Because these motor commands weren’t “requested” by a prior cause, but rather simply emerge without a prior motivating factor, sensory trigger, thought etc, they are disowned, and thus discounted as involuntary.
Thoughts themselves are also precursors to action, and as such, contain within them intentional sensations. Thoughts are intricately tied to our motor system so as to cue an action potentially simply by that thought.
But, where do thoughts, intentions, wilful commands come from? I mean experientially? They seem to just appear and then we “have” them.
Take that cup of tea that you always make at a certain time. Did you want to make it because YOU decided to, or because you normally make one, that is, due to habit? Sure, you could have decided to not make it today, but, that would have been due to some prior reason, which YOU were not the author of. But, some would say, it is the choice point, that singular throw of the dice which you are responsible for as a conscious choosing agent. But, if it wasn’t due to prior conditions, and was seemingly due to some form of randomness, how is that free?
Anyway, these are old tired arguments, let’s see what we think.
What’s worse is, the more intelligent a person, the better their confabulator is at coming up with these stories, even when they are complete fabrications.
It all comes down to how our ego’s defend our actions, they must first own them in order to defend them, so, when any action is carried out if it is aligned with some goal, some motivation or some habit, we will automatically own that action as our own intentional act.
Sometimes actions happen which were not intended, such as involuntary movements, spasms, etc. Because these motor commands weren’t “requested” by a prior cause, but rather simply emerge without a prior motivating factor, sensory trigger, thought etc, they are disowned, and thus discounted as involuntary.
Thoughts themselves are also precursors to action, and as such, contain within them intentional sensations. Thoughts are intricately tied to our motor system so as to cue an action potentially simply by that thought.
But, where do thoughts, intentions, wilful commands come from? I mean experientially? They seem to just appear and then we “have” them.
Take that cup of tea that you always make at a certain time. Did you want to make it because YOU decided to, or because you normally make one, that is, due to habit? Sure, you could have decided to not make it today, but, that would have been due to some prior reason, which YOU were not the author of. But, some would say, it is the choice point, that singular throw of the dice which you are responsible for as a conscious choosing agent. But, if it wasn’t due to prior conditions, and was seemingly due to some form of randomness, how is that free?
Anyway, these are old tired arguments, let’s see what we think.
Re: the conquest of the will
You are conflating free will and control. They are related but different concepts.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:49 pm Of all the things happening in the universe, indeed of all the things happening in your body, you have the hypothetical possibility of controlling precisely one, whatever you're paying attention to at the present moment. To what extent that control is meaningful must be reduced by things which are obviously beyond your control like the laws of physics and society, what will be allowed, and the physical location you currently inhabit. You must also reduce it by the amount of your own character; what kind of things would you definitely not/do because of their compatibility with your self-conception? You must also reduce it by whether what you want happens to be currently possible, regardless of whether you could do it hypothetically.
After all these discounts are applied, what exactly are you left controlling even if you do have free will?
Trivial experiment to convince yourself of this: you can choose to be in control or you can choose to give it up.
Re: the conquest of the will
If I follow up all the causes of if, and when, I go to make the coffee I find I have no freedom to choose. However if I want to defy all these predispositions, these causes of my preference for coffee, I can choose to drink water despite my preference for the coffee.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:48 am How do you differentiate between free will and habit combined with post hoc rationalisation. The confabulator in our minds essentially makes up stories to justify our actions, which we then take as our own reasons, whether they were actually the primary motivating factors, or some post hoc rationalisations.
What’s worse is, the more intelligent a person, the better their confabulator is at coming up with these stories, even when they are complete fabrications.
It all comes down to how our ego’s defend our actions, they must first own them in order to defend them, so, when any action is carried out if it is aligned with some goal, some motivation or some habit, we will automatically own that action as our own intentional act.
Sometimes actions happen which were not intended, such as involuntary movements, spasms, etc. Because these motor commands weren’t “requested” by a prior cause, but rather simply emerge without a prior motivating factor, sensory trigger, thought etc, they are disowned, and thus discounted as involuntary.
Thoughts themselves are also precursors to action, and as such, contain within them intentional sensations. Thoughts are intricately tied to our motor system so as to cue an action potentially simply by that thought.
But, where do thoughts, intentions, wilful commands come from? I mean experientially? They seem to just appear and then we “have” them.
Take that cup of tea that you always make at a certain time. Did you want to make it because YOU decided to, or because you normally make one, that is, due to habit? Sure, you could have decided to not make it today, but, that would have been due to some prior reason, which YOU were not the author of. But, some would say, it is the choice point, that singular throw of the dice which you are responsible for as a conscious choosing agent. But, if it wasn’t due to prior conditions, and was seemingly due to some form of randomness, how is that free?
Anyway, these are old tired arguments, let’s see what we think.
The most and best freedom lies in my knowing as many of the causes of my preferences as I possibly can. For instance, if I know I have a caffeine addiction I thereby empower myself to at least consider drinking decaffeinated coffee or herbal tea.
Re: the conquest of the will
I am not entirely convinced that doubting your desires/predisposition is a fruitful exercise.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 12:13 pm If I follow up all the causes of if, and when, I go to make the coffee I find I have no freedom to choose. However if I want to defy all these predispositions, these causes of my preference for coffee, I can choose to drink water despite my preference for the coffee.
The most and best freedom lies in my knowing as many of the causes of my preferences as I possibly can. For instance, if I know I have a caffeine addiction I thereby empower myself to at least consider drinking decaffeinated coffee or herbal tea.
Least you begin questioning the very cause of why you doubt. And then it disappears.
Re: the conquest of the will
[quote=Belinda post_id=504455 time=1616843599 user_id=12709]
The most and best freedom lies in my knowing as many of the causes of my preferences as I possibly can. For instance, if I know I have a caffeine addiction I thereby empower myself to at least consider drinking decaffeinated coffee or herbal tea.
[/quote]
No. The opposite of that.
We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. The more we understand the casual chain the less free we are, because freedom only exists in ignorance. Nevertheless, the whole project of knowledge is to become more certain of things, and that means less free implicitly. Intellectual maturity is the process of closing your mind to untenable possibilities.
The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty. If you want to be free, you cannot be constrained by logic. If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively. Freedom and knowledge pull in opposite directions. The point we're aiming for is one of 51% knowledge, to maximize freedom while minimizing unnecessary mistakes.
The most and best freedom lies in my knowing as many of the causes of my preferences as I possibly can. For instance, if I know I have a caffeine addiction I thereby empower myself to at least consider drinking decaffeinated coffee or herbal tea.
[/quote]
No. The opposite of that.
We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. The more we understand the casual chain the less free we are, because freedom only exists in ignorance. Nevertheless, the whole project of knowledge is to become more certain of things, and that means less free implicitly. Intellectual maturity is the process of closing your mind to untenable possibilities.
The purpose of all knowledge is actionable certainty. If you want to be free, you cannot be constrained by logic. If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively. Freedom and knowledge pull in opposite directions. The point we're aiming for is one of 51% knowledge, to maximize freedom while minimizing unnecessary mistakes.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: the conquest of the will
If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively.
Impulse (givin' in to it) is not freedom.
Freedom is choice, not whimsy.
To choose, there must be deliberation (self de-liberation). This is not a lessening of freedom but the exercise of it.
Impulse (givin' in to it) is not freedom.
Freedom is choice, not whimsy.
To choose, there must be deliberation (self de-liberation). This is not a lessening of freedom but the exercise of it.
Re: the conquest of the will
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=504507 time=1616862388 user_id=472]
[b]If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively.[/b]
Impulse (givin' in to it) is not freedom.
Freedom is [i]choice[/i], not whimsy.
To choose, there must be deliberation (self de-liberation). This is not a lessening of freedom but the exercise of it.
[/quote]
Constraining oneself to a decision is to consign all other possibilities to irrelevancy. It's the ultimate black and white thinking and it's the entire way our brain works. We constrain ourselves because of Non- Arbitrary knowledge until we feel constrained enough (aka understanding, having things in proper relation to each other) to go with what we've got, or until the choice is forced on us. Freedom isn't either useful or pleasant when it's unconstrained.
[b]If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively.[/b]
Impulse (givin' in to it) is not freedom.
Freedom is [i]choice[/i], not whimsy.
To choose, there must be deliberation (self de-liberation). This is not a lessening of freedom but the exercise of it.
[/quote]
Constraining oneself to a decision is to consign all other possibilities to irrelevancy. It's the ultimate black and white thinking and it's the entire way our brain works. We constrain ourselves because of Non- Arbitrary knowledge until we feel constrained enough (aka understanding, having things in proper relation to each other) to go with what we've got, or until the choice is forced on us. Freedom isn't either useful or pleasant when it's unconstrained.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: the conquest of the will
That's my point: freedom isn't freedom at all unless there is deliberation (self-deliberation, self-control, self-constraint).Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:56 pmConstraining oneself to a decision is to consign all other possibilities to irrelevancy. It's the ultimate black and white thinking and it's the entire way our brain works. We constrain ourselves because of Non- Arbitrary knowledge until we feel constrained enough (aka understanding, having things in proper relation to each other) to go with what we've got, or until the choice is forced on us. Freedom isn't either useful or pleasant when it's unconstrained.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:26 pm If you want to make better decisions you must be less free to make decisions impulsively.
Impulse (givin' in to it) is not freedom.
Freedom is choice, not whimsy.
To choose, there must be deliberation (self de-liberation). This is not a lessening of freedom but the exercise of it.
Re: the conquest of the will
My question is, if the feeling of volition was just that, a feeling, could we tell the difference between true deliberate action and appropriated volition all “feeling”?
Another question. When a person KNOWS they shouldn’t do something, but due to temptation and LACK of willpower, they give in to desire and do it anyway despite negative consequences, why do we treat them as if they made a free choice?
Is it because we truly believe they chose freely, or because we don’t want them doing such behaviours due to consequences towards others?
Put another way, do we punish as a preventative and warning to others, or because we truly believe the person deserves it?
What’s weird is, a person who does something wrong, would likely admit they had no choice or felt compelled, but THEY chose to do it.
It’s like your job as the agent, is to hold back the inner demons that would sabotage us, and those who are strongest are deemed morally right, while the weaker are judged.
Another question. When a person KNOWS they shouldn’t do something, but due to temptation and LACK of willpower, they give in to desire and do it anyway despite negative consequences, why do we treat them as if they made a free choice?
Is it because we truly believe they chose freely, or because we don’t want them doing such behaviours due to consequences towards others?
Put another way, do we punish as a preventative and warning to others, or because we truly believe the person deserves it?
What’s weird is, a person who does something wrong, would likely admit they had no choice or felt compelled, but THEY chose to do it.
It’s like your job as the agent, is to hold back the inner demons that would sabotage us, and those who are strongest are deemed morally right, while the weaker are judged.
Re: the conquest of the will
[quote=Dimebag post_id=504549 time=1616882980 user_id=5396]
My question is, if the feeling of volition was just that, a feeling, could we tell the difference between true deliberate action and appropriated volition all “feeling”?
Another question. When a person KNOWS they shouldn’t do something, but due to temptation and LACK of willpower, they give in to desire and do it anyway despite negative consequences, why do we treat them as if they made a free choice?
Is it because we truly believe they chose freely, or because we don’t want them doing such behaviours due to consequences towards others?
Put another way, do we punish as a preventative and warning to others, or because we truly believe the person deserves it?
What’s weird is, a person who does something wrong, would likely admit they had no choice or felt compelled, but THEY chose to do it.
It’s like your job as the agent, is to hold back the inner demons that would sabotage us, and those who are strongest are deemed morally right, while the weaker are judged.
[/quote]
From the outside we are one person to everyone else, but from the inside there is a constant tension between subconscious and conscious desires. What do you want v. What do you want to want? The bits that are the way you want to be, that you claim for yourself, are "the real you".
My question is, if the feeling of volition was just that, a feeling, could we tell the difference between true deliberate action and appropriated volition all “feeling”?
Another question. When a person KNOWS they shouldn’t do something, but due to temptation and LACK of willpower, they give in to desire and do it anyway despite negative consequences, why do we treat them as if they made a free choice?
Is it because we truly believe they chose freely, or because we don’t want them doing such behaviours due to consequences towards others?
Put another way, do we punish as a preventative and warning to others, or because we truly believe the person deserves it?
What’s weird is, a person who does something wrong, would likely admit they had no choice or felt compelled, but THEY chose to do it.
It’s like your job as the agent, is to hold back the inner demons that would sabotage us, and those who are strongest are deemed morally right, while the weaker are judged.
[/quote]
From the outside we are one person to everyone else, but from the inside there is a constant tension between subconscious and conscious desires. What do you want v. What do you want to want? The bits that are the way you want to be, that you claim for yourself, are "the real you".