What does "will" mean?
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
What does "will" mean?
As far as I can tell, "the will" is that part of us that causes us to pursue what we perceive we value. We value things, like eating oranges, or avoiding falling off a cliff, and we have thoughts and desires about grabbing an orange, or stopping before falling off a cliff. Our "will" is that thing that translates these thoughts and desires into action. A bridge between our thoughts and movements, if that makes sense. Note that I say "perceive" we value, because it's possible to do things we don't really value, but mistakenly perceive at the time that we value them, such as going fast on a motorcycle for the thrill of it, and regretting it later on because you almost killed someone.
Seems to me that this agrees with how we commonly use language. I use "willpower" to keep moving even though injured. I exercise my will to get up in the morning. A bank robber robs a bank of his "own free will". Each time, it seems to me, "the will" translates thoughts and desires into action. Often, we use this word when we are faced with internal adversity, like when we are exercising, and we want to quit, but our "will" keeps us going, or when we force ourselves to not eat while trying to diet. Again, it is that part of ourselves which translates thoughts and desires into action.
If this is a good definition of "the will", then the question of it being "free" seems trivial, at least in one sense. The question is equivalent to asking "Do our perceptions, desires, thoughts, etc. have anything at all to do with our decisions and actions?"
If there is some relation between our thoughts and our actions, then we are "free" in the sense that whatever the will is (we have no clue) it is part of the causal chain of events that leads to actions. It is a causal thing.
If "the will" is the part of ourselves that translates thoughts into action, then we don't have any clue what this is. Is it a set of physical laws? What? The problem involves what consciousness is, and its role in nature. If we have no clue what consciousness is, and how it relates to the rest of nature, then how can we know what "the will" (an aspect of consciousness) is? We cannot. We have no clue.
However, if it is true that our consciousness has something to do with our decisions, if is part of the causal chain of events that leads to our actions, then the will is also part of the causal chain of events that lead to our actions. Hence it is a causal thing, and "free" in that sense.
This seems reasonable. To say it is not true is to say that our decisions have nothing to do with our actions. What justification do you have for that? How could anyone have one, in our state of complete ignorance about consciousness? Our experience of making decisions and then performing relevant actions would certainly not support the idea that our decisions have nothing to do with our actions.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What does "will" mean?
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What does "will" mean?
What are those forces? How do you know they are not part of "us"? We have no idea what consciousness is, so how can you know that "those forces" are not part of "us"? I don't see how you can declare this with any confidence?Atreyu wrote: The "will" you are describing is not "free" because it's dependent on forces out of our control (like the functioning of our bodies). A truly "free" will would not be dependent on anything outside of our conscious intent.
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm
Re: What does "will" mean?
I think that the will would be some intrinsic property of a conscious agent by which intention yields action. This is quite similar to what you said, except that in my account, the will is at the level of a single agent and I don't think a human being is such a single thing. We are a complex system, and, correlating thoughts and actions in that a complex system to intention and action at the level of (free) will agents is very subtle and quite difficult, *exactly* as it is to correlate the will of the CEO of a factory with the products that come out the supply chain.
I think that the difficulty in observing (free) will in human actions is that a human being is a hierarchical community of free-will agents, not just one.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What does "will" mean?
Those forces are not "us" in the sense that we're not conscious of them, nor do we have any control over them. If they were "us", we would know it immediately and be able to control those forces.Mgrinder wrote:What are those forces? How do you know they are not part of "us"? We have no idea what consciousness is, so how can you know that "those forces" are not part of "us"? I don't see how you can declare this with any confidence?Atreyu wrote: The "will" you are describing is not "free" because it's dependent on forces out of our control (like the functioning of our bodies). A truly "free" will would not be dependent on anything outside of our conscious intent.
You get hungry, and then you "will yourself" or "choose" to eat. The hunger is not "you" in the sense that you didn't control it. The hunger comes into your awareness suddenly, as if it enters your awareness from outside of it. Then, you act based on that hunger. You react to it. (Not act.) Another, stronger, desire enters your awareness, and you 'forget' about eating and 'choose' to do something else. Again, that new desire is not "you". You didn't choose to have it. It was not your conscious intent to now want to have sex more than eat a meal. Merely, another stronger, more pressing, desire entered your awareness and compelled you to act.
I can declare this with confidence because I observe this in myself. I don't choose my wants or desires. I merely have wants and desires, and all of my actions are based on the aggregate net effect of all these competing desires. There is no "freedom" here, even if I assert some kind of "will" behind my actions. Actually, there is only desire behind my actions, and I don't have any control over those desires.
Truly "free will" would be the ability to oppose and resist those desires --- to do not what you want, but what you do not want. As long as one only does what one wants to (desires), one has no "free will". But once one attains the ability to be able to do things against one's own desires, one can now say that one has attained will. Your "will" is not an attainment. It's merely one's awareness of succumbing to one's own desires...
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What does "will" mean?
Sure, I react to it, which is another way of saying that something translates thoughts into action. You are admitting here that there is a relation between thoughts and action, or desires and action. Hence the will exists in your account and it causes things to happen, whatever the will is (we don't know).Atreyu wrote:Those forces are not "us" in the sense that we're not conscious of them, nor do we have any control over them. If they were "us", we would know it immediately and be able to control those forces.Mgrinder wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
What are those forces? How do you know they are not part of "us"? We have no idea what consciousness is, so how can you know that "those forces" are not part of "us"? I don't see how you can declare this with any confidence?
You get hungry, and then you "will yourself" or "choose" to eat. The hunger is not "you" in the sense that you didn't control it. The hunger comes into your awareness suddenly, as if it enters your awareness from outside of it. Then, you act based on that hunger. You react to it.
Now, why can't this thing that translates thoughts into action be "me"?
Atreyu wrote: (Not act.) Another, stronger, desire enters your awareness, and you 'forget' about eating and 'choose' to do something else. Again, that new desire is not "you". You didn't choose to have it.
I sensed it was a better thing to do. OR leaving out the term "I", something sensed it was a better option (rightly or wrongly). Something weighed two options and chose one over the other. Something then translated the thought into action.
Why is this something not "me"?
Atreyu wrote: It was not your conscious intent to now want to have sex more than eat a meal. Merely, another stronger, more pressing, desire entered your awareness and compelled you to act.
Something sensed sex was a better option, and something then translated that thought, or desire, into action. These "somethings" are the same thing, i.e. "the will". It seems reasonable that they are the same thing, even though one translated thought into a physical action, and the other shifted thoughts from one focus to another, even so, they are both called "the will", as it seems reasonable that the will enacts a change of mind as it also translates thoughts into action. The same capacity seems involved in both cases.
Why is this "something" not "me"?
Atreyu wrote:
I can declare this with confidence because I observe this in myself. I don't choose my wants or desires. I merely have wants and desires, and all of my actions are based on the aggregate net effect of all these competing desires. There is no "freedom" here, even if I assert some kind of "will" behind my actions. Actually, there is only desire behind my actions, and I don't have any control over those desires.
You are not observing in yourself that "something" is choosing between desires? You are not observing in yourself that "something" is translating thoughts into action?
Of course you are.
Why is this "something" not you?
NO it wouldn't. Tack on an impossible condition. Then note that it's impossible, then say therefore nothing is "free." Baloney. AS long as something is choosing between desires, and something is translating thoughts into action, then you have a will. It is free if it truly is the part of nature that does this. That is, it is free if there is a part of nature that translates thoughts into action. Since "something" does this translating job, then there is some part of nature that can be called "the will" and it is "free", since it is a causal part of nature, which you yourself are saying.Atreyu wrote:
Truly "free will" would be the ability to oppose and resist those desires --- to do not what you want, but what you do not want.
No, the mind has at least two parts, an "awareness" part, and a "translating thoughts into action" part, not just an "awareness" part. Consciousness is more than just awareness, it is also the thing which translates thoughts/desires into action. Why? Because something has to.Atreyu wrote: As long as one only does what one wants to (desires), one has no "free will". But once one attains the ability to be able to do things against one's own desires, one can now say that one has attained will. Your "will" is not an attainment. It's merely one's awareness of succumbing to one's own desires...
-- Updated Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:50 pm to add the following --
Well, that's good.Fcacciola wrote:I agree with the idea that what really matters is what the will itself is. Once we figure that out, it'd be either free or causally linked to an external agency (whether that is another entity's will or some form of programming).
I agree to some extent, there are many competing desires in our minds, if that is what you are saying. Nevertheless, "something" chooses out of options. This something is localized to our bodies, always associated with our bodies. It is a part of "us".Fcacciola wrote: I think that the will would be some intrinsic property of a conscious agent by which intention yields action. This is quite similar to what you said, except that in my account, the will is at the level of a single agent and I don't think a human being is such a single thing. We are a complex system, and, correlating thoughts and actions in that a complex system to intention and action at the level of (free) will agents is very subtle and quite difficult, *exactly* as it is to correlate the will of the CEO of a factory with the products that come out the supply chain.
I think that the difficulty in observing (free) will in human actions is that a human being is a hierarchical community of free-will agents, not just one.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: What does "will" mean?
I agree that “the will” causes us to do stuff. It causes our actions; it is the force that drives us to do as we do. I see no substantive differentiation in meaning between the words “will”, “wants”, and “desires”, as all these are forces (or “urges”) that drive us to do as we do. In essence, these forces (urges) compel and cause our bodily actions.mgrinder wrote:As far as I can tell, "the will" is that part of us that causes us to pursue what we perceive we value.
Now, where I disagree, is with the “perceiving of value” part. I don’t think this is a necessary prerequisite of will/want/desire. Many times we do what we do without even knowing why we did it. In many cases we simply just auto-react to our urges. It is only afterwards, that we think (or “perceive the value”) of what we just did.
Is “value” the right word here? Do we “value” eating oranges, or is it that we actually “desire” eating oranges?mgrinder wrote:We value things, like eating oranges,…
Isn’t it really just our “desire” (and not necessarily our “thoughts”) that makes us grab that orange?mgrinder wrote:…and we have thoughts and desires about grabbing an orange
Not so.mgrinder wrote:Our "will" is that thing that translates these thoughts and desires into action. A bridge between our thoughts and movements, if that makes sense.
There are a few problems here with this notion --
1. Firstly, even if it were true (which it is not), that Thoughts ultimately determine our Actions (via the connectivity of the Will), this still does not mean we have any say-so over our Actions. To have say-so over our Actions would first require that we have say-so over the Thoughts (that control these Actions). Since it is not logically possible to pre-select our own thoughts, then it is likewise impossible to select our Actions using these thoughts.
2. Secondly, and even if we could pre-select our own Thoughts (which we can't), "mental causation" is still impossible. It is not possible for the mental (mind/thoughts) to control the physical (bodily actions). Thoughts and Actions are only 'experiences' -- We are just the 'experiencers' of these Thoughts and Actions, ...and not it's causers!
3. Thirdly, and as Atreyu brilliantly explained, we don’t control our Will, our Will (Wants/Desires) controls us; and our bodily actions. Contrary to popular belief, we do not control our wants/will, …they control us!!! Our Thoughts, like our Actions, are simply something that we ‘experience’; being just another bodily re-action.
Albert Einstein also recognized this line of thought in Mein Glaubensbekenntnis (August 1932):
"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants, [Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." -- Albert Einstein
The misconception is that man determines his wants/will. But in actuality, this is backwards -- it is the wants/will that determine (control and drives) the man to do as he does. -- even if he 'wants' to do otherwise!
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm
Re: What does "will" mean?
At the risk of mudding the waters here, I would like to say that according to a certain belief system, the "me" would be the thing intending that which is then translated into thoughts in the mind. The mind is neither the "me" nor the brain but something in the middle, with then brain translating the thoughts into actions.Mgrinder wrote:
Sure, I react to it, which is another way of saying that something translates thoughts into action. You are admitting here that there is a relation between thoughts and action, or desires and action. Hence the will exists in your account and it causes things to happen, whatever the will is (we don't know).
Now, why can't this thing that translates thoughts into action be "me"?
[of course, this split between intention, thoughts and action is more conceptual than real. The actual process is more interleaved. For example, thoughts are created in and by the mind, but with the active participation of the brain, and, the intentions of the said "me" are intended with the active participation of the mind]
All of the above is according to a certain belief system, so, even though is not my ideas, you can pretend it is and value that accordingly.
I would most certainly say it is you.Mgrinder wrote:Why is this something not "me"?
What I'm saying does indeed result in competing desires in our minds.Mgrinder wrote:I agree to some extent, there are many competing desires in our minds, if that is what you are saying.
The typical example is when your body needs a certain nutrient, then you feel (sense) that you want to eat, and then you choose a certain food (because your are sensing the food you need so the choice that is presented to you is weighted).
I most certainly agree with that. And I call that "me".Mgrinder wrote:Nevertheless, "something" chooses out of options. This something is localized to our bodies, always associated with our bodies. It is a part of "us".
Now..
I said that a human is a "community of (free) will agents" but that was not complete, because I always try to keep the references to a belief system is minimal as possible.
In this occasion I have to elaborate: the mentioned community is a hierarchy (just like the neurological system is). It has an apex, which does not necessarily make each and every decision but does approve or reject mosts (but not all.. *I* don't decide to breath for example, nor can I reject crying out loud if I get really scared)
That apex is the "me" in me.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What does "will" mean?
Because you're not aware of it. How can you call it "you" when you know nothing about it?Mgrinder wrote:Sure, I react to it, which is another way of saying that something translates thoughts into action. You are admitting here that there is a relation between thoughts and action, or desires and action. Hence the will exists in your account and it causes things to happen, whatever the will is (we don't know).
Now, why can't this thing that translates thoughts into action be "me"?
Because "some-thing" is not "you"...Mgrinder wrote:Atreyu wrote: (Not act.) Another, stronger, desire enters your awareness, and you 'forget' about eating and 'choose' to do something else. Again, that new desire is not "you". You didn't choose to have it.
I sensed it was a better thing to do. OR leaving out the term "I", something sensed it was a better option (rightly or wrongly). Something weighed two options and chose one over the other. Something then translated the thought into action.
Why is this something not "me"?
Same as above. The big question for me is why would you even entertain the idea that this "something" is you. You're not even aware of what it is, and yet it is you?Mgrinder wrote: Something sensed sex was a better option, and something then translated that thought, or desire, into action. These "somethings" are the same thing, i.e. "the will". It seems reasonable that they are the same thing, even though one translated thought into a physical action, and the other shifted thoughts from one focus to another, even so, they are both called "the will", as it seems reasonable that the will enacts a change of mind as it also translates thoughts into action. The same capacity seems involved in both cases.
Why is this "something" not "me"?
Why would I consider it me when I'm not in control of it? It's "It", whatever it is, not "I".Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
You are not observing in yourself that "something" is choosing between desires? You are not observing in yourself that "something" is translating thoughts into action?
Of course you are.
Why is this "something" not you?
It's not impossible to overcome those kind of desires. It just takes a certain amount (and time) of work on oneself, that's all.Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
NO it wouldn't. Tack on an impossible condition. Then note that it's impossible, then say therefore nothing is "free." Baloney. AS long as something is choosing between desires, and something is translating thoughts into action, then you have a will. It is free if it truly is the part of nature that does this. That is, it is free if there is a part of nature that translates thoughts into action. Since "something" does this translating job, then there is some part of nature that can be called "the will" and it is "free", since it is a causal part of nature, which you yourself are saying.
And far as calling it "free", normally "free will" implies that you are in control. You're basically attempting a new unorthodox definition of the term, IMO because you don't want to admit that there is a lot of work and improvement we could do with the "human machine". Calling an outside force which you have no control over whatsoever "free will" makes the situation sound like something appealing, when in reality it's just slavery, pure and simple, as well as human beings living below their rightful level of existence.
[/quote]Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
No, the mind has at least two parts, an "awareness" part, and a "translating thoughts into action" part, not just an "awareness" part. Consciousness is more than just awareness, it is also the thing which translates thoughts/desires into action. Why? Because something has to.
Of course consciousness is more than just awareness. But it implies that you are the entity doing the "translating" of thoughts/feelings into action, not some outside force. Your definition of "consciousness" and "free will" could be applied to a man in a coma, or a man dreaming in bed at night!
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does "will" mean?
Ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts as related to a biologicals ability to steer itself in host of various directions and potentially, a complex set of reasons.
When the ego becomes part of the equation involving "will" then greater degrees of perversion becomes allowed.
Ex the statement, that we've all seen or heard from some humans from time to time, 'I am God" is one these greatest perversions of will.
Ego ergo I-verse is the diametric opposite of God / "U"niverse.
What w holism--- in it most cosmic sense --- really means, is that, Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( is the inherent essential to every fermionic and bosonic particle of our finite, occupied space Universe.
The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.
r6
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm
Re: What does "will" mean?
I, me, mind, brain, consciousness, etc. all refer to the same thing, events in the brain. There is no "other" operating the system. My mind is not floating out there in some mysterious other-space working the levers of my brain through mystical hand-waving processes. Much of our conscious experience is simply the feeling, the sensation of hormonal events, such as hunger, fear, excitement, sexual desire etc. When we choose between salient drives we don't see the processing that goes on below the choice; even if we run over the pros and cons of a choice with internal verbal conversation, we don't see where the contents of the conversation come from. A scanner could see the processing going on but we don't. This is not a new insight. Hume said,"by the will, I mean nothing but the internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind." We should not confuse all our different sensations with different entities, nor needlessly multiply them.
The appropriate response to things we cannot understand is to say, "this needs more study" and not to make things up, which would be the religious response. The will is an illusion; we make a choice, and become aware of it, and subconscious processes send the appropriate signals to muscles to make the move. If you had to deliberately select and modulate every move of your muscles in conscious processing space it would take all day to eat your breakfast. The skills of movement are acquired in childhood and laid down as automated procedures in the cerebellum. A small child tries very hard to move a brick from A to B and is thrilled when it finally works. They repeat the move hundreds of times to establish it.
The correct answer to many of these questions is now moving from philosophy to neuro-science.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does "will" mean?
Humans transfer concepts from one individual access to mind to anothers access to mind via some occupied space medium. No occupied space medium then no transfer of concept{s}.
Ex one individual wants to transfer a concept to another so they my use the medium of sound{ verbal }, touch{ tactile ex braille }, visual{ EMRadiation } smell{ olfactory } etc.
If want to communicate the concept of space and we type, csepa, the concept will not be transferred to the other individual, because the pattern{ geometry } is not correct. We have the same number letters, the exact same letters ergo same mass, wight color etc, yet the pattern keeps us from having a transfer of concept.
Pattern is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. All occupied space has an associated pattern/geometry.
Ex hold your hand out in front you at eye level and move your hand from left to right or right to left, and go higher and lower as you move horizontallly. We now have created the patter of wave, however, when our hand comes to a stop, the occupied space hand still exists but the wave pattern only exists in mind/intellect/concept.
So we have metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of intent what is it we intend to communicate to self or others and we have spirit. Spirit-2 is energy/physical i.e. fermions, bosons and any aggregate combination thereof.
Spirit-1 is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. Spirit-of-intent occurs via spirit-1 and one of the spirit-2 mediums mentioned previously above.
Free will is limited i.e not free do thing it chooses to do{ spirit-of-intent } and Fuller gives example of pulling a airplane of spiral tailspin may not be possible even tho our spirit-of-intent is to pull it out of a tailspin.
r6
Rr6 wrote:Will = spirit-of-intent.
Ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts as related to a biologicals ability to steer itself in host of various directions and potentially, a complex set of reasons.
When the ego becomes part of the equation involving "will" then greater degrees of perversion becomes allowed.
Ex the statement, that we've all seen or heard from some humans from time to time, 'I am God" is one these greatest perversions of will.
Ego ergo I-verse is the diametric opposite of God / "U"niverse.
What w holism--- in it most cosmic sense --- really means, is that, Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( is the inherent essential to every fermionic and bosonic particle of our finite, occupied space Universe.
The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.
r6
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What does "will" mean?
I see a difference. The will is the thing that actually accomplishes you moving your hands to get what you want. Whereas what you want is what you want.RJG wrote:I agree that “the will” causes us to do stuff. It causes our actions; it is the force that drives us to do as we do. I see no substantive differentiation in meaning between the words “will”, “wants”, and “desires”, as all these are forces (or “urges”) that drive us to do as we do. In essence, these forces (urges) compel and cause our bodily actions.mgrinder wrote:As far as I can tell, "the will" is that part of us that causes us to pursue what we perceive we value.
It's still what we perceive we value. If we form no memories of our desires, we still had a desire. If it's a non conscious (non deliberated) reaction, like being startled by a sudden movement, we (as in our being) don't want a fast moving object to kill us, hence our body tries to get out of the way. Our body perceived what it valued, and acted accordingly. If your concious mind actually wanted to die for a good reason, then you would be regretful your body had that reaction. You, as in your being, the strongest part of you at the time, did what it (mistakenly) perceived what it valued at the time.RJG wrote: Now, where I disagree, is with the “perceiving of value” part. I don’t think this is a necessary prerequisite of will/want/desire. Many times we do what we do without even knowing why we did it. In many cases we simply just auto-react to our urges. It is only afterwards, that we think (or “perceive the value”) of what we just did.
Ah, yes RJG. I remember you. Will it ever be possible for you to get the idea that all you need for free will is to be the thing that selects from options? There is something that looks at the perceived consequences of an option versus other ones, and selects the one that is perceived to be the best. That thing is "us". You deny this without knowing what it is that does this selection, without knowing how the mind relates to the rest of nature. Will you ever get it? Seems like you won't. After all this time, you're still flogging the old horse. (Well, to be fair maybe we all are...)RJG wrote:Is “value” the right word here? Do we “value” eating oranges, or is it that we actually “desire” eating oranges?mgrinder wrote:We value things, like eating oranges,…
Isn’t it really just our “desire” (and not necessarily our “thoughts”) that makes us grab that orange?mgrinder wrote:…and we have thoughts and desires about grabbing an orange
Not so.mgrinder wrote:Our "will" is that thing that translates these thoughts and desires into action. A bridge between our thoughts and movements, if that makes sense.
There are a few problems here with this notion --
1. Firstly, even if it were true (which it is not), that Thoughts ultimately determine our Actions (via the connectivity of the Will), this still does not mean we have any say-so over our Actions. To have say-so over our Actions would first require that we have say-so over the Thoughts (that control these Actions). Since it is not logically possible to pre-select our own thoughts, then it is likewise impossible to select our Actions using these thoughts.
You don't need say-so over what thoughts come into your self-awareness, you just need to be the thing that decides between perceived options. then you are your will.
HOw to put this? You have chosen to beleive that "we" are awareness and nothing else. You believe we have only one property, and that is it it it. Thus you you will deny we have free will, and will even deny we have a will at all (if you are being consistent). Wheras I think that the mind needs at least two components. Awareness and a property that translates awareness into action. I am more than just awareness, I am the thing that translates my thoughts into action. Thus I have a will, and thus, suice I am the thing which translates thoughts into action, I am a cause, and thus free in that sense.
Who has the more reasonable view? Me.
Why? Because we have no idea what consciousness is, other than it seems different from a peice of matter, and we can't detect it, and science doesn't need it to explain anything. All we know is that we are aware of things, and we value things, and we decide this, and we take action, and qualia has something to do with all of this. How to make sense of all this? Keep an open mind and try to figure it all out, rather than deny the existence of things that obviously exist. Awareness, whatever that is, exists. It has some relation to action. There has to be something in nature that translates awareness into action, because we see it happen all the time. ONly reasonable thing to do...
I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will. I am my will.RJG wrote: 2. Secondly, and even if we could pre-select our own Thoughts (which we can't), "mental causation" is still impossible. It is not possible for the mental (mind/thoughts) to control the physical (bodily actions). Thoughts and Actions are only 'experiences' -- We are just the 'experiencers' of these Thoughts and Actions, ...and not it's causers!
3. Thirdly, and as Atreyu brilliantly explained, we don’t control our Will, our Will (Wants/Desires) controls us; and our bodily actions. Contrary to popular belief, we do not control our wants/will, …they control us!!! Our Thoughts, like our Actions, are simply something that we ‘experience’; being just another bodily re-action.
-- Updated Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:22 am to add the following --
Try reading up on Chalmer's "hard problem".Spraticus wrote:I've reread this thread a few times and despair of finding suitable bits to quote to indicate what I'm responding to.
I, me, mind, brain, consciousness, etc. all refer to the same thing, events in the brain. There is no "other" operating the system. My mind is not floating out there in some mysterious other-space working the levers of my brain through mystical hand-waving processes. Much of our conscious experience is simply the feeling, the sensation of hormonal events, such as hunger, fear, excitement, sexual desire etc. When we choose between salient drives we don't see the processing that goes on below the choice; even if we run over the pros and cons of a choice with internal verbal conversation, we don't see where the contents of the conversation come from. A scanner could see the processing going on but we don't. This is not a new insight. Hume said,"by the will, I mean nothing but the internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind." We should not confuse all our different sensations with different entities, nor needlessly multiply them.
The appropriate response to things we cannot understand is to say, "this needs more study" and not to make things up, which would be the religious response. The will is an illusion; we make a choice, and become aware of it, and subconscious processes send the appropriate signals to muscles to make the move. If you had to deliberately select and modulate every move of your muscles in conscious processing space it would take all day to eat your breakfast. The skills of movement are acquired in childhood and laid down as automated procedures in the cerebellum. A small child tries very hard to move a brick from A to B and is thrilled when it finally works. They repeat the move hundreds of times to establish it.
The correct answer to many of these questions is now moving from philosophy to neuro-science.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: January 29th, 2014, 6:43 pm
Re: What does "will" mean?
I don't think the terms ego and id are used in modern psychology, probably because they don't refer to meaningful or identifiable entities. Freud fails all the usual experimental tests.Rr6 wrote:Is a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept an illusion? There exists definitions for concepts in the dictionaries. Do concepts exist? Yes, the do exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and do not occupy space i.e. a concept has no energy/physical, has no wight/mass, has no color, has no temperature, has not spin has not charge etc...yet they exist for they are.
Concepts exist as long as there are minds to hold them. Whether, as some mathematicians argue, they have an existence outside of that is debatable. when they exist in a mind they take the form of neural states, which makes them somewhat similar to written words. The object is not the content of the concept any more than vibrations in air are the concept. There are definitions in dictionaries of lots of things that don't exist, such as gods and fairies.
Humans transfer concepts from one individual access to mind to anothers access to mind via some occupied space medium. No occupied space medium then no transfer of concept{s}.
Ex one individual wants to transfer a concept to another so they my use the medium of sound{ verbal }, touch{ tactile ex braille }, visual{ EMRadiation } smell{ olfactory } etc.
If want to communicate the concept of space and we type, csepa, the concept will not be transferred to the other individual, because the pattern{ geometry } is not correct. We have the same number letters, the exact same letters ergo same mass, wight color etc, yet the pattern keeps us from having a transfer of concept.
This true but irrelevant to the question.
Pattern is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. All occupied space has an associated pattern/geometry.
Ex hold your hand out in front you at eye level and move your hand from left to right or right to left, and go higher and lower as you move horizontallly. We now have created the patter of wave, however, when our hand comes to a stop, the occupied space hand still exists but the wave pattern only exists in mind/intellect/concept.
So we have metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept of intent what is it we intend to communicate to self or others and we have spirit. Spirit-2 is energy/physical i.e. fermions, bosons and any aggregate combination thereof.
Spirit-1 is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. Spirit-of-intent occurs via spirit-1 and one of the spirit-2 mediums mentioned previously above.
Free will is limited i.e not free do thing it chooses to do{ spirit-of-intent } and Fuller gives example of pulling a airplane of spiral tailspin may not be possible even tho our spirit-of-intent is to pull it out of a tailspin.
r6Rr6 wrote:Will = spirit-of-intent.
Ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts as related to a biologicals ability to steer itself in host of various directions and potentially, a complex set of reasons.
When the ego becomes part of the equation involving "will" then greater degrees of perversion becomes allowed.
Ex the statement, that we've all seen or heard from some humans from time to time, 'I am God" is one these greatest perversions of will.
Ego ergo I-verse is the diametric opposite of God / "U"niverse.
What w holism--- in it most cosmic sense --- really means, is that, Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( is the inherent essential to every fermionic and bosonic particle of our finite, occupied space Universe.
The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.
r6
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: What does "will" mean?
(1) I am aware of it. (2) If I wasn't, what would that matter?Atreyu wrote:Because you're not aware of it. How can you call it "you" when you know nothing about it?Mgrinder wrote:Sure, I react to it, which is another way of saying that something translates thoughts into action. You are admitting here that there is a relation between thoughts and action, or desires and action. Hence the will exists in your account and it causes things to happen, whatever the will is (we don't know).
Now, why can't this thing that translates thoughts into action be "me"?
(1) It seems to me that I am quite aware of this thing in me that translates thoughts into action. I see it do things all the time, and in the moment of deciding, I am the thing which decides, and I am aware that I am the thing that decides. You choose to ignore this part of yourself, oh well, that's your choice.
(2) Suppose I was not aware of it, could not form memories of this part of myself, what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It's just a part of me I cannot perceive. I can't perceive any of my neurons, or my pancreas, but it's still a part of me.
By logical deduction, I have awareness, and from personal experience, there is a massive and unending correlation between my wanting things and me trying to get them. If this correlation is not an accident, there must be a causal link. There must be something that translates thoughts into action. Either this is a part of me or it isn't. Since my awareness is a part of me, and this translating thing in nature is closely linked to my awareness, it must be part and parcel of the same phenomenon as my awareness. Hence it is fair to call it a part of me.
To top it off, in moments of decision, I am aware of my will, and I am my will. You just choose to ignore this.
Well, another issue here is I consider my "unconscious decisions" to be actually "conscious decisions" (part of the same phenomeon as decisions to water my garden today or not). The difference being that decisions to water my garden or not come into my self awareness and are recorded to be accessed later by my self awareness, and so on. Whereas decisions to be startled are still "conscious" decisions, but do not enter my self awareness. They are part of the same process of something being aware of soemthing and then something translating awareness into action. Decisions to be startled likely involve the same process of something being aware of something and that awareness beign translated into action, but it does not involve the part of me that looks at myself, models myself, and makes higher order decisions, considering many options at once (my self awareness). Neverthelss, it is part of the same phenomenon.Atreyu wrote:Because "some-thing" is not "you"...Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
I sensed it was a better thing to do. OR leaving out the term "I", something sensed it was a better option (rightly or wrongly). Something weighed two options and chose one over the other. Something then translated the thought into action.
Why is this something not "me"?
Same as above. The big question for me is why would you even entertain the idea that this "something" is you. You're not even aware of what it is, and yet it is you?Mgrinder wrote: Something sensed sex was a better option, and something then translated that thought, or desire, into action. These "somethings" are the same thing, i.e. "the will". It seems reasonable that they are the same thing, even though one translated thought into a physical action, and the other shifted thoughts from one focus to another, even so, they are both called "the will", as it seems reasonable that the will enacts a change of mind as it also translates thoughts into action. The same capacity seems involved in both cases.
Why is this "something" not "me"?
Why would I consider it me when I'm not in control of it? It's "It", whatever it is, not "I".Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
You are not observing in yourself that "something" is choosing between desires? You are not observing in yourself that "something" is translating thoughts into action?
Of course you are.
Why is this "something" not you?
It's not impossible to overcome those kind of desires. It just takes a certain amount (and time) of work on oneself, that's all.Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
NO it wouldn't. Tack on an impossible condition. Then note that it's impossible, then say therefore nothing is "free." Baloney. AS long as something is choosing between desires, and something is translating thoughts into action, then you have a will. It is free if it truly is the part of nature that does this. That is, it is free if there is a part of nature that translates thoughts into action. Since "something" does this translating job, then there is some part of nature that can be called "the will" and it is "free", since it is a causal part of nature, which you yourself are saying.
And far as calling it "free", normally "free will" implies that you are in control. You're basically attempting a new unorthodox definition of the term, IMO because you don't want to admit that there is a lot of work and improvement we could do with the "human machine". Calling an outside force which you have no control over whatsoever "free will" makes the situation sound like something appealing, when in reality it's just slavery, pure and simple, as well as human beings living below their rightful level of existence.
Mgrinder wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
No, the mind has at least two parts, an "awareness" part, and a "translating thoughts into action" part, not just an "awareness" part. Consciousness is more than just awareness, it is also the thing which translates thoughts/desires into action. Why? Because something has to.
Of course consciousness is more than just awareness. But it implies that you are the entity doing the "translating" of thoughts/feelings into action, not some outside force. Your definition of "consciousness" and "free will" could be applied to a man in a coma, or a man dreaming in bed at night!
So, with this in mind... A man in a coma makes "conscious decisions", when poked and has a reflex (an awareness happened, and awareness was translateed into action) but not "self aware decisions". The part of himself that watches himself wasn't involved. Does he have "free will"? No. Not the self awareness sort of free will, but the pheonomeon of consciousness (awareness and the thing which translates thoughts into awareness) was still involved in a causal role.
In this view, there are many more acts of "free will" that you do than just those which enter your self awareness, but these are different acts. The difference lies in that self aware decisions are just that - self aware decisions. These invoke a different sort of "freedom" than reflex decisions. Self aware decisions have the ability to choose between competing desires, sense which one will make your life better over the longer term, then enact that one. Non self aware decisions just have one option. Both are "free" in the sense that they cause things to happen. Self aware decisions have a slightly different "freedom" in the sense of choosing between desires (freely).
"I", in the sense of my self awareness, am the thing which chooses certain decisions, but my self awareness ahs no access to many of the conscious decisions that my body does.
there is no contradiction here...
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023