I recommend History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell as a good refresher.

I’m sorry for your struggles. I’m in the same boat.

I think it is very easy for the non mentally ill to tell you that everyone has problems. The problem with that is they have never been extremely mentally ill, so their problems don’t equate to ours. Our minds or brains work against us as the mentally ill.

I’m not sure what “coming to terms with one’s diagnosis” entails, though.

I just don’t find it helpful. I know how I’m supposed to think and behave. I just find it extremely difficult in practice. Plus, I’ve had some very unempathic counselors that have turned me off to therapy.

Has the impulsivity ever resulted in bad decisions? — Wallows

Yes. I’ve overdosed five times.

I have schizoaffective disorder with depression according to my doctor. My wife says I get manic at times, too, but my doctor hasn’t observed this. I don’t go to therapy either, but I am medicated.

As a Stoic, you might want to meditate on living in accordance with the Logos if you prefer not to pray.

I don't know how one can learn how to be less impulsive or learn patience. It's a trait I suppose.

Any thoughts? — Wallows

I’ve struggled with impulsivity my whole life. I’ve dealt with mental illness my entire adult life. Patience is difficult when one is under a lot of stress. I have found that removing the stressors helps a lot, and where that isn’t possible, meditation helps. However, sometimes people are in very high stress situations that they can see no easy way out of. That’s when they need to find the courage to ask for help. I find that praying as a form of meditation, asking God (or the universe or your inner self if you prefer) for patience has been helpful to me.

Perhaps he was giving an account of Bertrand Russell’s and John Searle’s theories of descriptors? I don’t know. I’d have to read the paper again.

Well done! (Pun intended)

I suggest writing the body of your paper first, going where logic dictates, and then you will know your thesis.

<—what he said

You’re a fucking riot! Never a dull moment when you’re around!

Doesn’t free will just mean to a Compatibilist that the actor isn’t being coerced by anyone? So they are morally responsible as long as they are not being coerced?

I see what you’re saying.

H]ow is this "absolutely free will" ... relevant to any human concerns? — SophistiCat

Wasn't Strawson saying that we are not ultimately responsible for our actions? This seems to be a radical claim, and it has huge implications for human concerns. At least I think so.

Excellent analysis of bullshit. That was some fine bullshit on bullshit.

To the moderators/administrators:

This thread belongs under "General Philosophy". Harry G. Frankfurt wrote a book entitled "On Bullshit", and this OP deals with the biggest "problem" of philosophy of all.

This is also what Strawson Jr. is arguing. But my question is - so what? If that's how you define "absolutely free will," then, obviously, that's how it is. But how is this "absolutely free will" - a made-up thing that cannot possibly exist - relevant to any human concerns? — SophistiCat

You could say this with almost any "problem" of philosophy. That's why the average person couldn't care less about philosophy.

I've decided to stick around. I simply have nothing better to do. ;)

I have a question. Have these experiments been replicated with the same results? It seems they would have to be replicated a few times with the same results to be cogent.

Also, the placebo effect can be explained by brain states. Is placebo treatment sustainable?

You’re correct! However, it has no bearing on my overall argument. Thanks. God bless you!

At any rate, I wish you the best of luck with your book on free will. I give up on this pissing match. God bless you.

if A is a necessary cause of B, then B could not happen without A. If A is also a sufficient cause of B, then A is also not possible without B. How does necessity not enter here?

Furthermore, no one in their right mind would claim that behavior supervenes on the planets. Where did you get that from?

Responsibility is a social convention simply because people believe in free will, not because it is metaphysically true.

My claim is that mental phenomena supervene on the physical brain. Some difference in the brain is necessary for a change in the mental processes. Also the brain supervenes on mental processes. Any change in mental processes necessitate changes in the brain. Hence, my assertion that there is supervenience BETWEEN mental processes and the brain.

I do not believe that mental phenomena cause changes in the brain as you do. If mental phenomena were causally efficacious, then wouldn’t it be possible for telekinesis to occur? It is much more likely that mental phenomena supervenes on the physical brain. This is knowable a fortiori. It is consistent and coherent with neuroscience. Your claim is not.

We are only morally responsible as a matter of convention. Metaphysically we are not responsible.

It seems that we are at an impasse. Not all correlated events supervene on each other. I suggest reading the Wikipedia entry on supervenience. It speaks of higher level and lower level phenomena.

Furthermore, I’m not the one who espouses proairesis. You do. I believe memory, beliefs, mood, and need, etc., are COLLECTIVELY necessary And sufficient causes of our decisions. You keep setting up Straw Men instead of addressing my premises.

If you weren’t already aware “A if and only if B” means “If A then B AND if B then A”. Dfpolis’ definition wasn’t clear on this.

There are A differences if and only if there are B differences. It goes both ways. Just Google “supervenience”. “If and only if” doesn’t just mean “if”.

To my estimation, “choices” are the domain of the privileged. Most people do what they do all day out of necessity. When people do the mental exercise of deciding between or among “choices”, they are just AWARE of options. I believe the final decision is usually determined by subconscious motivations. When it’s not determined by subconscious motivations, the decision is sometimes done after long deliberation. This kind of decision is also usually in the purview of the privileged. When they make this kind of “choice”, it is always ultimately determined by memory, beliefs, biases, mood, and need. The particular factors are always necessary and sufficient causes of the particular “choice”. Always. Across the board.

The drunk driver may have been compelled, but punishment is still necessary to keep dangerous people off the streets and for deterrence.

There is a subtext here, viz. the utilitarian assumption that there is an optimal course of action -- one that results in the greatest happiness, is impelled by the most libido, or has the maximal value of some other utility function. However, if you look at the lead up to decisions, what Aristotle calls proairesis, that is not how we choose. I have never assigned a value to each motivating factor and then calculated which option maximizes the resulting utility. In fact, such a calculation cannot be done, implicitly or explicitly. The reason is simple: motivating factors are not commensurate. No amount of sex will satisfy our need for nutrition, and neither will satisfy our need for understanding. Thus, no trade-off is possible.

H. A. Simmon has written about this at length. Human decisions are made using satisficing rather than maximization. We choose courses of action that satisfy as many of our needs as possible, rather than finding one that maximizes some utility function. As there are many courses of action that can satisfy our needs, satisficing, unlike optimizing, does not constrain us to a single line of action. — Dfpolis

I wasn't implying anything like "optimizing". I believe the alternative of stopping drinking occurred to the alcoholic as an option. Perhaps moderation didn't occur to him as his experience and beliefs didn't necessitate it. Perhaps he has "learned", however wrong-headedly, that all-or-nothing approaches are the only two alternatives. I really don't believe that any of us perform a calculus of optimaization. I believe we are taking shots in the dark essentially. Whatever happens to occur to the alcoholic is predetermined based on his memories, beliefs, experience, mood, and whatever need he feels he needs to satisfy. There is no optimization calculus.

I think supervenience is an irrational distraction -- one invented to avoid discussions of causal ontology. — Dfpolis

Supervenience does not do away with cause and effect. The lower level physical realization is subject to cause and effect as is the higher level mental exercise. It's just that the two levels line up 1:1.

There can be no historical events without variations in the positions of the moon and planets, but that does not mean that we should all be studying astrology. — Dfpolis

I think you're confused here. I wasn't saying that we should do anything like astrology. The physical determination of the planets does not supervene on human behavior. The lower level biology and physiology of the brain supervenes on the higher level mental processes of the mind.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I need to study what you wrote and think about it for awhile. God bless you.

It would be very coincidental if the one that we judged to be better mentally were also the only one that was physically realizable. Such a parallel relation reminds me of Leibnitz' monadology and would seem to require a providential God. — Dfpolis

I don't know about this. It seems to be only natural, not coincidental, to me. I'm sure that many who died in the Holocaust had doubts about a providential God.

the choice of a goal against a compulsion is a sign that the compulsion is not determining. Consider an alcoholic who habitually goes into every bar he or she passes. One day they commit to being sober. That commitment makes no physical change. Their brain is still wired the same way. Every time they pass a bar, they still start to walk in. So, they remind themselves of their commitment and, by force of will, walk by — Dfpolis

But this choice is not made in a vacuum. The alcoholic might have learned that he was being "punished" for consuming too much alcohol in the sense that he hit rock bottom and things weren't going well for him. That choice is a completely natural option that fits in with my model. He probably learned from experience (perhaps the accounts of other reformed alcoholics), and he was compelled to make the choice to stop consuming alcohol. It took many bad consequences for him to learn his lesson, but this just reinforces the concept of necessary causes (necessary for his particular case in that his rock bottom may be different from someone else's).

we need a mechanism for evolutionary selection of the capacity to represent multiple options -- one that translates into reproductive success — Dfpolis

Isn't the population of the planet evidence of evolutionary success of our characteristics? How does any characteristic get selected for? It's random at first, but successful characteristics are selected for sometimes as riders of other characteristics, sometimes as the primary characteristic.

Isn't it more rational to think that the very fact of commitment to the better option is one of the conditions of physical realization — Dfpolis

I believe there is a supervenience between the act of commitment and physical realization. But just as the physical realization is deterministic, so are the mental processes.

Now this is not to say that you couldn't still be right about all this, but I still have concerns that need to be addressed.

How does one make a “random choice” in practice?

Ah. My bad.

What do you mean by “those things do not work as counterarguments” when I am saying that they are indeed not ontologically free.

I’m still not SURE I agree that a long-term goal is a sign of free will. It is still a choice but a choice that constantly and repeatedly has to be made. I gave my reasons for believing why I think decisions or choices are determined.

As for evolution, the mental exercise of weighing choices is a mechanism nature has chosen that has made humans successful. It is a mischaracterization of what I believe to say that evolution decides which is better, viz. the decision made or the option not taken. The mechanism is what evolution selected for.

As for whether I believe consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon, I don’t know how to put it. I believe consciousness is just as real as matter as I am a spiritual person. I believe consciousness is a manifestation of the life force which can be conceived as spirit or soul. I believe this spirit is dwelling within us as a taking part of the greater Spirit which is dwelling within the matter of the greater universe itself. You seem to believe that this “spirit” has causal efficacy. I believe it is just the force that animates us. Our differences as individuals is due to the structure of the matter of our bodies and brains, but our commonality is that we all take part in the Spirit.