Is this to say that every product of reasoning (e.g., resolving to tie my shoe because it is untied) has ethical implications?What: ......the manifestation of pure practical reason in rational agents, employed as a faculty of choice under the auspices of the fundamental human condition of morality; — Mww
Cite credible scientific research.As such, it's located at our brains. It only occurs when our brains are in specific states. — Terrapin Station
Cite credible scientific research. — Galuchat
It seems to me that explaining the will is part of the battle in explaining consciousness. Can there be consciousness without will?We’re too busy struggling with defining ‘consciousness’ as is I reckon. — I like sushi
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925808Cite credible scientific research. — Galuchat
Not true. Many athletes take ownership when they fail and give glory to God when they succeed. And if we didn't take ownership when we fail, then how do we learn?What about sense of authorship where there is none? Libet’s experiment highlighted that well enough. We’re biased to assume authorship when the outcome is positive. — I like sushi
Yellow is a color. Where is the context in that?Asking what “will” is a bit like asking what “yellow” is. Without context there isn’t much we can say. — I like sushi
Is this to say that every product of reasoning (e.g., resolving to tie my shoe because it is untied) has ethical implications? — Galuchat
Oh, sorry! You’re asking about ‘freewill’? No thanks :) — I like sushi
Just Google, "the neurophysiology of intention" and you will find plenty of credible research. — Harry Hindu
No, not as stated, although most any empirical situation is susceptible to manufactured moral/ethical implications, re: the various and sundry renditions of the trolley problem. — Mww
Oh, sorry! You’re asking about ‘freewill’? No thanks :) — I like sushi
I didnt simply say, "not true". I also backed it up with examples. You're the one making assertions with anything to back it up.It is true. Simply saying “not true” doesn’t make it so. — I like sushi
You originally asked what yellow is, not what means. What it is is a color. What that color means in any particular context is what caused it.In an F1 race a yellow flag has a particular meaning. “Yellow” doesn’t exist detached from an object. — I like sushi
What is the difference between intention, volition, and while we're at it, goal?At first glance, I noticed that the subject of each paper is intention, not volition (will). — Galuchat
what about the will in terms of phenomenology?... — TheGreatArcanum
I didnt simply say, "not true". I also backed it up with examples. You're the one making assertions with anything to back it up.
The will is what is what I would call a process - similar to a central executive in an information processing system that utilizes working memory - and I would avoid using incoherent terms like "physical" and "non-physical". — Harry Hindu
using coherent terms like physical and non-physical is necessary, for either the will is born out of a prior state of actuality and therefore physicality, or it is born out of a prior state of potential and non-locality...and its freedom is entirely dependent upon whether it is born of actuality (actualized potentiality) or potentiality (unactualized potentiality). — TheGreatArcanum
If the will has any power at all it must be an actuality. So why not simplify all this to say that it is a non-physical actuality? — Metaphysician Undercover
You said that it is a process or a bridge that connects potentiality and actuality, so how can you then say that it has no real existence? How is it that you are talking about it if it has no real existence? I'm not saying anything about it being an "object" or not, I'm just asking what you mean by "real" and "existence". To me, something is "real" or "exists" if it has causal power. The will appears to cause things to happen, and the will is influenced by perceptions at any given moment. The decisions we make at any given moment are dictated by our present experience in relation to similar memories. We often "choose" the action that has always worked before. We are creatures of habit, and only change when forced to. Even if the will is an "illusion", illusions exist and are real. They have causal power.the will is a process in the sense that its a bridge that connects potentiality and actuality; it has no real existence in itself, obviously, it's not an object; — TheGreatArcanum
This all seems so unnecessarily complicated. There is no conversion needed as there is no difference between mind and body that needs conversion. Bodies are processes too. Notice that you and I both haven't used the terms "physical" or "non-physical" in any of our explanation so far.logically speaking, the will can be represented symbolically a subset of memory, meaning that the intentional process which converts potentiality to actuality in mind is born out of memory, and also, returns to memory, so really, the will involves two processes the instantiation of the will out of memory and potentiality into actuality, and the return of that actuality back into memory. — TheGreatArcanum
If they are coherent and necessary, then why haven't you used them in any of your explanation so far? What is the difference between physical and non-physical that requires some sort of conversion before being causally linked? How can you also say that the conversion doesn't really exist or isn't real?using coherent terms like physical and non-physical is necessary, for either the will is born out of a prior state of actuality and therefore physicality, or it is born out of a prior state of potential and non-locality...and its freedom is entirely dependent upon whether it is born of actuality (actualized potentiality) or potentiality (unactualized potentiality). — TheGreatArcanum
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.