"The little conscious thinky thingie in the forebrain would be noticing the decision the bulk of its unconscious made for it." - that's NOT free will.

"My main point is that there is a kind of blaming the victim in saying that 'really' they could have held out and they 'chose' to give in, they were not forced." - this is still a debate on the Pitesti experiment matter. Victims were transformed into aggressors by torture, and there's still this tendency of blaming the "new aggressors". I myself DO NOT agree with this. Even if they acted freely, you couldn't put the blame on them, "Bring my mother here, I want to kill her for giving me birth!" this is what one of the prisoners shouted after few weeks in Pitesti. Put the blame on him for breaking? Never!

that's NOT free will. — Eugen

I'm not taking a stand on free will or determinism and in fact I consider myself agnostic on the issue. I do think we can do to minds something that parallels using force on bodies.

Put the blame on him for breaking? Never! — Eugen

Great.

"I do think we can do to minds something that parallels using force on bodies." - We almost agree on that. Why almost? I do agree that if you shatter the mind and personality, then you could make one rape and kill his own family. But this is a physical limit. That's not free will, because it's not the mind acting, it's the brain
What I'm saying is that indeed, in most cases people give up long before the mind is shattered. But in some cases, incredible people just won't give up until it's simply physically impossible to oppose. But when that happens, it is NOT the mind that takes the decision, but the reptilian brain.

"It's also got a kind of, to me, magical Arnold Swartzenegger macho fantasy in it." - no, to my mind those who resist for a good cause are pure heroes, nothing macho.

It's exceedingly difficult to get someone to change a deeply rooted belief in real time, but sometimes it does occur.

More realistically, persuasive arguments tend to act over time by slowly wearing down confidence and giving rise to reflection and examination, until finally intellectual furniture gets spontaneously rearranged in the hush and dead of night.

If you ask people for their opinion, they might haphazardly form one right on the spot, and then argue to the death that this was their true and well reasoned perspective. People don't like to feel wrong, so we tend to just rationalize when necessary, but at some point, perhaps even without being consciously aware, our opinions change. Once there's sufficient emotional distance between our old beliefs/ our historical wrongness, we feel comfortable talking about how we graciously and intellectually evolved toward nuance....

If you really want to see someone transform in real time, then your argument needs to utterly encompass their own (your argument must be more persuasive in every possible way), and you've got to offer it to them as an alternative to their own position. It's more of a sales game than it is a matter of reason, logic, or philosophy. Most importantly, your position must come with all the same irrational or emotional cushions of your interlocutor's position, else it will be more comfortable for them to stay at rest. Focusing on the wrongness of their position almost never works because people would rather be wrong than be confused and uncomfortable; without an attractive alternative position or understanding which is robust enough to fully replace their own (and simple enough for them to learn it in a single sitting), it never happens in earnest.

Counter-intuitively, the more you focus on the wrongness of someone's position (as opposed to the superiority of an alternative position), they more stubbornly they tend to defend and cling to it. (As if they are committed to their own brand)...

Maybe one way to look at it is that we don't live within many of our convictions. They are experienced as boundaries of our experience. They are preserved, not because of any action repeated by the "believer" but because nothing else came along to require a reassessment.

When I apply that measure to my own beliefs, it is kind of scary. The reassessment is starting to look pretty darn important.

I consider myself rational when, for example, I say communist Romania was far worse than nowadays Romania — Eugen

USSR broke because its economy collapsed. — Eugen

A "true communist" will discuss this conclusions in many ways, usually refusing to accept that Ceausescu was a communist or blaming the USSR leadership for having abandoned a true communist economy at one time or another. These are not hypothetical cases. I have argued with "real communists" many times and I know them well. I never convinced any of them.

I'm not going to launch an argument about communism with you. This is not the time to do that. Just one thing: don't hasten to shoot the " true communist". "True Christians", "true democrats", "true neoliberals" and a lot of "true this or that" are the same thing."Truism" is a very common plague that no one wants to admit to being infected with. So are you and I.

Debates serve only one purpose: to refine our basic beliefs... if you have an open mind. If you are an open-minded man (that is, you are capable of revising your basic beliefs, -a rare specimen of humanity), reality will most likely change them. Not a "fool" who contradicts you.

Go into any forum and see.

Why aren't we able to change ingrained beliefs through discussion? Because ideologies are not just belief systems but ways of life. They are anchored in our personal and public relations, our economy and our desires and hopes. In other words, our life project. Changing a basic belief means changing one's concept of oneself and one's position in the world. And this is not the same as recognizing that two plus two does not always make four.

It is either life itself that pushes you, or you have to be brave.

What I'm saying is that indeed, in most cases people give up long before the mind is shattered. But in some cases, incredible people just won't give up until it's simply physically impossible to oppose. But when that happens, it is NOT the mind that takes the decision, but the reptilian brain. — Eugen

I don't see the mind and the brain as different, just self on a spectrum. This is because I don't think 'physical' means anything other than 'real'. It used to mean something but no longer. They're both self and neither one is solid.

- no, to my mind those who resist for a good cause are pure heroes, nothing macho. — Eugen

The fantasy is not that one can resist or does, it's that you can choose regardless.

I think mind/consciousness + unconscious = brain. I also think free will is the capacity of the conscious brain (mind) to act against all instincts, desires (physical/biological/deterministic desires). If free will does not exist, this discussion is a non-starter. It's all about a physical state of the brain, nothing more. But if free will does exist, then there's a fight between the unconscious brain who says "please make it stop!" and the mind who says "this thing is bigger than life, pain, mental state and everything else, so I will not give up!". There are two ways:
1. The torturer physically shatters the mind, so even if the mind decides to resist it cannot do so, because the unconscious is in control - your view.
2. No matter how hard it is, the mind has the last word, so theoretically it has an unlimited room of maneuver. If sticking to the principles is the most important thing in the world, the number 1 priority for the victim, with an unlimited power of decision, can that person resist unlimited pain?

You said something very important: "... we don't live within many of our convictions.". This is a key element in my opinion: we think that we are strongly attached to one idea and that we would never give up on that idea, but the reality is that the fundaments of our beliefs are weak and untested, so they are just an illusion.
In my opinion, truly identifying with something is when that thing is embodied in our senses, both rational and emotional, when it had been tested in all known ways, understood and it became part of our understanding, like knowing 1+1 = 2. I know there are things like faith or personal views that are fundamentally different from 1+1 = 2 because they also contain lots of relative and subjective things, but sometimes the emotional attachment is even stronger than the rational side.

I just couldn't agree more with everything you said.
1. Yes, our beliefs have to be tested constantly, no matter how strong they are - arguments or reality itself may confirm or invalidate them. I think the reality is the best point of reference, but what can you do when you mix it with the internal subjectivism?
Eg: When I'm arguing with people who state Romania under Ceausescu was better, I bring objective arguments on the table, like salaries, inflation, freedom of speech and all the other elements that are universally defined as "living standards". But at the end of the day, these are just conventions. My opponent could say "I liked it more back then, we all had a job and we all knew that tomorrow we'd go to work, and that was a sense of security. Moreover, the music was better, people were more inclined to real art unlike modern pop culture, and foreign countries use to respect us, not like today when they call us gypsies." So who am I to judge that some numbers are more important than the human state? If tomorrow I lost my job and suffered a trauma because of it, I would probably change my view on the before '89 life in Romania, who knows.
At the same time, if my argument against nostalgics is referring strictly to the living standards conventions, then, in my opinion, I win simply because I am stating objective figures, so I am attaching myself to an objective truth. The only way I could change my mind is to find out I live in a sort of Matrix world where everything is forged, but this is not even an argument for the pro-Ceausescu folks.
2. Regarding your second post: yes, I do believe the ingrained beliefs are strongly connected and integrated into our daily life and our personality, but once the sources of these beliefs are changed, then beliefs themselves are likely to change too. Eg: one believes in a deity who will always protect him from cancer no matter what. One day he gets cancer and suffers, therefore his belief is likely to disappear as well because reality gets in contradiction with the foundation of his faith.
But I also believe certain faiths/beliefs have a deeper layer and they are to be found the abstract part of nature and their fundaments are not concrete, therefore it's very tricky to destroy them.
Eg: one believes in a deity that created the Universe/Multiverse and life, but doesn't intervene or interact in any way, therefore the argument of evidence does not matter because by definition this God doesn't want to be found in this way. The same person believes in this God because he simply cannot conceive life or conscience without an abstract part of nature. He had encountered all the deterministic and materialistic known arguments before, but these arguments couldn't convince him, and there were plenty of real flaws in the materialistic vision. So how could this guy be convinced he's wrong? Only if one day he draws the conclusion life is just a bunch of atoms. How could this happen if all the existing arguments haven't convinced him so far? It's a mystery :)

"More realistically, persuasive arguments tend to act over time by slowly wearing down confidence and giving rise to reflection and examination, until finally intellectual furniture gets spontaneously rearranged in the hush and dead of night."
Interesting view. So you're saying that insisting is a key element. I would also add that the way you expose your arguments matters as well. I do believe this works in many cases, but again, repeating the same thing again and again even in many ways doesn't convince me it's a 100% success rate. Eg: I don't believe repeating to that Buddhist monk over and over again that Buddhism is false would ever succeed. I think he'd rather set himself on fire for being so annoyed by the situation.

I think mind/consciousness + unconscious = brain. I also think free will is the capacity of the conscious brain (mind) to act against all instincts, desires (physical/biological/deterministic desires). — Eugen

I wouldn't want to act against all desires. More or less by definition.

But if free will does exist, then there's a fight between the unconscious brain who says "please make it stop!" and the mind who says "this thing is bigger than life, pain, mental state and everything else, so I will not give up!". — Eugen

But in the end it isn't bigger than that. I want to take care of me. That's a big priority. I don't want to sacrifice myself.for ideals. I would see it a bit like an animal that freezes and stops feeling when the lion is eating its guts out. Or, a pause that reduce the long term damage by giving in now. This need not be a mental conscious choice but an organismic one. Just as I would not fight physically in some situations with a swat team bearing down on me. Survive, live to (hopefully) later return to myself another day. I think the organism should make this turn. I am not even sure it is a giving up.

"I wouldn't want to act against all desires. More or less by definition." Free will represents exactly the power to act against these desires when they're against your targets, principles or ideals.
I understand your point of view and I actually tend to agree with you that under such terrible pressure there's a point from where the organism takes control over mind in the process of decision. But this is not convincing, this is simply forcing. It's like killing someone and say " now he doesn't believe in God anymore".

But just think for a moment... what if we're both wrong and the mind has the last word to say in the term of decision making? It's probably not true, but let's assume that for the sake of the argument.
"But in the end it isn't bigger than that. I want to take care of me. That's a big priority. I don't want to sacrifice myself.for ideals. "
Not you, some people would, there are plenty of examples out there. They just don't give a damn about themselves in the biological sense when it comes to ideals. So assuming the mind will always decide, are you sure every human being, regardless of their personality, would rape, torture and burn their family alive if a torturer persuaded them to do so?

Free will represents exactly the power to act against these desires when they're against your targets, principles or ideals. — Eugen

Those are just fancy desires. I desire to be good to others and not just myself. I desire to achieve such and such a goal because of X. It's just more desires. Desires are not just about food and sex, etc.

But this is not convincing, this is simply forcing. — Eugen

Well, that's what I mean. I mean, if your convincing cannot be stopped then it is forcing. But yes, my whole point is that the mind can be forced.

It's like killing someone and say " now he doesn't believe in God anymore". — Eugen

Except they are alive and will contradict their previous belief. So, it's not like that.

Not you, some people would, there are plenty of examples out there. — Eugen

They might want to in the abstract, but if they are honest and know themselves and have decent introspection, they will know that they will not want this at a certain point. People have all sorts of fantasies and misconceptions about themselves. I mean, I have been through some shit in childhood that would have broken a lot of people. I am hardly a hedonist or an avoid painist. In fact I think I have at times had too high a tolerance for emotional pain. Physical pain, at least some kinds I am a wuss, other kinds, I can take a lot. Stick needles in my eyes, well, I am gonna talk. If you mind/brain is starved for what it must have, while also being forced to experience pain/horror and isolation those people break just like I would. There are sloppy torturers, but if you have a competent modern expert, they break everyone.

They just don't give a damn about themselves in the biological sense when it comes to ideals. — Eugen

In short term decisions, sure. Dive in front of the bus to save someone else's kid. Rush into fire to save fellow soldiers. And of course resist torture up to a point in relation to ideals. I have made some very dangerous spontaneous choices that put me at great risk to help others. But none of this is like being tortured over a long time to where you barely know yourself and people can start putting shit in. It's not about having ideals and priorities. It's what one needs to be whole.

So assuming the mind will always decide, are you sure every human being, regardless of their personality, would rape, torture and burn their family alive if a torturer persuaded them to do so? — Eugen

Oh, that I'm not sure of. Cause then ther person has to be functional. I think it is possible that if you systematically rape someone over long period of time while breaking down their minds in ways I have decribing and then build it up, that yes, everyone would be vulnerable to that. But I don't know. I have been arguing that anyone will give up secrets to end their suffering, regardless of the consequences - if the torturers have the time and know the tortures that do not risk killing the victim. Or that the person can be convinced they believe the opposite of what they do. To me that is different from being released to perform acts. I think it is possible we can all be Manchurian CAndidated. But I don't know.

"Those are just fancy desires. I desire to be good to others and not just myself. I desire to achieve such and such a goal because of X. It's just more desires. Desires are not just about food and sex, etc." Just because they have a cause doesn't make them fantasies. Sacrifice your body for what you consider a greater cause is as real as hunger. Moreover, the nature of wishes, desires, etc differs. Hunger is different from wanting to lose weight. If the body asks for food and you don't eat, it doesn't happen because of another stronger instinctual impulse that oppose the former. It is a conscious act based on a desire that has no biological effect in the moment of hunger. But that's a free will debate and it's not my desire to debate it.

"Except they are alive and will contradict their previous belief. So, it's not like that."
You are right, I gave a wrong example. It is more like a rapist violating his victim and saying "now she wants me".

"They might want to in the abstract, but if they are honest and know themselves and have decent introspection, they will know that they will not want this at a certain point."
Nobody wants to be tortured from the beginning, but I think you wanted to say that after a fair introspection, they will realise that they will eventually be incapable of resisting. That's very different from wanting.

"I have made some very dangerous spontaneous choices that put me at great risk to help others. But none of this is like being tortured over a long time to where you barely know yourself and people can start putting shit in. It's not about having ideals and priorities. It's what one needs to be whole."
Spontaneous things are different from going into a dangerous business after long introspection. There are people who do stuff knowing all the possible consequences if this is right or wrong is a matter of perspective. It's hard to judge. I really tend to agree with you, but history showed us many cases of people who simply didn't give a damn about remaining a whole. And I don't know if that happened because of sloppy torture.

Just because they have a cause doesn't make them fantasies. — Eugen

I didn't say anything about fantasies. I wasn't saying anything to denigrate them. When I said
'fancy' I did not mean 'fantasy' but rather complicated or nuanced. My point was that they are, regardless of their qualities, desires. I referred to all desires. I would not want to go against my desires in general. Why would I WANT that? If I want to be a good man, for example, that's a desire. If I want my actions to cause harm or to serve the greater good or whatever even more refined, ideal, supposedly egoless goal one can come up with, these are desires. We are humans, we can have all sorts of things as desires.Fancy as a noun can refer to fantasy, but as an adjective:

elaborate in structure or decoration.
"the furniture was very fancy"

Just because there may be other desires these desires seem to override, does not make them any less desires, even very simple animals can be torn between desires, albeit less fancy ones. And hidden behind seemingly noble desires can be any motives such as the desire to not be what dad said I was or the desire to be special or not evil. IOW interpersonal goals with really rather primitive social mammal relational aspects.

If the body asks for food and you don't eat, it doesn't happen because of another stronger instinctual impulse that oppose the former. — Eugen

If you want to lose weight it is generally, for example, because you desire to live longer or you desire to look more attractive. Desires. Since we are social mammals, our desires can have a lot to do with other people. They are still desires. Often about how we want to think of ourselves or feel ourselves to be.

You are right, I gave a wrong example. It is more like a rapist violating his victim and saying "now she wants me". — Eugen

I don't think so. You are viewing it as NOT BEING some specific claim by the torturer. For some reason you are focusing on the torturer, here, rather than, as I am, on the effects of torure. Like the torturer is really claiming to be charismatic or a great arguer and you don't think he is. I agree with you, and I am not saying that. It doesn't matter how the torturer might boast, in these inaccurate frames, about what he did. That's not what I'm focused on. I am not focused on any claims by the torturer. I am just saying the torturer can force X. Can make x happen. If he, and presumably most are a he, frames what he has done in the wrong way, this doesn't change what can or will happen to us if we experience skilled torture.

That's very different from wanting. — Eugen

In those final moments they will want to agree with the voice that offers water or sleep. They will want the pain to stop, they will want to say X is good and even believe it when they did not believe it before.

And I don't know if that happened because of sloppy torture. — Eugen

And I can't know for sure. But I think we can all be broken.

The examples you propose are accompanied by answers you propose. So you are always more objective than your opponent... according to your subjective criterion of objectivity.
But the problem I was raising with you concerns issues that are basic to a belief system. There the different positions, yours and your opponent's, are no longer objective and are based on principles that are not objective. For example, what is better communism or capitalism? Which is better, a system that favors equality or a system that favors individualism?

This is the kind of discussion that your opponent can most easily engage in. He will probably reject your criteria and divert the discussion into preferences rather than rational arguments. That is why the discussion never ends with the basic beliefs of either party. It can be said that there are no winners or losers.

The people I argue with are not concerned with communism, they actually consider the pre-Ceausescu period very dark and so do I, it was much worse than what came after 1965. They just praise Ceausescu and the period when he ruled Romania and they have this feeling that our country was really strong back then. What I am saying is that this is not an ideological battle, but a living standards one. Moreover, people usually have the idea that salaries, exports or GDP were actually higher back then, which is simply false. The fact that I truly consider myself more objective doesn't mean it's not true. On top of that, studies show that 80% of those who are nostalgic for that era wouldn't return to that period if they had the possibility to. So I truly and objectively believe I am more objective than they are.

I agree they are all desires, but there are many types of desires different from each other in their nature. Even if they are all initially created by biological/genetical and environmental/cultural factors, they act differently. Eg: hunger is a biological desire and it acts through biology, while the desire to lose weight appears from a combination of biology and culture, but it can only act through mind. Cut the power of mind to act against hunger and you'll eat like a wolf.

Of course, boasting wasn't the central part of my "rapist" analogy. I am perfectly aware that the main objective is more important for both the torturer (to make a person speak) and the rapist (to have sex). I was saying that it may be wrongly perceived in this way by some people. As we both agree, it is simply a matter of force, not will.

"In those final moments they will want to agree with the voice that offers water or sleep. They will want the pain to stop, they will want to say X is good and even believe it when they did not believe it before."
Again, this is a battle of desires. Of course they will want the pain to stop, and I think this is a desire that occurs in the first moments of torture (biological desire). At the same time, they want to remain loyal to their ideals (desire of mind). These two will get in conflict and you're saying that in the end, mind will be nothing more than something that just observe what the body decides, or, in other words, you're stating that even if free will exists, it has a limited energy in comparison to the body. To make another analogy, the victim despises her rapist, but still has an orgasm produced by her body.

but it can only act through mind. Cut the power of mind to act against hunger and you'll eat like a wolf. — Eugen

in philosophy, generally, and for me, I find hunger as part of my mind, my experiencing of myself, part of the feelings and thoughts I have,. Rather than over here, in my mind, I have my desire for community connectedness and over there in my body I have my desire for food. Of course if you are distracted by your own words and think you are only logical, then anyone could not notice that their desire for, let's say, harmony with neighbors is also embodied. I have but one exeriencer, which is mind, which is me and it is embodied.

These two will get in conflict and you're saying that in the end, mind will be nothing more than something that just observe what the body decides, — Eugen

now my desire to end ain is body, not mind, not me. I find all of these things as one thing, me. I want the pain to stop. In my mind, as my mind. As a body, and in my body those feelings.

To make another analogy, the victim despises her rapist, but still has an orgasm produced by her body. — Eugen

Very rarely, though it does happen, and if we are talking about more grooming type rapes - rather than the stranger pulls you into the bushes one shot events - then the chances go up a lot that a woman may have an orgasm. I am not sure if the analogy to rape holds or not in as fitting my position. I don't really this part.

I am desire. I am emotions. I am thoughts. I am a body, I am a mind.

That's all me. And my desires yes, can be more frontal lobe run as opposed to brain stem or limbic system run. But frontal lobe desires can lead to things like the Holocaust. You cannot document and organize the systematic eradication of a people and cut off empathy without using the frontal lobes. Without centering in them. Frontal lobe decisions can be monstrous or great. I don't buy the higher lower desire thing. (You did not use those metaphors, but it seems like there is something similar underlying your argument.

As if I should feel distaste for eating like a wolf. Wolves share food with weaker members. They are family and community members and these qualities are likely a big reason we domesticated them more and more. The only problem with eating like a wolf is that my stomach and intestines don't deal with raw meat and big chunks very well. Animals eat in ways suitable for their digestive systems and diets. I don't think the
natural
human would eat like a wolf. The natural human stressed by modern life that does not fit its needs, does not allow the natural kinds of physical actiivities its mind and body need, that overstimulates those things often late into the night with digital devices and too much light, that with an animal (us) that didn't get what it quite needed as a child, may very well wolf down food. Handling this as a frontal lobe is going to be the jailer of the limbic system never really solves the problem. In fact many of the problems have been caused by judgments that the frontal lobes know what they are doing and by pathologizing the other parts of the brain.

Empathy, and curiosity, for example come from below the frontal lobes, and in fact you need to suppress these things (via racism or schooling) using the frontal lobes, if you have certain goals. I am much more interested in solutions moving towards unity, not hierarchy.

So I truly and objectively believe I am more objective than they are. — Eugen

I'm sure they will think otherwise.

What matters in a discussion is not "true objectivity," whatever that means, but the depth to which beliefs are rooted and the rhetorical capacity to make arguments that sound fine.

In a discussion everyone talks to themselves as this brief exchange between you and me shows. Have you ever thought that you were wrong? Ask yourself.

"I'm sure they will think otherwise."
I do not necessarily agree. There are times when they truly think the salaries back then were higher. If you show them today's salary > 1989's salary, then I am sure they get it. It's pure logic, it's a fact. If they still argue, it means they just don't accept the defeat for the moment, or they are simply deluding.
"What matters in a discussion is not "true objectivity," whatever that means, but the depth to which beliefs are rooted and the rhetorical capacity to make arguments that sound fine." I do and I don't agree. Yes, you are right, rhetoric is damn important. I used to fight against Americans arguing that Romania has better living standards than USA. I remember I used to bring up DPRK type arguments when criticizing USA (poverty, inequality, racism, trailer parks, ghettos, etc), in other words truths. My opponents did the same, they brought up truths. In the end, it was a "my truth" is more important than yours, everything became relative. But I do not agree with the final purpose: convincing. At the end of the day, I knew I wasn't right and inside me, I knew I was just cheating. A good rhetoric is not the same with the truth. And this also answers your last question.

"in philosophy, generally, and for me, I find hunger as part of my mind, my experiencing of myself, part of the feelings and thoughts I have,. " I can only agree mind is also part of the brain. But hunger is not the same as wanting to lose weight. In the deterministic view, they are both the same and when they meet each other is something like this:
Feeling of hunger vs Feeling of losing weight, moment of time t -> hunger chemicals vs losing weight chemicals, if, at the moment t, hunger chemicals > losing weight chemicals -> you'll eat and your conscious brain/mind will only witness. For me this is bollocks. My opinion is the following:
When you're starving, there's no damn chemical that makes you feel NOT to eat. Your unconscious brain produces chemicals that only mean "EAT! EAT! EAT!...". There's no part of your unconscious instinctive mind that says "Nooo, starving is beautiful!", it's simply not there. Yes, there is a part embodied in your unconscious mind that wants to lose weight, but in times of hunger, they are not active, they produce an infim quantity of chemicals compared to hunger. So now what I call mind comes into action. The mind is not about chemicals or instincts, it's about information. That information influences the unconscious brain and it makes it stay away from food. This is a two-way process and this is why all determinists state that consciousness is there only to witness, nothing more. For me it sounds so silly especially when it comes from people who play the role of rational fatalistic. This is the Achile's heel of the deterministic view. You stated hunger is part of your mind as well. Yes, I agree it is a part of you and I agree it becomes a part of your mind at the informational level. Yes, wanting to lose weight could be the same. But when you're hungry, you don't feel the need to lose weight, you just feel the need to eat. This is where what I call mind comes into play, it prioritizes and it has the capacity to fight against deterministic reactions of your brain and body.
I also agree that "me" is more than mind. I am also my brain and my hands. They act as a whole. I am not sure if we have a fundamentally different opinion on this one, I think I am calling mind what you're calling the frontal lobe.

"...eating like a wolf" - my bad, I used it as a metaphor for "eating a lot/digging in", not eating uncooked. I was trying to say that even if there's a desire to lose weight, and that desire is also part of your unconsciousness or instinct, it cannot act in times of hunger without the "what I call mind" part of the brain.

I remembered something even more interesting. I am a fan of Real Madrid football/soccer(US) team. Their rivals are FC Barcelona. Well, when I was a child I had a friend who was Barcelona's fan. He told me that Nou Camp (Barca's stadium) had a bigger attendance capacity than Bernabeu (Real's stadium). I just couldn't agree. I searched everywhere I could, but all sources indicated to me he was right. But I would still argue with him and I would bring up all sorts of lies just to contradict him. The truth is that inside I was convinced I was wrong.
I think one of the mysteries of this topic represents a sort of emotional attachment to our beliefs that sometimes makes us irrational.

I can only agree mind is also part of the brain. But hunger is not the same as wanting to lose weight. — Eugen

I don't think I suggested they are.

Feeling of hunger vs Feeling of losing weight, moment of time t -> hunger chemicals vs losing weight chemicals, if, at the moment t, hunger chemicals > losing weight chemicals -> you'll eat and your conscious brain/mind will only witness — Eugen

Sure, and I am not a determinist. But a parallel unpleasance comes from free will.

I am hungry. I remember that I want to lose weight. My hunger is the animal in me. Using free will I override the animal (mechanical) part of myself and choose a higher value.

I don't think that has helped us in the least. It has increased actual battles in the self and between brain portions, a bit like how religions sided with those parts of the brain that could suppress the so-called beast in us.

That information influences the unconscious brain and it makes it stay away from food. — Eugen

To me it is just frontal lobes looking down on other parts. We are very smart nuanced mammals. I don't weigh in on the free will vs determinism for reasons I have taken up elsewhere, but I see your philosophy as a kind of taking the side of the frontal lobes and disidentifying with portions of yourself. Of course you can do this if you want, but I think it adds to splits and it goes against my desires, even, in the long run, have my frontal lobes realized that they don't want to disidentify with the limbic system the brain stem, etc. But it has taken CONTRAST for the lobes to get this. and also long noticing the problems with brain or self or mind factions.

I also agree that "me" is more than mind. I am also my brain and my hands — Eugen

You're also that part of yourself that you think is utterly determined.

it cannot act in times of hunger without the "what I call mind" part of the brain. — Eugen

And I think what you are calling mind is the frontal lobes. still brain, still body. For a couple of thousand years at least we have been told that those lobes are good and the other parts are bad, problematic, need to be suppressed and controlled and so on. Yes, by religions, but also by the scientific and 'see-themselves as rational emotional phobic portions of the human race. Both ask for a disidentifcation, where one part of the brain says 'I am the person, the rest isn't really' and also with different ways we are supposed to suppress those other parts. One part of the self disengaging from, saying it superior to, other parts.

I think this has done untold damage. But, then, personally, I have found it much more valuable to work towards unification.

And your example is eating/diet. We can have a mirror image of this. I grew up around other races. I had no idea there was racism. My limbic system told me they were human like me and I automatically felt empathy and the full range of good and bad feelings about them just as I did mainly for other kids, since I have more interaction with them than adults. Later various things tried to engage my frontal lobes to suppress my natural identification with, say, black children. Racist propaganda generally needs the frontal lobes. You can't have a holocaust without incredible propaganda and arguments. You need words and categories and justification and these can then override the obvious.

I don't want to side with one part of my brain over the other parts. They are meant to act as a unit, though from the moment of birth babies start getting subtle non-verbal and later as toddlers explicit and verbal judgments of emotional expression and certain kinds of body movements. We've been trained so long in the split, we think it is natural and the only way to live.

I do believe most of the elements that make us who we are are deterministic. Moreover, I believe the things that free will acts on are actually determined. For example, the desire of losing weight isn't a matter of free will, it is determined by socio-biological factors. Most of those people who kill women with stones can't be morally blamed for that because they really think killing a woman in this way is a divine duty, therefore a good thing. Can you blame someone doing what they think is right or for having a different system of values? But in the case of Hitler, I personally believe he knew he was wrong even by his own moral standards, but he simply went through with it.
I don't believe free will is good or bad and I don't believe instincts are good or bad. I think free will is like technology: it represents a part of evolution and it was originally meant to improve lives, but use it in the wrong way and it will be much worse than not having it.

Yes. And Messi is the best football player in the world.

I think free will is like technology: it represents a part of evolution and it was originally meant to improve lives, but use it in the wrong way and it will be much worse than not having it. — Eugen

Who uses it who is not determined? What wouldn't that person freely choose according to socio-biological desires? Do they freely choose to do things they do not desire? To me the whole free will thing is moot, in the context of what we are talking about, because I have no reason to go against my desires. Or in a sense, myself. I would only fight torturers and try not to reveal something because of my desire to fight them/protect something I care about etc. Desires motivate.

"Or in a sense, myself. I would only fight torturers and try not to reveal something because of my desire to fight them/protect something I care about etc. Desires motivate."
Yes. Your resist torture for something palpable, like protecting your family, or for something less palpable, like an ideal or simply because you hate your enemy. Why would you do this or not? I have no idea, I just know that some went through the torture and pain until the end.
There was this Romanian ruler killed by Austro-Hungarians. He was put in a steel armchair that was slowly heated with fire, they put a hot steel crown on his head and torture him in any possible way until he died because of the hot chair. History says he didn't even make a whimper. I don't know if that's true or not, but he definitely didn't talk and he defied his torturers until the end. And that was a super-brutal end. His friends were asked to drink his blood in order to escape torture, but they had refused so they were tortured and impaled. They suffered atrocious pain for days. I am not arguing this is a thing of desires, absolutely everything we do has to do with desires. But as I've previously said, there are different types of actions, and the capacity to act against your instinctual and unconscious brain, when you against all the physical signals that could be monitored in your brain, when all your chemistry orders you to do something but you're taking the opposite path, well, for me that's free will.