I don't think so. Just like the Moon isn't mine, neither are the thoughts I experience or the dreams I have. The inner world is as distant from me as the world around me. — Dijkgraf
but it is informed by memory, sensory receptive field expansion — Garrett Travers
The pre-frontal cortex has been described as a ‘control center’, the executor of actions, but this a misnomer. It receives inputs from the rest of the brain , the body and the environment and forms expectations and anticipations in order to interpret this input as something recognizable, but is at the same time affected and altered by these inputs. — Joshs
So its decisions are not purely pre-figured by its prior state, as if it already knew what it wanted to will. — Joshs
Rather , we FIND ourselves willing or deciding. The distinction here is that there is no purely logical connection between the desire or thought that occurs to us and the ‘us’ that exists just prior to what pops into our head. — Joshs
This is why to will is always in some respect to be surprised by what one wills. — Joshs
This I think comes close to what Arendt means when she says action precedes rational deliberation. — Joshs
Here I disagree. Memories are just patterns of broadened synapses (connection strengths). Most thoughts follow these patterns, like all brain activities. There is a constant parallel sensory input, the world is projected into our brain world, but we can't control the new thoughts, though we can influence them. I don't consider my brain part of me, though useful. — Dijkgraf
I'm sorry, dude — Garrett Travers
Don't be sorry... I know what I'm talking about,...dude. — Dijkgraf
This applies to dogs maybe. Obey the master and get a reward. Not to humans. — Dijkgraf
will was the sum total of all indivudal human action and thought, the emergent expression of the content of the information the brain processes, integrates, values, and enacts, and all activities of the brain that contribute to that process. — Garrett Travers
This definition is informed by the assertions you made about the brain and the scientific understanding of the process as is presently understood, article above. It also dispenses with the mind-body dualism that has plagued this topic for centuries, — Garrett Travers
More recently, embodied approaches view affect as not only inseparable from rationality , but what determines its sense and relevance. They abandon the idea of cognition as internal processing and representing of an outer world in favor of an integrated mind-body-world system. Volition is not fundamentally a calculative or logical process taking place within the brain but a matching process of interaction between person and environment. — Joshs
These assertions from Arendt are being informed by outdated notions of will and freedom, across multiple philosophical interpretations, without the context of modern neuroscience. — Garrett Travers
For the will to not necessarily be free, you will have to describe an instance where the brain is not in operation, integrating data, processessing stimuli, recalling memories of interest or value, regulating the body's core structure, organizing emotion, processing patterns for recognition, formulating values, anticipating threats, etc. The will is quite literally everything that the brain uses to contribute to cognition and action.
Meaning, freedom of will is going to be the natural state of the brain, without the trauma requisite to make it stop being applied. Thus, the principle to be integrated is freedom from the application of interpersonal force, or otherwise uninvited interference with the will's natural and independent expression. — Garrett Travers
For example, eating. The reason why you eat when you do, is because you are hungry. — Garrett Travers
Your inclination to not have the same faculty at odds with itself certainly echoes a sensibility evident in the Greek philosophical tradition. The matter of sin being a choice between two possible lives is the source of the duality involved here. Otherwise, there is no choice. — Paine
I don't know if the notions of will and freedom here are outdated, I'd say they're just heavily influenced by determinism. The best a determinist can do toward a proper notion of free will is compatibilism. But trying to make a concept of free will which is compatible with determinist principles will inevitably lead to problems like the apparent paradox expressed by Banno. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think you missed the point here Garrett. The reason why the will is not necessarily free, is that we are free to define "will" and "free" as we please. There is really nothing we can point to which "will" refers to, and nothing which "free" refers to, therefore the terms can be defined in a way in which "free" is not consistent with willed acts. Then the will is not free. However, some ways of describing will and freedom give us a better understanding of reality than others. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not actually true. Much human eating is just habituated activity. We eat at mealtime. And because we have designated mealtimes, we do not allow ourselves to get hungry. If you've ever fasted, you'd understand that the feeling of hunger is quite a bit different from the feeling you get at mealtime, before you eat. I believe that to understand the issues being discussed in this thread, it is necessary to differentiate such habituated activities, often learnt as societal norms (including education and ways of thinking) , from activities which are truly motivated by internal forces. When we assume that the habit is what moves the will, we deny our freedom to break a habit. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem with the passage you presented is that it defines "sin" in such a way that turning inward towards the maintenance of one's own well-being, is by definition sinful. This is the problem inherent within the distinction between apparent good, and real good, first proposed by Aristotle. — Metaphysician Undercover
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it but sin which dwells within me. — Romans 7:13
However, if we maintain Platonic principles, the good is what moves the will toward understanding and accepting intelligible principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
And is this not a general truth? If a man acts with some purpose, he does not will the act, but the purpose of the act. — Gorgias, 467d
I don't know if the notions of will and freedom here are outdated, I'd say they're just heavily influenced by determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe that to understand the issues being discussed in this thread, it is necessary to differentiate such habituated activities, often learnt as societal norms (including education and ways of thinking) , from activities which are truly motivated by internal forces. When we assume that the habit is what moves the will, we deny our freedom to break a habit — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree. Your brain does not make you choose, it is you choosing.They are generated by your brain which is a constituent element of you and the sole source of all cognition that distinguishes your will from everyone else's. You are simply not assessing this properly. — Garrett Travers
Your brain does not make you choose, it is you choosing. — Banno
"You" are your brain. — Garrett Travers
Yes, it seems we owe free will to the Church Fathers. — Banno
You" are your brain — Garrett Travers
Nor do I see much use in bringing neuroscience into what is essential a discussion of intentionality. — Banno
You have a brain, like you have a physical world to live in. You function, walk, do your things, between the world outside and the world inside, which you always carry along with you. — Dijkgraf
I don't deny the inside world can get damaged. So can the outside physical world. Just send a huge bubble of wind or water through your house. — Dijkgraf
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.