“I” is the manner in which my brain and my mind interact symbiotically. And how would the precise nature of that relationship ever be discerned by me?
No one has solved the problem of free will anymore than they have solved the problem of dualism. And I know this because if someone had that is all we would be talking about in venues like this. Instead, the conflicting arguments fly just as fiercely as ever before.
I live my life acting as though I do have a limited free will. Limited because so much of what I choose today is predicated on all the things I was taught to do growing up in this particular historical age and inthis particular culture. And limited because I can only make an educated guess regarding how my mind, my brain and my body are interwined in the decisions I make.
Simply restating nonsense doesn’t make it less nonsensical. Is a car unaffected by whether or not the tyres are flat or the suspension locked? Is your ability to walk unaffected by the fact your leg is broken?
An isolated system too can go through changes of state. Whether you call it affecting itself or not is your choice. So to the extent that it (isolation) can be done, a brain isolated from external inputs too can continue to go through a series of state changes. No need of ‘free will’.
free will means living because you want to- no one must live once they learn that they may commit suicide…there are many peaceful ways for one to let go of their life…no one is being forced to live once true understanding of suicide is reached…this is also an evident difference between man and all other species- its name? …freewill…the right to live freely and willingly…we are not slaves to existence once understanding of suicide is reached.
is there a way for one not to want to live and yet not to want to commit suicide either? meaning they do not want to live but they also do not want to kill themselves in order to not live- they would rather just not be alive anymore by some other power’s will…if it were up to another power then we would not have free will right? the fact that this person would have to kill himself in order to die would show that another power would not do it for him meaning he must use his own power freely right?
in other words- once you’re born you have the option to live or not to live- this can not be argued of course…so what does this mean? what does it mean that when we are born we have the option to live or not to live…it means that we may either choose to live or to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills or something…
one may say that we do not have free will because once we are born we have to act and in order to commit suicide we still have to act…but that person would have an invalid understanding of free will then, because free will does not address the fact that existence must be a force and therefore we must “act” in order to live…it only addresses the fact that we as a species have an “option” that is what free will is- this transfers over into belief in higher power versus atheism (as i have taught- atheism is the path to suicide)…
in other words we are born and once we are born we must “live” and “act” but other entities such as animals must “live” or “act” as well… what makes humans different from animals in this respect specifically? …it is the fact that we are aware that we do not have to “act” or “live” once we commit suicide, and we are aware of how to do it and are also free to do it…meaning there is nothing stopping us from commiting suicide- what does the statement “there is nothing stopping us from committing suicide” mean? it means we have free will- our own will…meaning if we choose to commit suicide it is our will that we must use in order to do so…nothing will try to stop us (nothing is the only thing that can stop us) but it will be us in the end that will have to make the decision…free will once again is not about the fact that the “acts” of our lives leads us to suicide or not (and therefore we have no free will)…once again free will only specifically addresses the fact that we have an “option” where as animals do not…this “option” MUST be accounted for by a deeper idea- that idea is called “free will”…stop trying to take its significance away by adding a larger perspective- it is perfectly sustainable within its specific definition and significance…the “option”
What about masturbation is indirect? Seems fairly straight forward to me…
This just seems like a matter of semantics that can likely be resolved through simplification. A component of a thing can affect another component of the same thing provoking change in that thing as a whole – thus the whole is affected by itself.
When he decides to masturbate, he employs the whole of his ‘person’ to act, or not act, accordingly. All components play their respective roles, regardless of what that role is. Hence, when he is affected, every component becomes integral in producing the respective affect(s).
If the whole is employed to act where the whole produces an affect, it is affecting itself.
When I grab my dick with my right hand, it’s not my whole body that grabs my dick, but only my right hand. My dick can never grab itself, nor my right hand grab itself, nor my whole body grab my dick or my right hand or itself.
Is passivity an activity, though?
If I roll a bowling ball against a bowling pin, the whole ball is employed to act and produces an effect, but it only affects the pin, not itself; I affect the ball and the ball affects the pin. Right?
That is you grabbing you (a component of you is no less “you”).
Also, I think putting all of this in terms of “grabbing” is misleading. Your hand can touch and sense itself, for instance. Or your entire body may seize up.
If employed to be so, yes. You might employ your legs to sit and support you, your other hand to surf porn, your eyes and ears to perceive porn, your midsection to sit upright, etc.
Right, but I fail to see the relevance. The ball did not roll itself, and the pin is not a component of the “ball” as a whole.
I agree, but I am unsure of where that deception lies. I’m beginning to think it is more deceptive to to consider parts of a whole distinct from that whole (than vice-versa).
Huh? I’m just referring to a seizure, I was not attempting obfuscation if that is what you suspect.
Now, this, to me, is a play on words. A part of you is you. If you burn your hand, for example, you could explain that experience in two ways that mean the same thing – “I burnt my hand” or “I burnt myself”
But why? If I employ something to be passive, whether it be subconscious, conscious, or unconscious; it is still involved and active inasmuch as it is obedient.
That’s very well possible, but then such deception is a presupposition of thought: for without at least the illusion of multiplicity, there can be no thought.
No, that’s the deception of language. My hand is “I” only in an inverted pars pro toto sense.
[size=95][O]ur body is but a social structure composed of many souls[.]
[Nietzsche, BGE 19.][/size]
Is the bowling ball you roll ‘obedient’?
Are not sentient beings simply organisations of many non-sentient beings?
We could call the universe “The whole universe,” making the universe a whole and then expanding your theory that pieces of a whole can’t affect each other by saying that nothing can affect anything else. You see what’s wrong with this line of thinking yet?
We are the adequate cause of our own condition. That is, we are the adequate cause of those effects which are conceived by our nature. We can affect ourselves insofar as the the mind is active and we have the ability to understand and manipulate our passions.
In short, A person’s ‘nature’ is the adequate cause of his mental activity or passivity, respectively. When active, our primary interest is to affect ourselves [toward inherent interests in persistence, survival, preservation, and/or satisfaction]. On a wider scale, a ‘thing’ affects itself insofar as it strives toward its inherent interest(s) by its nature, which is the root and origin of its volition.
