We cannot be affected by the thing that we are. To say otherwise goes against the grammar of “affect”.
That is why physicalism or any reductionist program that attempts to eliminate experience by positing it as a physical fact cannot deny free will. For a single, undifferentiated physical object, like “the brain” does not, cannot, be affected by itself, and hence cannot inherently be determined.
mmm…incorrect. the brain is very often influenced by itself - that is to say one part of the brain is influenced by its communication with another part of the brain. this is a proven fact. there’s no room for debate. if you’d like the proof, look up “split brain procedure”
no, it has nothing to do with grammar. is english your first language john? i don’t mean this to be offensive or insulting, it’s just…i could forgive you for a lot if it wasn’t.
could we say to be yourself, you don’t have to do anything to come to the knowledge of the self? I mean to say, you don’t have to listen to anyone telling you what you should be? For sure imo to be something other than yourself you have to do things in accordance to what is affecting you (especially others that tell things you get sentimentally attached to perhaps).
you didn’t explain anything. you just said something can’t influence itself. that’s completely false. there’s this thing called feedback, check it out.
yes, the brain influences the brain. split brain procedure proves this. do you know about the split brain experiments?
I think I agree at what you are trying to get at (or maybe are getting at). I myself am a “Compatibilist”, while “Incompatiblists” hold that the brain makes decisions for “us” prior to our conscious awareness of these decisions thus eliminating free will, I hold that we of course are our brain. “We” are not just limited to consciousness. "We: transcend consciousness for an entirely complex physical organic being and as such those hidden inner workings of the unconscious brain that we are not aware of are the workings of our self, whether realize it or not.
Thus our will, while being a result of these unconscious occurrences within the brain, is said to be free when we, the entirely organic human body and all the unknown workings within, can be exhibited without the force of an outside being or physical thing that hinders “us”. Keep in mind of course that the “us” here are not just our conscious thoughts, we have arms, legs, eyes, and of course a brain.
“Incompatiblists” seem to separate consciousness from the human body when referring to who or what we are, or what the self is and in turn then limit to only just our conscious awareness thus the workings of the body are just a vessel or so that controls our consciousness (or rather, ourself according to determinists)it seems. Grammatically yes this is incorrect, because if “I” start to bleed I am not referring of course to just my consciousness. Or if I go to the bathroom, my consciousness is not taking a dump in the toilet, I am.
I’m not arguing for free will particularly, nor for physicalism or consciousness. Any term, like free will, that suggests that a thing can, or cannot affect itself is a bogus idea simply because there is only one object.
If that is your argument, you are saying that the brain is a simple atomistic object.
The steering of a car can be significantly influenced by the state of the car’s tyres. Something about the car influences something else about the car.
In order to finally “solve” the debate over free will we would have to fully grasp the relationship between the brain and the mind. Where does one stop and the other begin in regards to the things we choose to do? Consider all the bodily functions the brain facilitates that are basically beyond the mind’s control. For example, much of our body functions autonomically. We don’t get up in the morning and start barking orders at our heart and lungs and kidneys. And there are many things out in the world that have a profound impact on our choices that we are in turn largely beyond our control.
In the end it is a profound mystery rooted ultimately in the big bang. Or even what came before it?
Your usage of “object” here is is comprehensive. You define a ‘thing’ by its distinctive qualities or properties, wherein most of those specific qualities are produced by cooperation amongst internal components. That is to say, for every “one object”, there are likely several “objects” of which it is comprised; all the way down to the most fundamental fabric the ‘thing.’
For something to be defined, or addressed, as a singular “object” is a function of conceptualization. We can narrow or broaden the focus of our consideration in the interest of understanding and communicability.
A person can become an adequate cause of his own affects, for instance, because there is more to what comprises a “person” than the abstract generalization we associate with the term.
