compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

Well, that's because whole persons include desires, goals etc., and these are causal.

Seems to me: a person desires, envisions, etc. The person causes.

Subtle difference.

Absolutely, those 'things' are facets of his or her being. And that state with all its momentum and yes emotions, desires, causes the next state. Without the desire and emotion, what would lead one to do anything?

[henry quirk]

Does Joe want pizza, or is Joe possessed by a desire for pizza?

I say the former, you seem to be sayin' the latter

[Harbal]

Does Joe want pizza, or is Joe possessed by a desire for pizza?

I say the former, you seem to be sayin' the latter

So Joe caused himself to want pizza?

[henry quirk]

So Joe caused himself to want pizza?

His hunger for pizza is his appetite and his preference: he chooses to give way or to abstain. So, in a sense, he does cause himself to want pizza. His desire/preference is a function of him, not an imp that tempts him.

[Harbal]

So Joe caused himself to want pizza?

His hunger for pizza is his appetite and his preference: he chooses to give way or to abstain. So, in a sense, he does cause himself to want pizza. His desire/preference is a function of him, not an imp that tempts him.

I would say that, although he might consciously choose to eat pizza, he does not consciously choose to want pizza, and it is the wanting that causes the conscious decision. I'm not implying any further conclusion from that, but just trying to describe the situation.

[phyllo]

Joe is getting food because he is hungry. If he wasn't hungry then he would not be getting food.

Joe is getting pizza because of ... availability? convenience? a learned preference? If there were no pizza places in the area, then he would not get it. If he came from another culture, then he would likely want something else.

IOW, his desire for pizza doesn't come from nowhere.

[henry quirk]

I would say that, although he might consciously choose to eat pizza, *he does not consciously choose to want pizza, and **it is the wanting that causes the conscious decision. I'm not implying any further conclusion from that, but just trying to describe the situation.

*it's a preference: his preference, that he can choose to abide by or reject.

**His hunger and preference are functions of hm. Neither causes: he causes.

[henry quirk]

his desire for pizza doesn't come from nowhere.

It comes from him.

[Harbal]

I would say that, although he might consciously choose to eat pizza, *he does not consciously choose to want pizza, and **it is the wanting that causes the conscious decision. I'm not implying any further conclusion from that, but just trying to describe the situation.

*it's a preference: his preference, that he can choose to abide by or reject.

**His hunger and preference are functions of hm. Neither causes: he causes.

In the context of "free will", do you think there is no distinction to be made between conscious intention, and bodily functions that are not under conscious control?

[henry quirk]

Stan has a full bladder and feels the urge to relief himself. He has no conscious control over the status of his bladder or the urge. He does, however, decide on when to relieve himself. He might resist that urge for a long time. He might deny that urge right up to the point his muscles fail and he wets himself. There's obviously a distinction. Just as obviously: Stan controls, at the very least, his response to his bodily functions. He chooses, not the bladder. He causes, not the bladder.

-----

I'm havin' a helluva time signing in, and staying signed in, to the forum. Whatever the problem is: it's workin' overtime today.

[phyllo]

His desire to hold it in, is also caused.

[henry quirk]

His desire to hold it in, is also caused.

By himself, yeah.

[Iwannaplato]

Stan has a full bladder and feels the urge to relief himself. He has no conscious control over the status of his bladder or the urge. He does, however, decide on when to relieve himself.

Ok, I've been in that situation, obviously. Why do I hold back the urge to pee? Because I don't want to pee in my pants or in public where I am. One desire trumps another desire.

You're oddly moving into Bahman territory where you view us as monads so if different parts of us have different desires, this shows we have free will. But no, it just shows that we are complicated and these different parts and desires have a struggle.

He might resist that urge for a long time. He might deny that urge right up to the point his muscles fail and he wets himself. There's obviously a distinction. Just as obviously: Stan controls, at the very least, his response to his bodily functions. He chooses, not the bladder. He causes, not the bladder.

Stan is his bodily urges and his social urges and his values urges. These are not always aligned. So, there can be a struggle.
Some part will win. The I don't want to pee in my pants or in public part wins if it finds a toilet, say, before the bodily urge wins. Urges strugging with urges.

Both causal, but to different degrees in different ways. Some urges and desires are affected by values or even created by them, and by social concerns, given we are (most of us) social mammals. We can even hate ourselves and just stifle urges out of spit, that's how split our parts can be (seem).

[Harbal]

Stan has a full bladder and feels the urge to relief himself. He has no conscious control over the status of his bladder or the urge. He does, however, decide on when to relieve himself. He might resist that urge for a long time. He might deny that urge right up to the point his muscles fail and he wets himself. There's obviously a distinction. Just as obviously: Stan controls, at the very least, his response to his bodily functions. He chooses, not the bladder. He causes, not the bladder.

On the question of free will, it seems to me that there are so many things to take into account, some of which we don't really understand, and there are so many differing definitions and interpretations of the terms, that any meaningful conclusion is probably not possible. I only mean that in the context of a philosophical discussion, and I do realise that it's perfectly possible to satisfy oneself on the matter.

[Iwannaplato]

His desire to hold it in, is also caused.

By himself, yeah.

So, his choice is determined by the combination of the body urge to pee and the social or other desires to not pee. The struggle is caused by those causes. And sooner or later one wins. There other other situations where contrasting urges cause stagnation. The person can't manage to reconcile the urges.

It doesn't matter if you cause it or the external causes it as far as determinism. No one is arguing that our desires and urges and values that form desires aren't causal. All the causes, internal and external lead to the next moments event/decision whatever.