RoR: Forum

What an unexpectedly wonderful little article! Loved it!

More, please!

Post 1

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 5:06pm

Agree - was an interestingly different take...

Post 2

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 5:24pm

Eric,

Based on the two articles of yours I've read, it seems we think so much alike I wonder if you've been hacking my hard drive and stealing my stuff. :)

I disagree on one minor point in this one, though. It's more a question of formulation. It isn't 'the body', of course, that drives us to akrasia, but the unresolved conflict of two or more putative values that can't both be simultaneously achieved. The body has no mind of its own, ala Freud, as I'm confident you would agree.

Well done!

Jeff

Post 3

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:40pm

Eric, I liked and sanctioned your article.

But I would like to expand on the point Jeff seems to be making. You said:

"Akrasia succeeds in part because of an implicit acceptance of the mind-body dichotomy...

...And they all imply a dualistic view of the self. "

A dualistic view of the self certainly can't help one fight akrasia, but I don't think it is its prime cause either. The brain has literally dozens of organs and systems and it is more complex than the rest of the body put together. The brain literally maps out the body or parts of the body and maps out the environment in dozens of different ways. We aren't normally conscious of the complexity of the brain since we experience our selves as unitary and simple. We have only one "stream of consciousness" or internal dialog available to our minds at any one time. To make this clear, consider a person fully fluent in two languages - say English and Japanese. He can think in Japanese, or in English, but he cant have two streams of thought going on at the same time, one in each language. This is the very high level of integration that is available to us on a critically self-conscious level.

But deeper down, we may be getting conflicting signals from different brain subsystems. A dieter's midbrain may be screaming "I'm hungry!" while his frontal lobes may be saying "but I really must stick to my diet." This is not a symptom of philosophical dualism, it is just a byproduct of the complexity of the brain. Now you are absolutely correct that philosophical dualism doesn't help - because it gives the frontal lobes and excuse to surrender to the midbrain - it makes it easier for the critical parts of the brain to shirk their duty and surrender to the lower drives.

The problem with treating akrasia as a purely philosophical vice is that it makes it seem that if one only had the right premises, such conflicts would not occur. But the conflicting signals we get from the different systems of our brain will not simply go away if we merely change our premises. What is necessary is focus (the habit of listening to the protests of the frontal lobe in favor of long-term planning) as well as other tactics such as sublimation (chewing on a pencil or eating ice rather than surrendering to hungers and cravings that are chemically mediated and that arise from more primitive brain systems that control our drives) as well as medication and therapy if necessary. By imagining that akrasia arises from a mistaken philosophical premise is to invite unearned guilt when changing one's premises doesn't miraculously rewire the myriad parts of the brain that are sending conflicting signals.

Philosophy can help, and dualism can cripple. But the brain is much more complex than what we observe consciously. Sometimes our premises do need a little help in the form of medication or therapy or support groups or just the benevolent nagging of our friends. Dualism is wrong, but so is intellectualism - a fallacy that entails the idea that we can necessarily change ourselves by mere thought alone.

As I said, a good article - and I like your use of the Greek.

Ted Keer

Post 4

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:59pm

To cut short any possible misinterpretation, suggested by Ted's ascription, I disagree with Ted's post completely.

I am of the 'conflicting philosophical premises' school, though I acknowledge:

a) those premises can be very hard to root out and fight, when their effects have been automatized and reinforced over many years

b) it isn't premises alone, conscious or otherwise, that influences our behavior.

However, Ted's view is - to my ear - materialism in modern guise and I deny that this theory of human behavior or psychology is correct.

Post 5

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:31pm

Is that all there is?

Jeff, you should provide some examples. Do you entirely disagree that the brain is the mostly complex organ in the body - as complex as the rest of the body put together? Do you disagree that one more primitive part of the brain can be sending hunger signals, while another higher part of the frontal lobe can be recalling the memory and decision that one must not eat in order to lose weight as one has decided? Do you deny the efficacy of psychoactive medication? And why do you call me a materialist? Rand herself believed in the subconscious. The entire doctrine of automatization is based on it. Surely the subconscious as well as the conscious are physical phenomena. Neither did I deny the efficacy of choice or the danger of mistaken premises.

I view consciousness as a iterative relation by which a formal harmony arises between the nervous system of an organism and its environment with that organism and its own mental states being included in the environment in a broad sense. That is, I see bodies as entities and consciousness as relationships. This does not make me a materialist. Materialism is a complex theory of the nature of physical bodies. I take bodily awareness as the given. I am a hylomorphic monist, not a materialist.

I see mental causation as iterative, self-affecting and hierarchical. Conscious thoughts can lead to changes at all sorts of different levels of neurophysical complexity, and neurophysical events are what our thoughts arise from. I am simply arguing above against a naive view of the mind that takes what one is self-consciously aware of as all there is that is going on in the mind. There are plenty of non-naive scientists and philosophers such as Sacks, Searle and Damasio who neither deny consciousness nor deny that we are physical beings. If you have objections, please spell them out at length. Certainly you do not hold that merely thinking properly makes it so? Is knowledge all that an alcoholic needs and lacks? Are neuroscience and psychopharmacology a load of quackery?

Please reread my post with all its qualifications and then indicate to me your objections or my errors. I think you may have simply misunderstood me. Merely expressing your disagreement without specifically identifying that with which you disagree is not at all helpful.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/12, 7:35pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:42pm

Eric:

Great article! After reading it, I couldn't bring myself to skip working out tonight. Thanks for the motivation :)

Post 7

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:51pm

Ted,

It's a complex subject and you make a reasonable request. I'll try to make time to respond at length later. In the meantime, I'll simply say:

1. Why we do what we do, i.e. what finally determines why we choose to stick to a diet or give in to temptation, for example, isn't known yet. By anyone.

2. What we do know is that the belief that we are determined by our -- pick your poison -- hormones, neurotransmitters, demons from the id... is false. For, regardless of whether the theory is stated in primitive, mystical form or sophisticated scientific terms any theory that posits that our behavior is outside our control -- in general -- is false. How do we know? That free will exists is a self-evident fact. Any other facts surrounding the issue are always less certain, less obvious, more in need of interpretation than this one. Hence, it always trumps.

(Time for Bill Dwyer to jump in... :)

I know this is an inadequate reply to your request, but more will have to wait. It's certainly possible I've misinterpreted you, and I'll re-read your post a few times before responding again.

Post 8

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:24pm

You Cannot Petition the Lord with Prayer

Jeff, I'm not a determinist either - but mostly because I would say that I am my body, and hence there is no difference between my choices and my body's choices. I see volition as the ability to act without external determining forces. Nothing forces me get out of bed or decide to wear blue versus black today. Volition is my ability to act even though I am not determined like a leaf in the wind to move without my own consent.

The real point I want to drive home is that one might feel lethargic due to low blood sugar, but also want to work out - and that the proper thing to do in that situation is not to blame one's premises for one's laziness, but to eat a candybar and head to the gym. The same might apply to an alcoholic. He may want to quit, but may also need to use antabuse or a benzodiazepine to help him overcome his cravings. Doing so is not materialism - it is using one's knowledge of medicine and oneself to overcome akrasia by whatever means work. In some cases, such as deciding for whom to vote, or what job to take, perhaps conscious premises really are the only factors involved. I am not trying to limit or predict causes a priori. I am simply saying that the subject cannot be limited to philosophizing a priori either - because there are all sorts of kinds and levels of desires and urges and some may be based on high level abstract convictions and others on hardwired biochemical mechanisms. No matter what a dieter thinks, sugar will still taste sweet and hunger will still exist. No matter how hard Larry Craig wants to believe that he is not attracted to men, if he is, denying the fact will not make it go away. Free choice is indeed available to us only on a conscious level, and only thought will guide us toward our goals. But thought alone, without perseverance and physical action and self-knowledge, won't change us or the world. The concept that thought alone will effect reality is called prayer.

Ted Keer

As for Bill Dwyer, I think he's right. The English word crazy probably does come from the word akrasia

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/12, 8:28pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/13, 1:55pm)

Post 9

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:53pm

As for Bill Dwyer, I think he's right.

I don't.

Ed
[free to choose the means (to happy living); free to learn to get better at it, too]

Post 10

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 10:21pm

Akrasia, crazy for feeling so lonely...

Ed, you totally misconstrue me by ignoring the second sentence. Bill has said before that he thinks the word crazy, which is of doubtful origins (like the words boy, girl, and dog, whose origin no one knows) may come from akrasia. That was my only point of agreement.

Ted Keer

Post 11

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:01am

Thank you all for the appreciative and intelligent responses.

I look forward to following the Keer-Perren debate and hope to gain a better understanding of the role philosophy has in overcoming akrasia.

It's nice to know that this article helped motivate Ryan to get to the gym. For me, I always suffered from intense akrasia when it came to physical exercise. In the abstract, it was an easy decision to create a work-out regimen for myself; it was much harder when faced with the actual physical and mental effort it was going to require. Akrasia would usually win the day, because when faced with the difficult task, I'd talk myself out of taking action by deciding that being physically fit isn't that important after all.

Everything changed when I realized that in overcoming akrasia by doing the workout, I was improving much more than my body; I was improving my spirit. I am more motivated by the idea of improving my whole self than in just my body. It's still very difficult, but I do manage to stick to a regular exercise program now, having realized the power it has in moving me towards Self Integration.

Post 12

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:48am

I enjoyed the article. For me too, its a big issue for me to figure out which goals I set for myself I actually work to accomplish, and if I can figure out how to accomplish more of them.

Of course, then there is always the question of whether it is worthwhile to do all that extra work to accomplish the extra goals : ).

Exercise in general is pretty fun for me, especially soccer, ultimate frisbee, rollerblading, or even jogging if the scenery is good. Weightlifting is definitely be a chore for me, especially since I don't think I have the genes for having a sexier bulkier body. If I could figure out how to always get to bed at a reasonable hour so I could do those hour long morning warm up and work outs...

Post 13

Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 1:52am

Dean, you should talk to Ed about bulking up if that interests you. Some doctors will prescribe medications, but most are wary and you may have to search for one. Some dietary changes and other medications also help. And you can talk to guys at the gym. My problem has never been bulking up, but keeping down the weight even with 4 x wk stairclimbers, weights, walking and a good and restricted diet, keeping under 240lbs (6'1) has always been a chore. Such is life.

Post 14

Monday, July 1, 2013 - 4:21pm