Control Over Desires?

[mistermack]

On 8/26/2019 at 1:44 AM, Farid said:

Do you think control over your desires are possible? 

How long is a piece of string? You need to be more precise to get a meaningful answer.

For instance, many desires can OBVIOUSLY be controlled, by stopping the regular indulging of that desire. Like giving up smoking. The more you smoke, the more you want. Give up, and the desire does fade. Not altogether, but you can certainly control the desire by abstinence. 

The same goes for an awful lot of everyday "desires". I find, if I wake up with a repetitive cough, I can make it go away by really fighting the impulse for ten minutes. It really works. It's the coughing that keeps you coughing. Works for me anyway.  

There are lots of desires that you can reduce by self control. As far as I'm concerned, if you can reduce the frequency and intensity of a desire, that's control. Not total control, so that's why the question needs to be more precise. 

I can't think of any desires that it's possible to completely banish. 

[MonDie]

I thought about this question because I was thinking of how thinking about thinking might not be worthwhile.  It seems worthwhile insofar that thought guides action, including right or wrong action.  Shouldn't we want to understand thought then?  As you dig in, the thinking about thinking seems to become the issue of the communication of the individuals' perspectives, which merges those perspectives into a more objective one.  You might even argue that explicit memory and explicit thought is actually a kind of internal conversation.

Unfortunately, our desires are part of our perspectives, so parts of our perspectives might not be reconcilable.  However, I do think that most desires are context-dependent.  You are always breathing, so breathing isn't contextual, but other, context-dependent desires seem to be mediated my both sensation and imagination and to modulate the responses within those contexts.  The imaginative capacity is absolutely necessary if the seen item is now unseen, but the non-conscious force exerted by direct sensation can overwhelm the conscious control via the imaginative capacity.  This is why there is a difference between attention and focus.  Focus is an intentional modulate of intention (possibly via imagination, in my experience).    So the likely answer iiisss... sorta but sorta not.  Another possibility is that some social emotions are mediated by self-perception processes and are intertwined with desires that are also socially mediated.

 

11:06 PM CST November11

Again, I am no expert,

and intention is not attention!  Die, error!

Alas, in the morel domain, I guess the three questions are: do we, could we, and would we.  If we knew from our fuller perspectives that the behaviors were wrong, would we do what we could to change those behaviors?  Would we change our surroundings, our schedules, or our livelihoods, or would we exercise internal awareness or will power?  Some of us might make more effort than others would.  Some of us might think we are too specialized to re-specialize at something else: we like doing things we're good at doing.

11:22 PM CST

[MonDie]

November 23rd

 

double post

Edited November 23, 2019 by MonDie

[Eise]

On 10/11/2019 at 2:20 PM, iNow said:

To be clear, you don't control the desire. You control/practice changing your response to it.

Right. You've found where to locate free will: not in who you are (desires being components of who you are), but how to act, e.g. do not act according a desire, i.e. controlling it. Of course, you can only this by another, stronger desire. Example: quitting smoking. The immediate desire is obvious (light a cigarette!), but with enough will power, you can control it by your desire to stay healthy as long as possible. 

And as a remark on the whole discussion: 'control' is not an absolute. I can keep my breath when I want, but after less than a minute I feel so bad, that I give in to my desire to breath again. So I have a little control of my breath.

And to add some (Buddhist) psychology: if we learn not to give in to certain desires, then the desire will get less strong, and might even disappear on the long term. So again, we have some control over our desires.

 

 

On 11/23/2019 at 6:07 AM, MonDie said:

You might even argue that explicit memory and explicit thought is actually a kind of internal conversation.

It probably is: I do not think it is just my experience, but when I learned reading, I always read aloud. Now of course I do not do that anymore...

On 11/23/2019 at 6:07 AM, MonDie said:

Would we change our surroundings, our schedules, or our livelihoods, or would we exercise internal awareness or will power?

Yep. But none of them is easy. Humans have not-so easily to overcome habits. Which e.g. makes it so difficult to do something against the climate catastrophe.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

You've found where to locate free will: not in who you are (desires being components of who you are), but how to act, e.g. do not act according a desire, i.e. controlling it. <snip> control' is not an absolute. I can keep my breath when I want, but after less than a minute I feel so bad, that I give in to my desire to breath again. So I have a little control of my breath

Let’s be cautious here not to go too far OT and bleed into the other thread, but I did want to find a better word than “control” when typing post above. It’s funny that you picked up on it because I did pause before posting, seeking a better term but coming up short.

Control implies too much oversight and influence into the process of choice, influence and oversight which isn’t supported by the evidence of neural functioning. Control suggests a conscious awareness and weighing of factors with intention and that’s just not what we do. 

The environment of the moment, both internal and external to us, plays a far greater role in our actions and choices than the word “control” allows. 

[Eise]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Control implies too much oversight and influence into the process of choice, influence and oversight which isn’t supported by the evidence of neural functioning. Control suggests a conscious awareness and weighing of factors with intention and that’s just not what we do. 

First, I think you are just overstretching the word. As I said in some other posting, a thermostat also has control. But of course it is a very simple device, without consciousness, desires or beliefs; no mental events at all.

And second, life is everything about control, of the inner and outer environment. With consciousness a new kind of control comes in: observing, anticipating possible futures, choice and action. That these processes are implemented in a (very complex) determined system does not change the fact that you have a certain level of conscious control. Determinism and control can perfectly go together. Every engineer of negative feedback systems could tell you that.

[dimreepr]

the weather is a simple determined system and still we are just guessing.

Edited November 25, 2019 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the weather is a simple determined system and still we are just guessing.

Yep, that's why they need supercomputers to model it.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

That these processes are implemented in a (very complex) determined system does not change the fact that you have a certain level of conscious control. Determinism and control can perfectly go together

If it’s deterministic, where does control enter the mix? What affect can it have on an outcome and what is its source?

Edited November 25, 2019 by iNow

[Eise]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

If it’s deterministic, where does control enter the mix? What affect can it have on an outcome and what is its source?

Assuming that the world is deterministic, you mean nothing controls anything?

Let's say a stone rolls down a hill. This is a simple deterministic process. But now consider a cat that momentary loses its balance on that same hill. In no time it will stand on its feet again. So the cat has control over how it moves downhill. Of course it is still a deterministic process, but much more complicated than the stone rolling down. As I said earlier, life is all about control. If it is the pH of blood, the closing or opening stomata of a leaf of a tree to regulate water loss, the walking of a cow into the shade of a tree to get less warm etc, are all examples of how organisms control their inner or outer environment.

Somehow it seems to me you are thinking about control as absolute control. In this sense, I see a strong parallel with the Christian idea of the ultimate responsibility of the human soul. In your sense, something is in control only when it for itself is not under control of anything else (to specific, previous, causally related events), just as the human soul can be responsible only when it is not influenced by anything previous at all.

So where does the control of a thermostat enter the mix? Well in the way it is built up, and the way it functions, namely as a negative feedback system. 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yep, that's why they need supercomputers to model it.

Yep, that's why they run that model x times and then guess which one's most likely.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yep, that's why they run that model x times and then guess which one's most likely.

Much of science is based on best guesses i.e statistical analysis but simple it ain't.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Much of science is based on best guesses i.e statistical analysis but simple it ain't 

a best guess is still a guess, whatever the value of x

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2636811

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yep, that's why they run that model x times and then guess which one's most likely.

It's not a guess.

You will be joining mistermack in denying climate change next, I suppose. (Although modelling that is much simpler than weather forecasting!)

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

It's not a guess.

It's never wrong. In this context?

[Strange]

Just now, dimreepr said:

It's never wrong. In this context?

What does being right or wrong have to do with it?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

What does being right or wrong have to do with it?

control I guess.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

As I said earlier, life is all about control. If it is the pH of blood, the closing or opening stomata of a leaf of a tree to regulate water loss, the walking of a cow into the shade of a tree to get less warm etc, are all examples of how organisms control their inner or outer environment

I’m not a huge fan of these semantic debates, but I suggest that you’re not, in fact, referring here to the concept of control. Instead, what you’re describing is equilibrium and the tendency of systems to strive toward balance.

Life is not “all about control.” Instead, nature tends toward equilibrium. The same is true about our internal systems. Patterns and flows of chemoelectricity and colonies of gut flora and response to hydration needs and hunger and oxygen content of the air... they all move toward the state of minimal energy expenditure. 

So, I’m still left wondering... if things are deterministic as you say, and the examples you provide consistently refer to systems striving toward equilibrium, then where does “control” ever enter the mix, what is doing the controlling, and where is the opportunity to alter any outcomes?

7 hours ago, Eise said:

So where does the control of a thermostat enter the mix?

When a threshold is crossed due to temperature change and an electrical circuit gets triggered to activate a specific response pattern.

Passing that threshold results in the circuit becoming complete 

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

control I guess.

One can have control of something but still be right or wrong. I see no direct connection between the concepts of "control", "guess", "model", "right" or "wrong". You just seem to b throwing random sentences around.

All I can deduce from what you say is that you are suggesting that if one were able to control the weather, then forecasts would always be right?

[MonDie]

Thinking right/accurate about an affair is a means to controlling/optimizing that affair.  The nice thing about sensory perception is that  the feedback is really very in your face.  Internal control would be more ambiguous, however.  Anyone who searches themself for a state of mind will probably find something that will seem like it might be that same state of mind, and there might be little feedback to correct them from being wrong.  An incorrect search and find procedure could yield a circular feedback loop that creates a now erroneously recognizes that new state as the same state as the old state, and this error could become cemented without any kind of correction for who knows how long.  Thus the person is given an illusion of control rather than real control.

*now erroneous recognition*

In the real world we conduct open-ended searches, and I guess the equivalent would be mindfulness.  

[Eise]

On 11/26/2019 at 3:30 PM, iNow said:

I’m not a huge fan of these semantic debates, but I suggest that you’re not, in fact, referring here to the concept of control. Instead, what you’re describing is equilibrium and the tendency of systems to strive toward balance.

No. There are (at least) 2 kinds of balance: one is due to the law of entropy, the other one needs energy to be sustained. For the latter some mechanism is needed, and life provides such mechanisms. If it is pure internally (e.g. body temperature or pH of blood), or also externally (cow walking into the shade), without a mechanism that controls the environment, you would fallback to the first kind of balance, which in case of an organism is equivalent to death.

And I also gave the example of a cat rolling downhill (but not for long of course).

On 11/26/2019 at 3:30 PM, iNow said:

On 11/26/2019 at 7:58 AM, Eise said:

So where does the control of a thermostat enter the mix?

When a threshold is crossed due to temperature change and an electrical circuit gets triggered to activate a specific response pattern.

Passing that threshold results in the circuit becoming complete 

I already answered my own question (maybe that is bad rhetoric, but it is a long time ago that rhetoric belonged to the philosophy curriculum...):

On 11/26/2019 at 7:58 AM, Eise said:

in the way it is built up, and the way it functions, namely as a negative feedback system

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

No. There are (at least) 2 kinds of balance: one is due to the law of entropy, the other one needs energy to be sustained. For the latter some mechanism is needed, and life provides such mechanisms. If it is pure internally (e.g. body temperature or pH of blood), or also externally (cow walking into the shade), without a mechanism that controls the environment, you would fallback to the first kind of balance, which in case of an organism is equivalent to death.

And I also gave the example of a cat rolling downhill (but not for long of course)

It’s unclear to me why you’re suggesting this disagrees with anything I’ve posted.

The sodium and potassium ions crossing our neural channels follow those same laws and also strive toward balance. The electrical flow across our dendrites or across our myelin sheaths and how they activate specific neural regions in specific areas and in specific patterns to generate our thoughts and emotions all follow those same laws of entropy, and nothing I’ve posted contradicts that.

Salt and hydration and a great many other things like colonies of gut bacteria, hunger, fatigue, the surrounding external environment are all mechanisms which affect our will and thoughts and which also themselves follows those same laws you reference, and nowhere have I suggested we don’t also eventually die... so I question the relevance of inserting that into the dialogue and why you began your post by flatly suggesting “No” and then next led into a treatise on a definition of balance on which we both agree and which we both accept as important and extant.

So, why no? 

I notice also that you ignored my core questions and chose instead to focus the entirety of your reply on suggesting I was mistaken for proposing that the tendency of systems toward balance is likely a better descriptor of what you meant than “control.” You’re choosing to assert a personal conscious form of “control” and individual “will” to explain these systems where I see only a tendency toward balance and a postdictive attempt to apply a meaningful narrative.

So, just as with my previous reply, I remain wondering...

If things are deterministic as you say, and the examples you continue providing consistently refer to systems striving toward equilibrium, then where does “control” ever enter the mix, what is doing the controlling, and where is the opportunity to alter any outcomes?

I’m not asking these questions to be disagreeable. I’m asking in an attempt to understand your position and clarify the obvious gaps I see in it. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by iNow

[Eise]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s unclear to me why you’re suggesting this disagrees with anything I’ve posted.

You said that 'striving for equilibrium' is something else than control. I am saying that the kind of equilibrium that keeps organisms alive needs a control mechanism. Please leave consciousness out of the game for the moment. These control mechanisms do not need consciousness perse. And that is simply the first point I am trying to explain: a system can have control over something even if we exactly know how the mechanism works, e.g. because we designed it our selves (the thermostat example). Of course there is no inner agent in a thermostat, even less a conscious one. Explaining the mechanism, as you do with the neural channels, does not mean there is no control. You only explain how it works. To keep up the healthy equilibrium in organisms, a lot of control mechanisms are needed. But that does not need necessarily an agent (i.e. somebody who consciously does the controlling). 

For short: there is no contradiction in saying that a system is in control of something, and that it is determined. So in your way of speaking: nothing enters the mix to be in control.

And I am not saying that these mechanisms contradict the law of entropy: I am saying that without the control mechanisms the processes, parameters or substances which are controlled by that mechanism will find another equilibrium, and big chance that is not a healthy equilibrium for the organism...

To give 2 opposite examples.

• The gravitation of the sun would compress it completely, if there was nothing else. But because of the heat produced by nuclear fusion, there exists an equilibrium. But there is no mechanism that continuously must probe the size and the temperature of the sun, and correct its pressure, or temperature or whatever.
• A Boeing 737 MAX 😕. Without the MCAS System, the plane would reach an equlibrium we do not like. Therefore MCAS corrects the angle of ascent so that the plane does not stall. So MCAS controls the angle of ascent when it gets to steep: that is what it is designed for. It is designed to reach another equilibrium, one which we prefer, which it keeps it flying in the air.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Eise

[iNow]

So, if I read you correctly, you’re describing the passive constraints on the system overall as “control,” and part of where we seem to be talking passed one another is because my use of the word “control” involves some sort of active influence by an agent (like us as humans)?

For example, you’re saying something equivalent to “the diameter of the pipe controls the flow of water,” but I’m suggesting the pipe merely constrains the water flow and puts guardrails on what’s possible...  that control is the wrong word here.

I’m suggesting what’s more important and relevant when framing the discussion is to recognize how that water flows toward balance within the constraints of the system, that it is not “free” to operate beyond those constraints, and similarly that not are we “free” to determine our will nor to change what you’ve already agreed is deterministic... That much like control is the wrong word, freedom is also the wrong word. 

Regardless, we’ve both walked this path together many times through the years and we’re repeating points already made. I’m comfortable accepting that differing views and opinions on this topic are equally valid if you are. 

[Eise]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m comfortable accepting that differing views and opinions on this topic are equally valid if you are. 

Of course I am not! This is the philosophy forum! Once entered a philosophical discussion, retraction is not allowed. Philosophical discussions end when:

• the discourse participants agree (but then comes a third one who does not agree, and...)
• at least one of the discourse participants dies (ideally both at the same time during the discussion)
• at least one of the discourse participants is insulted so much by the other one that they will never talk to each other again.

OK, now serious.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

So, if I read you correctly, you’re describing the passive constraints on the system overall as “control,” and part of where we seem to be talking passed one another is because my use of the word “control” involves some sort of active influence by an agent (like us as humans)?

That is definitely a difference between us, and I think you are too stringent in your view. The way you see it there exists, seen from a naturalistic world view, no control whatsoever. We agree there is no soul (or more naturally said, no independent agent), so there is nothing in your position that exerts control.

That also means that you always have to throw the concept of free will in your concept of control. I don't. Control is a necessary condition for free will, but by far not a sufficient one. Maybe I can explain this with your example:

15 hours ago, iNow said:

you’re saying something equivalent to “the diameter of the pipe controls the flow of water,” but I’m suggesting the pipe merely constrains the water flow and puts guardrails on what’s possible...  that control is the wrong word here.

No, I would not say that. So I agree that 'control' is the wrong word here. I only would call it 'control' when there are at least two components:

• a component that reacts on the process and generates an alarm that a process is going out of bounds
• a component that takes this alarm as input, and changes the process in question so that is not out of bounds anymore

So in your case, when there is a measuring device that checks how big the flow of water is; and something like a faucet that reacts on the output of the measuring device, and regulates the flow of water. That we have physical explanations of how these components work, and how they work together, does not mean that there is no control. The way the control works is explained, not explained away.

Further I would never use the concepts of 'passive' or 'active' in this context. When we talk about a causal relationship, one could call the causing event (a) 'active', and the caused event 'passive' (b). But of course, the causing event (a) was also a caused event by some previous causing event (c). so is (a) active or passive? I think that concepts that are so much dependent on the accidental view we have should not be used in an explanation. They suggest more than what really is going on.

Therefore I must also say I personally never use the concept of 'control' when explaining free will. But the topic pops up again and again, mostly because a 'free will skeptic' says something like 'we have no control over our determining factors'. In this case it was already in the question of the OP.