If nothing matters, does anything matter?

[PsychoSerenity]

I think Daniel Dennett's compatibilism was something along the lines of (I admit I may have completely misunderstood him on this) although there is determinism, there is an inherent value or usefulness in thinking 'as if' we have free will. - But I'm not really convinced. I think with practice of thinking deterministically, and practice getting around the language problems, it's probably better in the long run. For me, one of the main points is counter-factual thinking - questioning 'what if'. It's a very useful behaviour, but you don't have to see it from a dualist point of view. There's no need to believe you actually have a choice, or even to think 'as if' you do. The way I see it, all I have to do is understand that the process of modelling different scenarios in my head has a physical effect in there, that then causes me to do different things (than I would have if I had not spent time thinking about it, not that that was ever possible) - and part of that understanding is what causes me to spend time thinking about things. Or something.

Even though the choices you make now were in fact already made, you can maybe train your mind to make better choices in the future without your knowledge or consent?

(I'm being playful with positing "I" and "brain" as separate entities. But the sentiment is sincere.)

Even though the choices you make now were in fact already made, you can maybe train your mind your mind will train itself to make better choices in the future without your knowledge or consent?

[pErvinalia]

...Intuition?

As evidence of un/subconscious decision-making?

Never mind. I'm too stoned to think this through.

I'm not stoned. I think that's what my problem is.

[JimC]

...Intuition?

As evidence of un/subconscious decision-making?

Never mind. I'm too stoned to think this through.

I'm not stoned. I think that's what my problem is.

I would love to experience being stoned again...

However, I'm too scared that it will trigger Petite Mal again like it did towards the end of my smoking career...

[pErvinalia]

I don't smoke anymore either. I have a tenuous enough grasp on reality as it is.

[FBM]

I made the mistake of eating someone's special cookies a while back. Not sure if I've recovered completely or not.

[hadespussercats]

I think Daniel Dennett's compatibilism was something along the lines of (I admit I may have completely misunderstood him on this) although there is determinism, there is an inherent value or usefulness in thinking 'as if' we have free will. - But I'm not really convinced. I think with practice of thinking deterministically, and practice getting around the language problems, it's probably better in the long run. For me, one of the main points is counter-factual thinking - questioning 'what if'. It's a very useful behaviour, but you don't have to see it from a dualist point of view. There's no need to believe you actually have a choice, or even to think 'as if' you do. The way I see it, all I have to do is understand that the process of modelling different scenarios in my head has a physical effect in there, that then causes me to do different things (than I would have if I had not spent time thinking about it, not that that was ever possible) - and part of that understanding is what causes me to spend time thinking about things. Or something.

Even though the choices you make now were in fact already made, you can maybe train your mind to make better choices in the future without your knowledge or consent?

(I'm being playful with positing "I" and "brain" as separate entities. But the sentiment is sincere.)

Even though the choices you make now were in fact already made, you can maybe train your mind your mind will train itself to make better choices in the future without your knowledge or consent?

We've got to be missing some big part of the puzzle.

[FBM]

We've got to be missing some big part of the puzzle.

IMO, the clash with reality is that we have learned from society consider ourselves to be single decision-making entities, whereas research suggests that decisions are made by several distinct, collaborating, cross-referencing and mutually modulating areas of the brain before we become conscious of them. Or at least, some of them. No cartesian theater and no singular homunculus in there in the first place.Then consciousness does a little cheating with the time signature, assigning conscious intent to the arising awareness of unconscious mental activity, and making us feel as though our decisions were made consciously.

It probably helps survival, but it's a slight divorce from reality. Gotta remember that natural selection favors what works best at the time, not what is most accurate.