Is volitional restraint bad?

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
21

I am not denying any of that. I am saying what you are saying. That rest and activity are both processes, and the one increases or decreases motivation (and sometimes these impulses take place regardless of conscious intention). I am saying that both doing and not doing are forms of activity or process as you said, I never denied increase. In my example of the bat I made reference to variations in force which is analogous to an increase or decrease.

I am saying that in acts of restraint, if one is not engaging in given process a (the impulse to be restrained) then one is either engaging in not-a (which is to say really some other variable, b, c, etc…) or else one is engaging in a variated degree of a (so if a was swinging a bat or feeling nervous, the change would be to less nervous but perhaps still). Reality is also more complicated than this because a given individual is always situational and positional at the time when an impulse takes place. Another way of looking at it is to say is that, even if one is restraining for example anger, then I am saying that the process of engaging in such restraint is already other than the process which is being restrained. The process of decreasing is a different one from the expression of a process.

I do not see how this fundamentally disagrees with your last post, except with what is implied of my own assertions.

22

You said there is no such a thing as “room”. Are you still standing behind that?

At any moment one is doing any number of things at the same time. If these activities fill up the capacity of one’s nervous system, and if one wants to start doing something new without overwhelming and confusing oneself, one must create some “room” by terminating some of the activities. This is the purpose of rest.

Of course, when there is already enough “room”, there is no need for rest.

23

I do still stand behind it, though I do think you are making a valuable observation.

I think that we have to be much more clear about what is being said. When we say one is engaged in many activities at once which fill the capacity of the nervous system, which activities are we speaking of being at once? I can think immediately of for example sight, hearing, smell, thought, physical movement, but they are separate faculties than one another. If one is overwhelmed by for example physical movement then the stopping would be engaging in a movement to a less laborous position perhaps…

If on the other hand you mean in the sense of multitasking, using the same faculties, like doing work and watching something, then usually the processes are done consecutively rather than simultaneously and the making room as I see of one for the other would be a change of focus.

Even if a given stimulus through one of the senses is in one case present and in another absent we are speaking of a qualitative difference in the state of seeing rather than an activity of seeing versus not seeing.

Finally, I think you might be saying that the room needed in the nervous system is when we are feeling overwhelmed, tired, then you need rest. I wouldn’t see the rejuvination experienced by rest as something like room or space, or else one would have to likewise categorize the rejuvination experienced from eating a healthy meal when one is hungry and well worked as a sort of “room” which has made further effort possible.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, though to me now it seems the difference of our outlooks must be very subtle indeed.

24

Eating a healthy meal when you’re hungry wouldn’t really be a rest. It’s pleasing, and it gives you energy, but it’s not rest.

You need to be motivated, or motivate yourself if you aren’t already motivated, in order to feed yourself. That’s doing.

You are thus not creating any room in your nervous system by feeding yourself. Except for perhaps relieving the pressure of hunger. You are actually filling it with activity – buying, cooking, eating, etc.

25

The reason I used that example is because eating and exercising also increases the capacity of the nervous system for activity.

26

They may increase the capacity and in this way create room but this is a process different from that of resting. Resting works within the limits, it does not push them (the way growth does.)

Unless you mean that exercise and eating too work within the limits of nervous system?

This may be true insofar there is a sufficiently strong process of energy dissipation – relaxation – running in background.

27

It does appear though that the increased capacity you are calling room, which I was wondering. I would have called it potential perhaps, though potential is only an idea until it is expressed because if one says that an individual has the potential for a given thing but does not express the potential due to particular given circumstances, then the potential is not really there, because actual potential (as understood a posteriori) would be understood only in terms of those instances which truly could come into being and were not merely hypothetical. That is why I am skeptical of the notion of space, in the same way as the notion of potential only has meaning insofar as the potential is actually expressed and not as a hypothetical which does not come into actuality because of the way that given circumstances fall.

28

It goes without saying, but I am not a neuroscientist. I do not study nervous systems. I do not have the prerequisites (e.g. laboratory and equipment) to do so.

I work with what I have.

Moreover, I do not have the need for such a specialized knowledge.

Introspection is enough for me.

Because of this, it’s a little bit irresponsible on my part to use the term “nervous system” to refer to what I am saying. Nervous system is a physical, three-dimensional object, you can see and touch. What I am speaking of, though related to nervous system, is not exactly nervous system.

I suspect that the object of my inquiry is much narrower than nervous system. Probably a subsystem, or layer, of some sort.

Perhaps it is none other than consciousness.

You asked what kind of activity can a “nervous system” be filled with? You were more specific than that, you asked what kind of activities can run in parallel. But these are related questions.

I suppose that anything we sense is already filling up the nervous system. The only question is to what degree.

Sight, hearing, smell, touch, feelings, desires, bodily micro- and macro- movements . . .

They all consume “nervous space”.

One is always conscious of nothing beside “nervous activity” within one’s “nervous space”. When there is no “nervous activity”, one is unconscious.

I divide consciousness into two types: focal consciousness, which is clear, and peripheral consciousness, which is vague.

The latter is known as “subconscious”.

Of course, in reality, it is a continuum. You have the focal point, which is the point of maximum clarity at any given moment, and multiple peripheral points which are vague to the degree of their distance from the focal point.

You can move the focal point through your “nervous space”, thereby changing what you sense with clarity and what you don’t.

Which activities can run in parallel, you ask? Any combination. There are many activities that are running but that we are not aware of. Until we decide to “switch off”. By “switching off” you create the opportunity to slow down the activation thereby creating the opportunity to get to know what would have otherwise run in the background of your mind. It allows you to get to know yourself.

But “nervous space” has a limit and when that limit is exceeded one becomes overwhelmed. This state, then, is what causes the person to lose control over himself.

Control can be regained by freeing up some of the “nervous space”. This entails locating some “nervous activity” within the “nervous space” by moving the focal point of consciousness to the corresponding place and then reducing that activity (which is sensed as relaxation, or rather, as decrease in sensation.)

This “nervous space” is sort of like a RAM (= working, operating) memory. And just as applications can use their RAM any way they want, so too can human brain use this “nervous space” any way it wants.

There are many reasons for clearing up “nervous space”. Regaining control is one but not the only one. Reason is another. In fact, any whim would do.

29

Regarding your doubt of the existence of such a thing as potential, I have a question for you: is a bomb only a bomb when it explodes? Moreover, is a bomb that is at rest equal in potential to explode to all other objects at rest?

Is a bomb that does not explode, will never explode, not a bomb?

30

I was not implying that there was no such thing as potential. What I said was that until the circumstances are all in place for a bomb to explode (for example) it is impossible to say that at any given instance that the bomb does not explode that there was a potential it would have exploded. I would say the same thing about rest creating potential, that one could not say potential was created from rest until the body is no longer in need of rest (no longer tired) but is instead rejuvinated. The difference is subtle, but the reason is this: Many different things could potentially happen at any given time, but it would not be reasonable to expect or talk about potential unless there was reasonable cause to expect something as potential (and furthermore, if, after time, that which was thought to be potential never takes place, could it truly be said to have truly been potential, or is that “potential” not rather an idea created in the mind and imposed upon actually existing things? Take in this latter case the example where someone is told they have the potential to accomplish such and such but never accomplish anything. We could say that person wasted their potential, but it is at least uncertain as yet whether that person truly had the potential at all.) Again, I am not saying there is no such thing as potential, I am saying that is it very difficult if not impossible for humans to say with certainty what is truly potential until after the potentiate has been expressed. Earlier I had come to a point of establishing that what you spoke of as “room” was at least closely related to what I speak of as potential. The implication would be the same, in the example of rest that the room would only be known once the tiredness which dictates rest had receded and rejuvination was in place which allowed for new action, but in itself was already a new state from the one of tiredness.

Another way to think of this is by distinguishing potential from ability. I have the ability to do some mundane action, lift my leg until my thigh is parrallel with the floor, but what is the potential that I will in fact do this? It is likely very slim unless some circumstances come along that will call for such an action.

But maybe this results from me analogizing my use of potential for what you called room.

31

I would also like to make clear where I think potential is. I think it is in the circumstance prior to the potentiated circumstance. In the same way that the potential for rest is in the tiredness or lethargy, etc. which one experienced while engaging in other acts before sleep, so the potential for being energetic again begins in the process of rest as a body is recuperated, and the potentiate is expressed in awakening and moving to other acts, conscious thinking, etc. And for a bomb to explode the potentials would not only be the copresence of their elements but also changes in temperature, pressure, human influences, etc. which result in the potentiate, ie. the explosion.

32

The potential of an object is determined by studying the physical configuration of that object and then applying the laws of physics to predict how the object will react in the case it is exposed to particular circumstances.

It’s a real phenomenon. Not exactly a constitutive element of the object, but a realistic expectation that something will happen if the object is exposed to specific circumstances.

The bomb has the potential to explode because of its physical configuration. Of course, the bomb cannot realize its potential – explode – on its own. It requires appropriate circumstances that will trigger the realization of its potential.

I don’t see how any of that is fictional.

If you know the physical configuration of an object, and if you know the laws of physics, then you can determine all of its potentials.

We know that a sharp knife has the potential to cut through objects and that a dull knife has little potential to do so.

Hardly fictional.

33

I did not say that potential was fictional:

Also:

Etc.

34

I am not sure what you’re saying then.

You say that there is such a thing as potential but that one cannot be sure that there is a potential until it is realized?

But this is dependent on the degree to which you know the physical configuration of the object as well as how physical laws work.

The less you know, the more unsure you will be.

35

That is close to what I’m saying. I am trying to acknowledge a certain limitation of human knowledge, but also I am trying to illustrate a distinction between my understanding of potential and convential use of the term. I tried to illustrate that by using the example of a person not using their potential as having wasted potential, because to say so assumes there certainly was the potential, but for a given thing to occur there must be proper circumstances for the occurence to take place. That is not to deny that there is such a thing as potential, only that it is not an open ended thing like space.

I agree that knowledge of potential “is dependent on the degree to which you know the physical configuration of the object as well as how physical laws work […] The less you know, the more unsure you will be.”

The reason I brought up this characteristic of disjunction between potential as something open ended that merely might happen and potential as something actual, something like the preliminary arrangement or facticity of circumstances which will actually result in a potentiate (that is, become a part of history and not a mere hypothesis), is because if I was relating this idea to what you spoke of as space, I do not see the empty realm wherein new circumstances can arise but instead prefiguring circumstances based upon circumstantial composition and laws of activity (including physical laws).

36

I am still not sure what you’re trying to say. All I get is that you don’t think there is such a thing as “nervous space” and that this is somehow related to the concept of potential.

A statement such as “person X is not using their potential P” implies that person X already posseses potential P. This may be true or false. It depends on who this person is, what his physical composition is, and whether our view of him corresponds to reality.

Potential isn’t the same thing as its realization. Potential remains potential whether it is realized or not. A bomb that never explodes remains a bomb with a potential to explode.

Potential can be changed. It can be acquired or lost. But a potential that is never realized does not necessarily cease to be a potential (a bomb that never explodes remains a bomb with a potential to explode) and it certainly does not necessarily question our observation that it is a potential (a bomb that never explodes does not suggest that it has never been a bomb with a potential to explode.)

Potential is something you observe before it is realized.

37

The only and main difference I have with the view expressed in your last post is this, when one speaks of the potential for a bomb to explode one includes a set of ifs. What I am trying to point out is not that there is no such thing as potential, but that potential is not an empty space which exists in an ethereal abstraction. When humans speak about potential we are speaking about possibilities that are only in the realm of possibility (as distinguished from actuality) because we do not have access to all relevant information.

You are trying to say that the potential of a bomb to explode is inherent in its nature (the nature of being what we designate as a bomb), whereas I am trying to say that the fact that a bomb has the qualities of for example the copresence of chemical compounds capable of exploding, a source of heat or ignition, etc., is part of its potential to explode, but it is not sufficient because there would need to also other factors copresent in order for the potential to be realized. Without the realization of potential then it is only a hypothetical, an abstraction of the mind, and not yet an inherent quality of a thing. The fact that bombs are purposely manufactured and so in the hands of those with an eye to use them might give them a great probability that they will be used, but no scientist would mistake a probability of something for an actuality of something.

38

Potential is not a constitutive physical, three-dimensional, element in the way that hydrogen is a constitutive element of water molecule (H2O.)

I’ve covered this earlier. The question is: what exactly is potential?

Potential is a prediction that an object (e.g. bomb) will produce an event (e.g. explode) in the case it is exposed to certain circumstances (e.g. when it’s detonated.)

What’s the problem with this?

Prediction can be educated (grounded in reality and expressed as a probability) or uneducated (grounded in fantasy and expressed as a mere possibility.)

There is no such a thing as absolute certainty regarding any aspect of reality. There are only degrees of certainty.

You just want to make sure that your guess is educated. This means sufficiently high level of probability that what you predict will occur.

I see no problems here.

39

Let’s make this clear: potential is not a prediction that an object (e.g. bomb) will produce certain event (e.g. explode) during its lifetime. Rather, potential is a prediction that an object (e.g. bomb) will produce certain event (e.g explode) in the case, and only in the case, it is exposed to certain circumstances (e.g. when it’s detonated.)

40

Sort of, but I think we are more specifically referring to the qualities which make the unactualized become actualized, whether or not they are known to us when we are making our predictions. So it is not the predictions themselves but the things which the predictions are meant to predict.

I could for example say, if I rest, I have the potential to do more work. The potential refers to the ability itself but as yet is unactualized. The potential is only actualized (what I’ve referred to as potentiated) in the event of what might be referred to as hypothetical once (or have been unknown for various reasons) has become — ie. I am rejuvinated from rest, as opposed to still tired and in need of rest.

This is referring to the answer of whether one would restrain oneself by doing, because I am saying that potential which is created isn’t open-ended but is defined by the natural laws which govern the movement of pre-given circumstance (included in which, for the human understanding, are many unknowns).