Quitting Smoking

So sad and pathetic.

The desperation, the triple post panic. How shameful.

-AC

speak for yourself, i think youre projecting again.

and i was replying to three individual people.

now, STOP trolling my thread!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but i think your simply hiding behind that pretence like jia and some of the other posters. i think the reason you cant give me a sample answer is because it was never your intention to accept any answer i gave you, irrespective of how valid its reasoning was.

Lol, another non-answer, really, is it that hard to tell us in your own words why smoking was not a choice for you, as you claimed. You have yet to give a valid answer, as the Wiki post on free-will certainly wasn't a one.

You and you sample request, sad really, that you need that to answer. I'm asking YOU to tell ME in YOUR own words. But I'll entertain you.

Sample?: Smoking wasn't a choice for me because I am genetically addicted to nicotine; it's in my DNA to seek out cigarettes and smoke them.

Now, stop being a pathetic dodger and tell us in your own words, why smoking wasn't a choice for you.

and Leonheartmm, before you copy and paste what I said, that answer is false, as you know I think smoking is a choice, unless someone is literally forced to.

So, in your owns words, dazzle us. Go.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lol, another non-answer, really, is it that hard to tell us in your own words why smoking was not a choice for you, as you claimed. You have yet to give a valid answer, as the Wiki post on free-will certainly wasn't a one.

You and you sample request, sad really, that you need that to answer. I'm asking YOU to tell ME in YOUR own words. But I'll entertain you.

Sample?: Smoking wasn't a choice for me because I am genetically addicted to nicotine; it's in my DNA to seek out cigarettes and smoke them.

[b]Now, stop being a pathetic dodger and tell us in your own words, why smoking wasn't a choice for you. [/B]

rinse and repeat, it seems to be working SO well for you.

see, that wasnt so hard.

in my own words, smoking felt like a choice to me, yet when i think about it in reference to the problems with free will, it makes me realise that what i considered "MY" free choice was probably motivated by factors having little cause in MYSELF, and more in the enviornment around me, which makes me think that causal predictability can not be usurped fully simply by my intellect and being, hence taking away the traditional meaning of CHOICE from my picking up smoking. i admit this isnt a completely consistant world view to have, but its the best explanation i can gather from what i have experienced and learned in this world. i still feel its pacticle/effective/less maddening to approach it from the point of view that it really was MY choice since it empowers me in a way which makes me take better control of my enviornment{seemingly}, but i dont deny the arguments against unconditiional free will either.

i cant give you any better explanation for it, im sorry.

now stop making false assumption on my part since it makes you look like a complete fool when you say thins like "before you copy and paste what I said, that ANSWER is FALSE" , and shows that you are clearly not interested in DEBATING .

See, what you did is say (felt) it was indeed a choice, as it certainly was. Then proceeded to fill the page with pseudo-intellectual babble in an attempt to save face. Nice tactic.

I already told you that peer pressure and the like can factor in and make one choice over the other the easier path to take. It was probably easier for you to take that first cigarette because all your friends were smoking, than it would have been to refuse at that given time. But it is still a CHOICE you made as you could have taken the more diffucult path and said no.

Does your view apply to just cigarettes, or are all other drugs and their use a non-choice? Certainly you've been exposed to cocaine, heroine, marijuana, alcohol etc. etc. etc. Are you alcoholic or an ex-alcoholic? Heroine junky or recovered addict?

sigh. i think the time has come to stop giving you attention. good luck winning debates by calling the entire argument of the opposition psuedobabble. you do not understand the problems or even the concept of free will acurately enough for me to continue this charade.

whats the debate about anyway

Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh. i think the time has come to stop giving you attention. good luck winning debates by calling the entire argument of the opposition psuedobabble. you do not understand the problems or even the concept of free will acurately enough for me to continue this charade.

If you say so you grand philosopher.

What about my question on heroine, alcohol and other drugs, are they not blanketed by the same non-choice clause? If not, why?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
whats the debate about anyway

Leaonheartmm said that his smoking of cigarettes wasn't a choice he made, i.e. he couldn't have said no and turned down smoking.

oh, so it was gun point?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
oh, so it was gun point?

No, but if you read his babble-post above, which was nothing more than him ass-raping the Wiki articles on 'Free Will' and "Causality', he tries to give you an answer, it's BS, but an answer.

It is true, however, that the standard rhetoric about free will in Western civilization is somewhat inconsistent with how it is that people come to the choices they have made.

The rational actor model, which supposes that people have free will to choose, is almost entirely reliant on a dualistic actor, which is not the case for humans. Largely, our actions and opinions are already made before the "chooser" has any knowledge of a choice that has to be made.

So, smoking is a choice, as much as anything humans do is a choice, but the nature of choice itself might not line up with what you are saying, Robtard.

Also, wouldn't you still have a choice in a "gun to the head" type scenario?

depending if you value your life, yes

personally, id smoke the cig stoned

Originally posted by inimalist
It is true, however, that the standard rhetoric about free will in Western civilization is somewhat inconsistent with how it is that people come to the choices they have made.

The rational actor model, which supposes that people have free will to choose, is almost entirely reliant on a dualistic actor, which is not the case for humans. Largely, our actions and opinions are already made before the "chooser" has any knowledge of a choice that has to be made.

So, smoking is a choice, as much as anything humans do is a choice, but the nature of choice itself might not line up with what you are saying, Robtard.

Also, wouldn't you still have a choice in a "gun to the head" type scenario?

How would the "nature of" smoking (the immediate topic) not line up with it being anything but choice?

Granted, one choice might be the easier path to take over the other if we factor in peer pressure and the need to fit-in with others around us, but it's still a choice, as there are people who have been offered a cigarette and turned it down, despite possible reprecussions of not fitting in with the immediate crowd.

Yes, a gun to the head scenario would still offer a choice, a greatly uneven choice as any reasonable person would puff-puff instead of taking a bullet to the dome, but you still have that choice.

Originally posted by Robtard
How would the "nature of" smoking (the immediate topic) not line up with it being anything but choice?

Granted, one choice might be the easier path to take over the other if we factor in peer pressure and the need to fit-in with others around us, but it's still a choice, as there are people who have been offered a cigarette and turned it down, despite possible reprecussions of not fitting in with the immediate crowd.

Yes, a gun to the head scenario would still offer a choice, a greatly uneven choice as any reasonable person would puff-puff instead of taking a bullet to the dome, but you still have that choice.

It is not the nature of smoking, but the nature of choice.

You are saying that humans, as actors, are able to determine, consciously, what they are going to do. This is the same principle our government and laws are based on, and comes from Western philosophy.

Now, smoking is no different than choosing to take the bus instead of driving, or choosing one shirt over the next, so I'm with you 100% on that. The issue is, that in all of these things, the "choice" being made is much different than how we conceptualize it, or even how it feels to the acting individual.

For the sake of concision, basically everything we do, or "choose", has been prepared by parts of our brain that are not accessible to "consciousness", and we do not become aware of even our desire to act in that way, until it has already been prepared by very low level brain areas.

The direct relation to what you and Leo are saying is this: The truth is a little bit in the middle. I understand what he is saying. And in many ways it is accurate. One rarely does something that is not a response to external stimuli (or "drives", but in most learning paradigms they are considered external as well, or at least close enough). So, likely, one wont smoke if there are never cigarettes in front of them. This much is undeniable.

These stimuli interact with many other low level areas, to create your desire to smoke or not smoke. A desire you are not aware of until it is or is not created. The "you" who we refer to when we talk about choosing things, is not the "you" that is responsible for your desire to do anything.

Full disclosure, there is something called "free won't", which refers to a window of time one has to cancel any prepared action after they become aware of the desire, and in this way smoking is entirely a choice.

man.... TLDR yet?

like, my opinion is in line with yours Robtard, but I feel there is some truth in what Leo is saying. Choice is not all it is cracked up to be.

EDIT: check out Alien Hand Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

has major implications for the way we understand conscious control of action

Originally posted by inimalist
It is not the nature of smoking, but the nature of choice.

You are saying that humans, as actors, are able to determine, consciously, what they are going to do. This is the same principle our government and laws are based on, and comes from Western philosophy.

Now, smoking is no different than choosing to take the bus instead of driving, or choosing one shirt over the next, so I'm with you 100% on that. The issue is, that in all of these things, the "choice" being made is much different than how we conceptualize it, or even how it feels to the acting individual.

For the sake of concision, basically everything we do, or "choose", has been prepared by parts of our brain that are not accessible to "consciousness", and we do not become aware of even our desire to act in that way, until it has already been prepared by very low level brain areas.

The direct relation to what you and Leo are saying is this: The truth is a little bit in the middle. I understand what he is saying. And in many ways it is accurate. One rarely does something that is not a response to external stimuli (or "drives", but in most learning paradigms they are considered external as well, or at least close enough). So, likely, one wont smoke if there are never cigarettes in front of them. This much is undeniable.

These stimuli interact with many other low level areas, to create your desire to smoke or not smoke. A desire you are not aware of until it is or is not created. The "you" who we refer to when we talk about choosing things, is not the "you" that is responsible for your desire to do anything.

Full disclosure, there is something called "free won't", which refers to a window of time one has to cancel any prepared action after they become aware of the desire, and in this way smoking is entirely a choice.

man.... TLDR yet?

like, my opinion is in line with yours Robtard, but I feel there is some truth in what Leo is saying. Choice is not all it is cracked up to be.

EDIT: check out Alien Hand Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

has major implications for the way we understand conscious control of action

Alien-hand syndrome is both freaky and wicked awesome. You could literally give yourself the stranger. 😐

And, yes, that's what I thought. In the end, the individual has to chose, but there are uncontrollable factors that play into the final action/decision...as you've eloquently outlined.

Originally posted by inimalist

EDIT: check out Alien Hand Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

has major implications for the way we understand conscious control of action

You brought up the points 'one will never smoke, if cigarettes are never a factor' and 'the urge(or temptation?) is there once they are', which are both true.

Wouldn't the act of succumbing to that urge or not (as many people have not) be when choice factors in? And like I said, I understand that not all choices are equal, it may not be as easy to say no as yes, in a given scenario.

Edit: That was to Inimalist.

Originally posted by Robtard
You brought up the points 'one will never smoke, if cigarettes are never a factor' and 'the urge(or temptation?) is there once they are', which are both true.

Wouldn't the act of succumbing to that urge or not (as many people have not) be when choice factors in? And like I said, I understand that not all choices are equal, it may not be as easy to say no as yes, in a given scenario.

Edit: That was to Inimalist.

totally.

Simple exposure to cigarettes is not enough to produce the behaviour, and certainly not enough to produce addiction. Addiction being symptomatic rather than a quality of the substance itself (cigs are a weird one for that theory, though I quit them cold turkey with no withdrawal at all).

I think my point is more that it really isn't you, in the Western dualistic sense, that choses "yes" or "no". That decision is made for "you" by lower brain areas, and "you" just become aware of the final result, with a window of consideration to cancel the behaviour. That whole process I would label as choice, and I do not think it makes any behaviour less of a "personal choice" than you would consider them to be. Mostly just that "choice" is not as absolute or isolated a phenomena as you make it out to be. While you do accept that some choices are harder than others, that assumes a conscious decision making process, which imho is much less important than pre-conscious evaluations of the overall scenario interpreted through previous experience.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alien-hand syndrome is both freaky and wicked awesome. You could literally give yourself the stranger. 😐

only if your lower brain regions produced the behaviour of reaching out and grabbing cocks.

You would also still feel it, so its not like the numb "stranger"

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, that's what I thought. In the end, the individual has to chose, but there are uncontrollable factors that play into the final action/decision...as you've eloquently outlined.

blah, I'm trying to steer this away from the nature of human individuality, but ya, I generally agree. The thing is, I want to separate the factors, like "gun to the head", which produce very stereotypical responses, from things like "social monitoring", where a person unconsciously has the desire to do things like those who surround them (and would have to use their "free won't" not to fit into the crowd).

(god, now that I mention social monitoring, I just want to point out, it is not the same as "conformity", and there are many advantages to being a social monitor. Few, if any, scales in psychology hold a value judgment, so I am not saying high or low social monitoring is better or worse)

lol, **** guys, sorry about the essays

Originally posted by Mairuzu
A friend of mine might have that. He's always stealing my lighters without knowing.

A diagnosis of psychological abnormality MUST rule out intoxication as a source of the behaviour 😉

and seriously, **** that, I hate losing all my lighters in like 42 hours