Post by himself on Nov 23, 2012 16:46:15 GMT
volunteers were asked to read at the moment they became aware of the urge to act
Notice that the way in which this is phrased presupposes the conclusion that choices are urges that come upon one from outside.
In the classic model, the Will [volition] is the intellective appetite, that is a hunger for the product of the intellect. The intellect in turn is a second abstraction, as shown in the model:
Different sensations reach the brain at different times. There really are nanosecond delays between when we see things, hear them, smell them, etc. The imagination [perception] unifies these various sense impressions via the common sense into a whole, so that the sight, smell, feel, taste of the shiny red crispy tart apple appears as a singular object.
The intellect reflects upon this percept and abstracts a concept. While the percept is concrete and particular -- This shiny red crispy tart apple -- the concept is immaterial and universal. "Apple" or "redness."
The percept is the object of the sensitive appetites. One remembers the taste of the apple-past and develops an appetite for the apple-to-come. This triggers motion: one goes in search of the apple.
The concept is the object of the intellective appetite [will]. One considers redness and forms a liking for red things [or a revulsion or an indifference]. Or one perceives the horrors of war, the Intellect conceives the possibility of peace and the Will forms a desire for peace (or for militarism!). These desires impact, modify, the sensory appetites and lead to motion: e.g., forming a peace movement (becoming Caesar).
The point is: twitching the left finger or the right is a mere physical motion, not one that is the proper object of the intellective appetite. It is therefore the wrong kind of thing to observe if one wishes to study the Will.
+ + +
Liberum arbitrium translates as free judgment, although usually called free will. A free choice is not a random choice. It does not mean it is unpredictable, unmotivated, uninformed, inconsequential, etc. It is consequent to the act of knowing.
Free Will must be thought of in the same way as Free Fall. The Will cannot withhold consent from 2+2=4 because the object is fully known. But world peace is a different bushel of apples. What exactly does it look like? Of what does it consist? By what steps may it be achieved? The Will is free to choose to the extent that the object (and means) are not fully known. Since most things are incompletely known, most choices are free.
This becomes complicated only after Descartes mucked things up.