"if I don't know what chocolate is then I logically can't want it" Do you really believe that a baby that has no concept of what chocolate is can't want to eat it anyway? Have you seen what babies put in their mouths? lol I think you're smarter than that.

"which is still based on my wants but also my free and reasoned choice between optioins" reasoned you say? Are those reasons things you want, e.g. this is healthier and I want to be healthy, this is cheaper and I want to have more money for other things, this takes a long time and I want to spend that time doing something more fun? If so, how is that not just wanting something else more?

@Jnutter819 Well I think it has to do with benefit, which option will have the best benefit for me, which is determined not by want but by my pragmatic choice. I am not saying want or desire has nothing to do with making a choice, without them we would have no objective and we would not make a move, but I don't regard want or desire to be as encompassing or as you present it.

@cava Well, you could say that your distal desire to gain that benefit is greater than your proximal desire to stuff your face with chocolate, to run with that example.

@cava Why do you care "which option will have the best benefit for me"? Is it because you WANT to have a good life? You WANT to have the most beneficial option? You have decided that pragmatism is the most logically sound philosophy and WANT to follow it?

@JosephHarrison @Jnutter819 OK, then what determines want? Pleasure and avoidance of pain? If so then how can want be an end, no I think it is only a means, and as such it must be directed, by rational choice.

@Jnutter819 Please no ad homeniums or this could turn from a discussion into a harangue and I am capable.

"Do you really believe that a baby that has no concept of what chocolate is can't want to eat it anyway?"

Absolutely.

Sweetness seems to be intrinsically pleasurable for many animals, babies included, but pleasure in this sense is instinctive and not cognitive. We socially construct ourselves, and in doing this we learn to conceptualize what is pleasurable and what is not.

@cava Of course want is a means, but so is rational choice. The only end is satisfaction of your wants. You think rationally as a means to maximizing your happiness long-term.

"Please no ad homeniums" Annoying that there's no edit button when you see a typo like that isn't it? Anyway, I haven't used ad hominem yet, nor was I planning to. In fact, if you review my first comment, it included "I think you're smarter than that." I was saying that I must have misinterpreted what you said as something more stupid. In everything after that, I simply asked questions intended to encourage you to consider them without including anything that could even be construed as an insult.

"Sweetness seems to be intrinsically pleasurable for many animals, babies included, but pleasure in this sense is instinctive and not cognitive." I believe you misinterpreted my question. To clarify, can a child who doesn't know what chocolate is but sees someone eating chocolate want to eat it? Also, pleasure is a neurological response to satisfaction of a want. Instincts are mental processes, and therefore not separate from cognition.

"We socially construct ourselves, and in doing this we learn to conceptualize what is pleasurable and what is not." It sounds like what you're saying is that we learn how to behave through conditioning (association of behaviors with positive or negative consequences of our behaviors) which is true. In fact, this supports the argument that we don't have free will. Our choices are the results of our history of punishment and reward.

@Jnutter819 I really only read through what you said once but at this phase I stopped:

"Instincts are mental processes, and therefore not separate from cognition."

which I don't agree with. I think instinct is different than cognition.

The instinct to suckle, the grasp and hold reflex are not cognitive, yet I think they form the basis of latter cognitive abilities. Same goes for pleasure or sweetness as in our example.

@cava How are instincts not cognitive exactly? They involve reacting to stimuli in ways determined by the central nervous system. They are very basic, and not all cognition is instinct, but instinct is definitely part of cognition, as you recognized "I think they form the basis of latter cognitive abilities." Saying instincts aren't cognition is like saying the operating system of a computer isn't a program.

@Jnutter819

"How are instincts not cognitive exactly?"

They are instinctual, we were born with them, no thought was involved, no perception, no understanding....and so on,

@cava Cognition includes the processing of any part of your brain, not just the central executive and the language portions. It doesn't have to be a thought to be thought. If you get so scared you piss yourself, some part of your brain thought you were in such danger that you needed to empty your bladder, but your conscious self (the central executive) didn't decide to piss yourself, it was just instinct. This example should demonstrate how the instinct is thought resulting from perception, which is understanding of sensation. Is this example clear enough to get us back on topic, or did you go off topic because you were already convinced of the main point but wanted to argue semantics?

@Jnutter819

I entirely disagree To go back to your computer analogy, instinctive/reflexive behavior is hardwired, it is not part of the software which controls the machine.
In a way I think this is related to my problem with your use of the words 'want', and 'desire'. Where you also seem to extend the meaning of these words to encompass every possible action, trivializing their meaning. Describing all human activity using these terms instead of using their constitutive terms: 'pleasure', 'pain', and 'reason' is, I think, the source of your error.

@cava What are reasoned decisions if not following the programming of your personality? Keep in mind, you're talking to someone with a degree in psychology, specifically someone who got an A in Bio psychology. If you study the science, it's pretty clear that our brains function as biological machines. Does a computer with sophisticated programming have free will, or does it just follow the rules it was created with?

@Jnutter819 I am not saying that a person is not affected by their background, only that that background does not determine their choice. Brains may function as biological machines but brains neither the organism nor the mind.
Thanks for the CV

@cava True, other parts of the body make a difference too, and hormones matter, but tell me exactly what part of the mind is not a result of brain function? Do you still believe we have souls that will live forever after our bodies die?

@Jnutter819 The mind and the brain are categorically different, that means that there is a difference in kind and to conflate the two might be the source of your confusion. The soul, free will, and other mental activities are socially constructed, they are as real as a $50,00 dollar bill.

@cava The brain is an organ, the mind is the thoughts and personality that arise from the functions of a brain. Mental activities are not social constructs. Nor are they nonexistent, though they are immaterial. They are like math or the laws of physics in that way.

@Jnutter819 "The brain is an organ, the mind is the thoughts and personality that arise from the functions of a brain" Yes the brain is an organ which is a part of the human organism. It is part of the whole, it is not the whole, which includes our thoughts and actions.
Your use of the term "mental activities" is an equivocation of the physical with the mental. Thoughts as I indicated, are social constructs, not nerve impulses.

@cava Thoughts arise from physical neuronal firing, also known as brain activity. Thoughts are mental activity. The mind is the brain's perception of its own workings, much like a picture on a screen is how the brain perceives the workings of a television. I don't see your problem with accepting this basic premise of psychology. Do you think that thoughts being the observable result of physical processes means they aren't real, or do you think there's a metaphysical component? If the former, then by the same logic the picture on your screen isn't real, even though you can see it. If the latter, please prove that such a thing exists, as I am skeptical. Furthermore, where do you get the social part? Do you really believe you can't think outside the presence of other people?
Anyway, I'd appreciate us getting back on topic. Can you prove that you can do something without wanting to or being forced to? I'll gladly help you determine the motivation behind an example. It would probably be less entertaining than your ridiculous arguments that I suspect may only be trolling, but it would likely be more productive in teaching you to understand how the human mind works.

@Jnutter819 "Thoughts arise from physical neuronal firing, also known as brain activity. Thoughts are mental activity. The mind is the brain's perception of its own workings, much like a picture on a screen is how the brain perceives the workings of a television. I don't see your problem with accepting this basic premise of psychology."
Do you mean neuronal firings form little little pictures in the brain? Or what? Are these little little pics normative?
While you are at it, please explain what you mean by the term "want"

@cava [1.bp.blogspot.com]
In your temporal lobe, neurons analyze the sounds from your ear, much like voice recognition software. In your occipital lobe, neurons analyze the signals from your retinas like facial recognition software, and that's how you know people by their faces, though it analyzes all the data, not just faces. In the center and rear of your brain, under the cortex, are the parts that evolved longer ago, including the amygdala which is responsible for fears and aggression, the hippocampus for memory, the cerebellum that mostly manages balance, etc. These are where most of your desires (wants) come from. In the frontal lobe, neurons make rational decisions by analyzing risks and rewards; these neurons are what give you inhibitions. If they are damaged, people often become irrational, and they become compulsive gamblers and drinkers and overall more aggressive as they are controlled by instant gratification of their base desires with little to no consideration of the future or others' wants. In the area above your ear, neurons in an arch form the cortex that analyzes sensory data, and right next to that, there are neurons that signal a line of neurons down your spinal cord and to your muscles when they receive the signal (usually from your frontal cortex) that you want to move something. Is that enough detail? I can't remember much more off the top of my head, but I can pull out the lecture materials or look online if you're interested in learning.
If my mention of choices earlier want clear, "wants" include both the desires from literally the base components of our brains that kept our species alive long enough to evolve rationality in the frontal cortex and the desires of the frontal cortex to ensure future happiness and the happiness of others. Simply put, a want is anything that fits grammatically in the sentence starting "I want" as the predicate. They are the something when you want something. They are the recognition of a lack of something that you believe will make you happier.

Thanks for the geography of the brain. My question was how these structures can actually mimic what we represent to our self. Not where each function is performed. You state "neurons make rational decisions by analyzing risks and rewards; these neurons are what give you inhibitions." How is that even conceivable? Are you anthropomorphizing the behavior of neurons or do you think they are little minds working in concert or not.

Wants: "They are the recognition of a lack of something that you believe will make you happier."

As I said towards the beginning, without conceptualization you can't desire anything. The emotive answer is still no answer.

"The thing is that what I want has to be conceptualized, if I don't know what chocolate is then I logically can't want it, and since I always want a lot, how do I decide between my wants, he seems to suggest that I choose just what I want more...but this is not the way I experience it, I consider alternatives and make a choice which is still based on my wants but also my free and reasoned choice between options. The emotive answer is no answer IMHO"

"He first chooses an over simplified definition of freewill and then defines that definition as being to subject only to want or force." If it's over-simplified, please explain how.
"However "want" is not the same as a desire, which is contrary to the use implied here as it can mean both a need and a/or a desire and both of those can be broken down further to a needed desire, a desired need, a hedonistic desire and a necessary need." Semantics. It is clear that when he says want, he means all those categories, any need or desire that you want to satisfy.

"A need can be define by physiological evidence. In some cases a need is necessary for daily survival, but still can be chosen to be ignored, as in the case of a hunger striker or a person fasting." Because they want something else more, whether that's making their point, obeying their God, or whatever other reason they don't give in.
"A desire can be traced back to either a subconscious need or desire for pleasure or for the avoidance of suffering, and so too are traceable back to an evolved psychological survival traits, that can when required be over come for religious, political or survival reasons, often in direct defiance of nature, logic and reason for motivations only of import to the individual carrying them out." Those reasons are matters of what people want more, yes? Religious reasons=I want the good afterlife, political reasons=I want this country to be as good of a place to live as possible so long as I live in it, survival reasons=I want to keep living.

"So since it is fundamental to Alex' contention that "wants" cannot be defined as to their origin claiming wants are untraceable is clearly fallacious' this is clearly a presupposition on his part." He wasn't saying no want is trace able, just generalizing because it doesn't matter what caused the want for his argument unless you freely choose to want it.

"If I can identify the removal of something, that thing must exist in order for me to be aware of its absence.
If free will is the ability to have acted differently
And I recognise force as a denial of the ability to have acted differently
I must have a recognition of the ability to have acted differently and of its removal from me.

and as no one and no thing forced me to write this or post it ...Free will" You wrote this post because you wanted to. The only thing that would have made you not write it is wanting something else more. You cannot control what you want if Alex's claim (which you haven't really tried to disprove) is true. Therefore, could you really have chosen to act differently?

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret though. In training for cognitive behavioral psychology, the main thing you are taught to do is bring attention to and support those wants that lead to you acting better. This is, of course, dependent on you wanting to choose to control your wants, so it doesn't disprove Alex's claim really, but it may help clear up an issue you seem to have with it.

The real question though, is what difference does it make if we don't have free will? Can't we celebrate the accomplishments of people we know we don't control, like relatives, scientists, and even super computers? Does it make any less sense to try to rehabilitate criminals into more productive members of society just because like computers they were only following their programming?