Below I'm going to lay out exactly why nobody should blame themselves for any kind of addiction. What I'm about to say isn't an excuse to continue acting out harmful behaviours, it's simply a means of understanding that those harmful behaviours have causes and reasons. Once those proximate causes are addressed we stand a much better chance at reducing any future harmful behaviour. This requires understanding and compassion, not only for others, but also for ourselves.
If you can ascribe reasons to the things that you do, then you are drawing that line of determination from variable A to variable B: one thing causes another. This is how scientists analyze things, but you don’t have to be a scientist to do it. You just ask: “How did I feel, what did I think, and what were the factors that went into deciding what I decided?”
Scientists can do this in a great deal of detail. Rigorous theories of behavior usually ascribe our feelings and actions to a complex web of interacting causes, at any number of different levels: social causes, psychological causes and neurophysiological causes all can interact with one another.
But whether the reason is simple, or a complex dynamic interacting web of factors, in the end there is a reason you wanted the thing you wanted, and a reason you made the choice that you made. And once you identify the reason, you have eliminated “free will” from the equation: you have figured out, instead, that there is a cause, or a thing (or set of things) that determined your choice.
Your only other option is to say, “There was no reason!” which means that you behaved randomly. Randomness is also not “free will”.
It shows that the only reason we even have an illusion of free will is that we aren’t conscious of the causes behind the decisions we make. It’s a compelling illusion, to be sure. But an illusion, just the same.
People badly want to believe that they have some measure of "control" over their own lives. The free will skeptic understands that not only is "control" something we don't have, it's an incoherent concept. It's not a complete idea- it's the crumbled bedrock of vain desire and contradiction.
You can't push a door before you push it. You can't push a door before your physical body pushes the door. You won't physically push the door until a mechanical process within your body occurs. That process won't occur until it's triggered to occur by the brain. A conscious thought (which is also caused by a process of antecedent events) may precede the brain's transmission of the signal to start the process. If not, no conscious thought preceded the transmission of the signal. In either case, no "control" and no free will.
How is it meaningful to say one "chose" to open the door, in a manner that justifies the desserts sense of responsibility and re-affirms the sense of 'control' people want to have and think they do have? It's not about words. It's about ideas. People think they can do something that is a malformed idea, and this widespread belief is the primary reason why otherwise empathetic and caring people sometimes blame and punish wrongdoers in a harsh and nonsensical fashion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
1. Some people don’t actually believe that their choices are made outside the scope of cause-and-effect.
In the classic Nature or Nurture debate, nobody ever seems to argue for "neither" because everything we do is implicitly understood to be based on antecedent causes. People will object to this, but when asked why they did something, they’re stuck in a corner. They can say it was random, but that’s not free will. Alternatively, they can say, "I did it because…" and fill in the blank. That’s fine, but whatever reason they give will be an example of causality, by definition. That’s the meaning of the word "because." It doesn’t even matter what they put at the end of the phrase – it’s still a cause.
Saying "I did it just because I wanted to," or "I did it just because I chose to," doesn’t help. It only pushes the question back a step, without answering it. Why did they want to? Why did they choose to? Again, they can either claim it was random, or they can give a cause. But neither option offers free will.
2. Chemicals have unequivocal effects on our brains.
If our decisions are not dependent on antecedent causes, then chemicals should not have any affect on them. This is obviously not a reflection of reality, but it’s the logical result of contra-causal free will. Drugs such as alcohol have a very noticeable effect on our cognitive abilities. For obvious reasons, some people don’t deny that this is true. But they also don’t explain why they believe that our decisions are subject to some physical causality (drugs), but not others (everything else in the world).
Some people tend to get lost in abstract concepts like emotions and wills, and forget that they ultimately have to explain their theory in the concrete terms of electrochemistry and neurons.
3. The most compelling evidence for determinism is the consistency of chemistry in general.
Chemicals reactions are unwavering in their predictability, both inside and outside of our bodies. Hydrocarbons don’t get to choose whether they’ll combust; enzymes don’t get to choose whether they’ll react with proteins; and our neurons don’t get to choose whether or not they’ll fire.
This reactive predictability is not optional. Atomic causality is an axiom upon which the scientific method rests. If one can’t depend on effects to have causes, then epistemological uncertainty becomes an ironic guarantee. Nothing could truly be proved or disproved. Our brains could theoretically produce gold out of thin air. And why not? If they can circumvent causality, then there’s no logical limit to what they could do. Some people would probably reject this claim immediately, but why? If they’re suggesting that there is a limit to the brain’s abilities, then what would it be, if not a causal limit?
4. Decisions are not real things; they’re behavioral models.
This is a big one, and it’s not an easy pill to swallow, because it's entirely counter-intuitive. I fully recognize this, but it’s not without evidence.
Cognitive activity is like other bodily activity: at every stage it is predicated on earlier chemistry. Decisions don’t just boot up and then dissipate like computers being switched on and off. Instead, they’re constantly producing, and being produced by previous activity and new input. Decisions develop. Our brains are uncontroversially in a state of constant feedback. Even when we logically believe that our brains are idle, they’re not. They’re always moving. They don’t even sleep the way we do. They’re as busy as ever, even when we’re out cold.
This point is subtle, but it’s crucial: What we call ‘decisions’ are not discrete items that we’ve somehow produced with our ‘wills’. Neither of those things is objectively real. Decisions are merely the latest articulated point in an unending cycle of cognitive activity, of which we do not have intellectual access.
5. No physical theory has been given to explain free will.
There is no hypothesis that physically explains free will. In fact, there isn’t even an empirically observable ‘free will’ to be explained. There is mer ely the sensation of free will, which compatibilists refer to as "volition." Such volition does not require contra-causal free will, and even if it’s not immediately intuitive, it remains perfectly explainable by physical biology.
Most new scientific explanations are not immediately intuitive. When Maxwell hypothesized that light and magnetism were the same force, people rejected him out of hand. Intuitively Maxwell was wrong, but scientifically he was right. Similarly, it was once counter-intuitive to think that a burning bonfire and a rusting pipe were undergoing the same process. But they are. Along the same lines, most people believed that the bonfire was undergoing the same process as the sun. Today, though, we understand perfectly well that nuclear fusion bears no resemblance to oxidation.
The intuitive sensation of free will is not sufficient reason to believe that it’s actually contra-causal. What is intuitive is often false in the face of scientific inquiry, so relying on what you "feel" is a poor basis for rational philosophy. There are a number of sufficient and defensible explanations for deterministic human behavior – some of which I’ve laid out here – but there are literally no such explanations for free will. Most cognitive scientists believe that our brains function causally, and this belief is not at all without evidence. And to reiterate the larger point: There is no scientific explanation for free will, nor is there any hypothesis that attempts to explain how it might work on a behavioral level, nor is there even a principle or test to demonstrate which entities supposedly have such free will, and which do not.
So try not to blame yourself(or others) for anything that happens.
Are you on comission, have read a lot or just have a lot of time on your hands. Interesting, but very wordy and technical and yeah...mmmm... 🙂
Good effort though 🙂
No blame attaches for having an addiction, but each is responsible for his or her own choice between continuing to use or working towards recovery.
CW
Julie 35 wrote:
Are you on comission, have read a lot or just have a lot of time on your hands. Interesting, but very wordy and technical and yeah...mmmm... 🙂
Good effort though 🙂
Hi Julie, thanks for replying. A comission? My time is limited but I do enjoy reading and study neurosicence, philosophy, and human behaviour with an interest in psychology and sociology. Your comment suggests perhaps you didn't read all of the original post yet? I'm glad you found what you have read interesting and would invite you to read more and consider the information carefully.
Cynical wife wrote:
No blame attaches for having an addiction, but each is responsible for his or her own choice between continuing to use or working towards recovery.
CW
Hi CW, we don't need to hold people responsible for their choices in that manner, as mentioned in the start of this thread. That's not saying it's not harmful and that it doesn't need addressing, it's merely stating that there are causes for behaviours and reasons why we act and do things. If you ignore those influences you will never get to the proximate causes of harmful behaviours. Once we understand and acknowledge there are such causes then we've eliminated the idea that people freely choose these avenues of behaviour or abhorrent conditions and thus are not responsible for the things they do.
Sorry, disagree. If no one, including me, is responsible for my actions and my choices, then I can do what I want with impunity. I don't need to respect rules or boundaries because I just can't help myself so whatever I do is completely understandable and forgivable. I don't need to worry about the effect that my actions have on those around me, anything goes. Result: chaos. And achieving the main aim: continued using.
The reality is that overcoming addiction (and co-dependency) starts each of us with taking ownership of our own choices and actions. The exception is the children: they're stuck with their parents' choices.
CW
Hi Skeptic .
I'm not sure if your a recovering Compulsive Gambler or someone who's been affected in some way by gambling as there's not much to go on , other than your post of Ology's but in the abscence of that information I'm assuming all your knowledge of Gambling comes from a book but I'm happy to be corrected .
Addiction is a funny word in my view , were we born addict's or do our addictions grow through repetition of a certain act ? .
I certainly feel in my case that what started out as a bit of casual fun a couple of times a month , then over time progressed to me spending every opportunity in a bookies shop meant that it became an addiction and something I definately felt I needed in my life , a bit of escapism , that being said I knew exactly what I was doing everytime I stepped in there and I don't believe I was in some sort of "Zombie state " . I stopped Gambling over 19 months ago now and that again was down to choice on my part as I could have kept going again and again until either I'd lost everything and ended it all ?.
Look for the answers all you like , I'll hold my hand's aloft and say it was me everytime .
CW I agree with you. I really wish there was a personal message system on this forum as I would love to share with you something about a person in real-life who is exactly as you describe above in terms of no respect for rules and boundaries.
Hi Skeptic1981.
I agree with you and those are the depths to which its preferable that addiction is understood. There are whole volumes on the science of the brain and addiction.
I have been reading as much as I can. I cant digest it all but it goes some way in explaining why I was not in control. I cant now relate to what I was doing in 2015 when I was gambling. Was it even me doing that? How can i have been so off-kilter?
Its a weird feeling of just being along for the ride in my own body. Almost as if it was someone else and the sensible part of me had no say in the matter. Was I in control or making the right decisions in anything I carried out?
I think people need to take in what you have written and understand the chemistry of the brain. Again in simplistic terms its a form of mind control that many gamblers dont fully understand in the process of addiction. Mind over matter and there are other forces at work driving us to carry out actions
Its not making excuses. Its interesting reading to broaden the mind.
I know every problem gambler has to deal with it and if bearing full responsibility works for them thats fine with me.
I dont accept all of the blame but during a recovery process I accept it was me carrying out those actions and I accept enough responsibility to put the right measures in place. Further knowledge comes during a recovery process
Best wishes to everyone on the forum
Cynical wife wrote:
Sorry, disagree. If no one, including me, is responsible for my actions and my choices, then I can do what I want with impunity. I don't need to respect rules or boundaries because I just can't help myself so whatever I do is completely understandable and forgivable. I don't need to worry about the effect that my actions have on those around me, anything goes. Result: chaos. And achieving the main aim: continued using.
The reality is that overcoming addiction (and co-dependency) starts each of us with taking ownership of our own choices and actions. The exception is the children: they're stuck with their parents' choices.
CW
It's OK to disagree, but facts remain facts no matter what we agree/disagree on.
You don't have control over what you do, but what you do still makes you who you are. We are defined by our actions. And we live in a society where certain actions are demonstrably more harmful than others.
Understanding is needed but blame and forgiveness is not. We don't blame a shark for being a shark but if you go swimming and there is one in the pool you should do something about it before diving in. In the same way we don't need to blame people to recognise their behaviours are harmful to themselves or others in society.
What you're doing, perhaps without realising, is calling into existence exactly the type of free will I've put a case against in my very first post, along with some key points and a detailed talk on the subject by a world renowned neuroscientist.
You can fool yourself into thinking you're responsible for what you do, many of us do, but that is a problem when faced with the reality of cause and effect. No part of my body or brain chemistry is immune to that, and it is those influences, piror causes and experiences that shape my brain chemistry from moment to moment. We control none of it.
You don't control your brain chemistry but that's no excuse for not controlling your responses. Where does responsibility for your own actions and choices lie if not with you?
Hi Joydivider, I share your view almost entirely it would seem.
When we do something we regret it's the feelings of shame and guilt which can often hinder recovery. I've been studying these subjects for many years and still blame myself on a regular basis. It's hard work to figure out why we did something and even harder to make the necessary changes to eliminate that behaviour.
When I do something good I can never really take credit for it. I can't be sure why I did it, but I'm glad that I did.
It's a great way to reduce ones ego and focus on the real proximate causes of ones flaws.
I'd like those gamblers or any addicts who are struggling with accepting responsiblity to think about the post I made above and consider some of the information I layed out. Unfortunately it's all too easy to misunderstand something when it goes against a deeply held belief. For similar reasons I don't agree with the religiosity of gamblers anonymous.
Cynical wife wrote:
You don't control your brain chemistry but that's no excuse for not controlling your responses. Where does responsibility for your own actions and choices lie if not with you?
Forgive me if this is my last reply here for a while.
As I've mentioned, nothing I've said is an excuse. We don't control our responses as they are determined by brain chemistry, neurons firing, synapses, genetic predispositions etc. We can go back to proximate causes of behaviour, but simply saying you did something just because you wanted to doesn't answer why you did it. It only pushes the question back further, why did you do it? Why did you want to?
If you ignore those key elements of behaviour then how can you possibly make a successful recovery?
So " Why did you do it " and "Why did you want to " ? . " Do you think you'll make a Successful recovery " ?
Skeptic1981 wrote:
[quote=Cynical wife]
Sorry, disagree. If no one, including me, is responsible for my actions and my choices, then I can do what I want with impunity. I don't need to respect rules or boundaries because I just can't help myself so whatever I do is completely understandable and forgivable. I don't need to worry about the effect that my actions have on those around me, anything goes. Result: chaos. And achieving the main aim: continued using.
The reality is that overcoming addiction (and co-dependency) starts each of us with taking ownership of our own choices and actions. The exception is the children: they're stuck with their parents' choices.
CW
It's OK to disagree, but facts remain facts no matter what we agree/disagree on.
You don't have control over what you do, but what you do still makes you who you are. We are defined by our actions. And we live in a society where certain actions are demonstrably more harmful than others.
Understanding is needed but blame and forgiveness is not. We don't blame a shark for being a shark but if you go swimming and there is one in the pool you should do something about it before diving in. In the same way we don't need to blame people to recognise their behaviours are harmful to themselves or others in society.
What you're doing, perhaps without realising, is calling into existence exactly the type of free will I've put a case against in my very first post, along with some key points and a detailed talk on the subject by a world renowned neuroscientist.
You can fool yourself into thinking you're responsible for what you do, many of us do, but that is a problem when faced with the reality of cause and effect. No part of my body or brain chemistry is immune to that, and it is those influences, piror causes and experiences that shape my brain chemistry from moment to moment. We control none of it.
They werent facts.
It was an article you agreed with. It doesnt make it a fact.
We are available 24 hours a day, every day of the year. You can also contact us for free on 0808 80 20 133. If you would like to find out more about the service before you start, including information on confidentiality, please click below. Call recordings and chat transcripts are saved for 28 days for quality assurance.
