This is certainly a possibility as we are not rational agents, nor do we contain (reliable) simulators of anything but the most basic rational agents running on our brains. So it may not always be rational to overcome akrasia, although it certainly is sometimes. And, as others have noted, we are not yet dealing with akrasia-fu that makes irreversible changes to our mental states, so we can always backpedal if we discover the results are not what we later decide we really want.
And, as others have noted, we are not yet dealing with akrasia-fu that makes irreversible changes to our mental states, so we can always backpedal if we discover the results are not what we later decide we really want.
The idea that there even could be such an asymmetry is a confusion: if you manage to sort out your preferences so that you do something different than you’re doing now, and that turns out to be a mistake, then it’s no different than your current preferences turning out to be a mistake!
It’s an illusion, in other words, that akrasia actually exists in the first place: you are simply acting on whatever preferences you happen to have at the moment, combined with whatever models you have for how best to achieve them. To do something different, you’d need to adjust either the preferences or the models.
Your current desires are not—and cannot be—acausal; they are and must be determined by the laws of physics. If you “overcome akrasia”, then that too must be determined by physical cause and effect.
Neither state appears spontaneously out of the void, nor is akrasia a state of failure to follow the laws of physics. Akrasia is merely a state where the conscious model you have of your preferences fails to match your complete, actual preferences.
As long as you try to single out akrasia as if it were some kind of special case, you’ll miss the point entirely. There is nothing in the human anatomy you can point to and say, “aha, there’s akrasia”, because that is merely a label for your confusion regarding what you (as a complete organism) “want”.
This is an interesting line of arguments, but I have a strong sense you are missing something here. I don’t believe that anyone here is claiming that akrasia is caused by acausal desires or that fighting akrasia is fighting physical reality (at the ontological level), rather that
To do something different, you’d need to adjust either the preferences or the models.
is not so easily achieved. I think your characterization is right when you say
Akrasia is merely a state where the conscious model you have of your preferences fails to match your complete, actual preferences.
and
There is nothing in the human anatomy you can point to and say, “aha, there’s akrasia”, because that is merely a label for your confusion regarding what you (as a complete organism) “want”.
because certainly akrasia isn’t being caused by some akrasia organ, but is the result of the interaction between several adaptations that are at odds with each other. Akrasia is a sort of confusion, though, where your brain seems to resolve to act or believe against what you calculate to be the best.
There’s an important distinction that you seem to be missing: the brain appears to be designed in such a way that we are able to think and decide on best courses of actions but find ourselves not actually implementing them. This isn’t some abstract argument, either; just look at the literature on heuristics and biases and you’ll see that even when people are able to sit down and reason through a situation to come to a rational action, they still don’t always act on it.
There’s an important distinction that you seem to be missing: the brain appears to be designed in such a way that we are able to think and decide on best courses of actions but find ourselves not actually implementing them.
I’m not missing that distinction; what you’re missing is that this is an indication that the conscious “decision” being made is based on incomplete information about one’s preferences.
That is, if you experience akrasia, this is an indication that your conscious reasoning is flawed. (Your “unconscious” reasoning may also be flawed or based on cached thoughts, but this does not exempt your conscious reasoning from its failure to take into account your actual preferences.)
Thus, saying we should “fight akrasia” is like saying that we should fight the “low fuel” warning light on our car, when what’s actually needed is to put gas in! The warning light is doing you a favor, so calling it bad names isn’t helping.
This is certainly a possibility as we are not rational agents, nor do we contain (reliable) simulators of anything but the most basic rational agents running on our brains. So it may not always be rational to overcome akrasia, although it certainly is sometimes. And, as others have noted, we are not yet dealing with akrasia-fu that makes irreversible changes to our mental states, so we can always backpedal if we discover the results are not what we later decide we really want.
The idea that there even could be such an asymmetry is a confusion: if you manage to sort out your preferences so that you do something different than you’re doing now, and that turns out to be a mistake, then it’s no different than your current preferences turning out to be a mistake!
It’s an illusion, in other words, that akrasia actually exists in the first place: you are simply acting on whatever preferences you happen to have at the moment, combined with whatever models you have for how best to achieve them. To do something different, you’d need to adjust either the preferences or the models.
Your current desires are not—and cannot be—acausal; they are and must be determined by the laws of physics. If you “overcome akrasia”, then that too must be determined by physical cause and effect.
Neither state appears spontaneously out of the void, nor is akrasia a state of failure to follow the laws of physics. Akrasia is merely a state where the conscious model you have of your preferences fails to match your complete, actual preferences.
As long as you try to single out akrasia as if it were some kind of special case, you’ll miss the point entirely. There is nothing in the human anatomy you can point to and say, “aha, there’s akrasia”, because that is merely a label for your confusion regarding what you (as a complete organism) “want”.
This is an interesting line of arguments, but I have a strong sense you are missing something here. I don’t believe that anyone here is claiming that akrasia is caused by acausal desires or that fighting akrasia is fighting physical reality (at the ontological level), rather that
is not so easily achieved. I think your characterization is right when you say
and
because certainly akrasia isn’t being caused by some akrasia organ, but is the result of the interaction between several adaptations that are at odds with each other. Akrasia is a sort of confusion, though, where your brain seems to resolve to act or believe against what you calculate to be the best.
There’s an important distinction that you seem to be missing: the brain appears to be designed in such a way that we are able to think and decide on best courses of actions but find ourselves not actually implementing them. This isn’t some abstract argument, either; just look at the literature on heuristics and biases and you’ll see that even when people are able to sit down and reason through a situation to come to a rational action, they still don’t always act on it.
I’m not missing that distinction; what you’re missing is that this is an indication that the conscious “decision” being made is based on incomplete information about one’s preferences.
That is, if you experience akrasia, this is an indication that your conscious reasoning is flawed. (Your “unconscious” reasoning may also be flawed or based on cached thoughts, but this does not exempt your conscious reasoning from its failure to take into account your actual preferences.)
Thus, saying we should “fight akrasia” is like saying that we should fight the “low fuel” warning light on our car, when what’s actually needed is to put gas in! The warning light is doing you a favor, so calling it bad names isn’t helping.