Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition

Research initiated by Benjamin Libet suggests that short-term conscious intentions are not the onsets of bodily actions. However, other research, particularly on longer-term intentions, seems to show that at least some conscious intentions are effective. This leads to the idea that volition is a com...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Marc Slors
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-03-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00552/full
id doaj-060b48e52a4b4f86a208263432812782
record_format Article
spelling doaj-060b48e52a4b4f86a2082634328127822020-11-24T21:54:42ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782019-03-011010.3389/fpsyg.2019.00552423751Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious VolitionMarc SlorsResearch initiated by Benjamin Libet suggests that short-term conscious intentions are not the onsets of bodily actions. However, other research, particularly on longer-term intentions, seems to show that at least some conscious intentions are effective. This leads to the idea that volition is a complex interplay between conscious and unconscious processes. The nature and structure of this interplay is mostly uncharted territory. In this article, I will highlight two currently neglected distinctions that will help to chart the territory. The first distinction is between intentions we become conscious of (passive) and consciously formed intentions (active). The second is Fred Dretske’s distinction between structuring and triggering causes. I will introduce both distinctions by discussing how they tie in with and strengthen recent criticism of free selection paradigms and support the idea that consciously self-initiated action issues from processes of conscious deliberation and/or information integration. I will argue that consciously self-initiated action typically involves consciously formed intentions that are the structuring causes of our actions. This notion of conscious intentional action allows us to identify at least four stages in which unconscious processes co-determine our actions—without undermining their self-initiated character.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00552/fullconscious intentionsintentional actionmental causationconscious agencyvolitionself-initiated action
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Marc Slors
spellingShingle Marc Slors
Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
Frontiers in Psychology
conscious intentions
intentional action
mental causation
conscious agency
volition
self-initiated action
author_facet Marc Slors
author_sort Marc Slors
title Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
title_short Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
title_full Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
title_fullStr Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
title_full_unstemmed Two Distinctions That Help to Chart the Interplay Between Conscious and Unconscious Volition
title_sort two distinctions that help to chart the interplay between conscious and unconscious volition
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2019-03-01
description Research initiated by Benjamin Libet suggests that short-term conscious intentions are not the onsets of bodily actions. However, other research, particularly on longer-term intentions, seems to show that at least some conscious intentions are effective. This leads to the idea that volition is a complex interplay between conscious and unconscious processes. The nature and structure of this interplay is mostly uncharted territory. In this article, I will highlight two currently neglected distinctions that will help to chart the territory. The first distinction is between intentions we become conscious of (passive) and consciously formed intentions (active). The second is Fred Dretske’s distinction between structuring and triggering causes. I will introduce both distinctions by discussing how they tie in with and strengthen recent criticism of free selection paradigms and support the idea that consciously self-initiated action issues from processes of conscious deliberation and/or information integration. I will argue that consciously self-initiated action typically involves consciously formed intentions that are the structuring causes of our actions. This notion of conscious intentional action allows us to identify at least four stages in which unconscious processes co-determine our actions—without undermining their self-initiated character.
topic conscious intentions
intentional action
mental causation
conscious agency
volition
self-initiated action
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00552/full
work_keys_str_mv AT marcslors twodistinctionsthathelptocharttheinterplaybetweenconsciousandunconsciousvolition
_version_ 1725866352121479168