Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T01:24:28.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-organization of power at will

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2021

Elpida Tzafestas Open the ORCID record for Elpida Tzafestas [Opens in a new window]
Elpida Tzafestas*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, University Campus, Ano Ilisia, Athens15771, Greece. etzafestas@phs.uoa.gr; http://en.phs.uoa.gr/faculty-and-staff/faculty/elpida-tzafestas.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We challenge and extend Ainslie's top-down view of willpower as a dual function, resolve and suppression. Instead, we propose an alternative self-organizational view of the motivational system as a network of urges, incentives, drives, and so on that interact dynamically. With such a view, resolve, suppression, and other functions emerge under certain environmental and social conditions for certain personality profiles.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e55
Check for updates
Creative Commons
The target article and response article are works of the U.S. Government and are not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berridge, K. C. (2009). Wanting and liking: Observations from the neuroscience and psychology laboratory. Inquiry. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 52(4), 378.Google ScholarPubMed
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 269–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doya, K. (2008). Modulators of decision making. Nature Neuroscience, 11(4), 410–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurley, S. (2007). The shared circuits model (SCM): How control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behaviour. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prescott, T. J., Bryson, J. J., & Seth, A. K. (Eds.) (2007). Theme Issue on Models of Natural Action Selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 362(1485).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D., Sharp, C., Vuchinich, R., & Spurrett, D. (2008). Midbrain mutiny: The picoeconomics and neuroeconomics of disordered gambling, economic theory and cognitive science (Chapter 1: Is there such a thing as addiction?). MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar