Science could probably explain it now.
The only counterargument I can make is that you aren't replacing what has been a constant activation for your brain. And I mean, you might have already altered your brain past the point of returning to the innate homeostasis (the brain will usually stablize at a new homeostasis until ultimately there is a crash) but I don't buy that.
I'm struggling with an analogy. But ultimately, the more we indulge habits, especially one's which introduce exogenous chemicals into the body's system, the more we ingrain patterns of activation, which the brain changes to facilitate processing. This is partially why quitting anything cold turkey can cause such problems for people.
Also, the 'choice' conversation is only one aspect of this belief discussion and the other generalities you're trying to articulate. I'm interested, I just don't seem to get the themes in your words.
madness--
my position is that one can quit smoking, for example--but that transformation will have a chain of causality. we can shorthand that as "will," though i think that is mystificatory to the extent it implies no causality other than otherwise uncaused volition.
I inherently agree but I'm fighting for a moment of leverage, I think. Lol, I just wrote about four or five different sentences to try and offer an alternative - unlikely.
Not to bring it back to the individual, exclusively, but I can't digest that I'm predestined to have an outrageous life as the Crier of the Real. It seems unlikely that I was always going to make this commentary about how by believing we have free will generates more instances of making the world a less dismal place than by believing we don't have free will.
Hrm. Deep thoughts.
It brings me back to the idea that I just can't, I won't, excuse people who do shitty things and then suggest that they're predetermined to be dicks.