The way I think of this neuroscience information about free will is that I am internally herding cats. I never wake up and want to go down to the sidewalk, draw a hop scotch court with chalk and skip through the course. I want to pick up my guitar and play. That is the accumulation of choices from my past. So I might not be consciously freely choosing my guitar, but it is a result of a lifetime of following my inner impulses that I am not conscious of.
My original impulse that lead me to pick up a guitar in the first place may not have been free will either. But shaped by circumstances, it did happen and I kept it up. What part of me kept it up? All of me, conscious and unconscious. And if the conscious choice seems contrived because the impulse came from deep inside under consciousness, I am cool with that because that is me too. In fact I identify more with the unconscious part of my mind the more I perform. My conscious mind is floating on the totality of me, which has many capacities I consciously lack, but which can be forced out by putting me into situations where this is required. That is what I call self development these days, putting myself into challenges where I have to express more potential into actuality. I have to kind of trick myself to be all that I can be. It is OK that I can't consciously access it because contexts force it out. And the more I do that, the bigger my sense of myself becomes. In this way of looking at myself, the silent part of my mind is only an adjunct. I need just enough so I can navigate easily between these too aspects of my conscious and unconscious mind, but not so much that it becomes an end in itself, which I know from past experience, it can. If my conscious free will is an illusion, that is OK as long as I still wake up and pick up a guitar instead of a piece of chalk and a handful of Jacks. (not that there's anything wrong with that!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Barry, this link provided by cardemaister concerns some of the latest > research in this area. Earlier research showed a shorter delay, but the > effect is the same - the brain reaches a decision point but we do not > become aware of that consciously until after the fact, which means > consciousness is not the trigger for the decision, that the sense of > 'will' that we have must be mistaken. > > This seems to correspond best with the central tenent of Buddhism, the > doctrine of no-self. There is no individual entity called 'me', it is an > illusion, an after-the-fact interpretation of experience. The Hindu way > of saying this is the small self becomes the big Self. The small self > dissolves like salt in water, which represents the big Self, or unity. > > Evolutionary (Dawinian) theorists think this state of affairs may have > some survival value, but proving that to be true does not seem to be on > the horizon yet, were it true. The after-the-fact interpretation of > experience that is localised in the body (sight, hearing, thinking etc.) > is not a thing but a process and it generally goes by the name of 'ego'. > This is what gives us our sense of self. > > Awakening is the experience of finally seeing through this process. It > never entirely goes away, but one experiences the body etc., as being > part of the larger process of the universe, like a cog in a machine. It > is also experienced as cannot being any other way, so one does not > experience a pang of loss of individual free will. Free will is > interpreted in a larger scope, that is all. It is a mysterious paradox, > and I do not think it can ever be understood in the way one could > understand how an automobile engine works, or how to make beer. > > One can say of it 'this is so cool, and I cannot do a damn thing about > it', because it is all experienced as 'absolute', even the processes > going on are experienced as absolute - unchanging - you can't change it, > but because that is what just is, it's fine. Absolutely cool. Because > there is no boundary between inner and outer in this, one does not think > in terms of individuality versus universality. There is just life as it > is, and it goes on like it always has. > > > This experience and the research on how decisions are made in the brain > throw an interesting monkey wrench into the concept of personal > responsibility. The solution to this is to recognise we can still act as > if we had free will, because that is the way it feels even if it is not > true, and structure laws that assume we have that free will even if we > do not. Once scientist suggested that psychologists and psychiatrists > used in court trials should be eliminated. That one apply the law based > on what infraction has been done, but bring in the extenuating > circumstances in the sentencing phase as a means to apply justice in a > more humane way. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > >> > >> Another way of stating this -- which, after all, is nothing > >> but my opinion, my predilection or preference -- is that if > >> I were given a multiple-choice test of how I would most like > >> the universe to work, sorta like this: > >> > >> The way the universe works is: > >> > >> A) An intelligent God runs everything, and dictates every > >> sentient being's thoughts and actions; > >> > >> B) A non-sentient intelligence (similar to a computer > >> Operating System...or the "Laws Of Nature") runs everything, > >> and dictates every sentient being's thoughts and actions; > >> > >> C) Sentient beings have free will, and thus (within the > >> limits of karma -- influences from the past or from the > >> present), can choose whether to heed or not heed these > >> influences; > >> > >> D) That everything is just random, and things just happen > >> at random and without purpose, and we as sentient (or semi- > >> sentient) beings try our best -- and our free will -- to > >> make sense of it all as best we can. > >> > >> I would probably go for C. > >> > >> But I can live with D. > >> > >> And either would be preferable for me to either A or B. > >> I simply do not groove with the idea of being a powerless > >> player in an automaton universe. > >> > > > > > http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisio\ > ns-7-seconds-before-you-decide > > >
