Ha ha ha....good answer - that pretty much captures it.
________________________________ From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 12:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Kansas - Dust in the Wind Live Unplugged > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKtIAzU2aGE&feature=related Nice. I'm trying to collect all my dust together in a ball so I can fling it somewhere. > > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 11:14 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies > > > Â > 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 > > > > > >
