Great video. Scripts. Thats a great way to state it. Not as conspiratorial as conditioning and definately commumicates learned behaviors, behavorial/societal expectations...etc. Thanks!
I agree. This is an extremely good video.It shows clearly that free will competes (as a minor player) in the mix of brain/mind activities.
Good thing she states in the beginning that she is no philosopher, and takes a practical approach to free will.At the end of the video she acknowledges at least some PARTIAL control to the entity we call our “self.” Philosophers go bonkers on that one; impractical eggheads that are they.
I remember when parts of this gut/brain connection was discovered in the 1990s. A famous visiting brain scientists announced one day at our weekly meeting, that it had just been confirmed, that some genuine “cognition computation” takes place OUTSIDE the brain.
Up till then, only the retina in the eye can claim anything close to that. He said our cognition processes extent to the gut.
What he reported was very simple, compared to this video’s reports of much more current research.He only reported that the gut can sense what kind of food is in the upper digestive tract and relay the information to the brain. The brain then can “decide” what downstream glands need to prepare for.
No free will was hinted in these processes back then, and that remains to this day.MOST of what goes on in our brain and body is mechanical, non-thinking, and compelled.
Breaking away from this mechanical norm, over to a different mechanical norm, is done in only in TINY increments called learning.This inspired me to search for a MINIMAL free will mechanism to support such a minimal move away from the norm.
It wasn't me who claimed Socrates was an "impractical egghead".
When it comes to free will and the workings of the brain, Philosophy is to be regarded as folklore. See Patricia Churchland's MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy."
Example: Aristotle thought that the brain was like a car radiator, and used to cool down the blood.
When it comes to free will and the workings of the brain, Philosophy is to be regarded as folklore. See Patricia Churchland's MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy."
Example: Aristotle thought that the brain was like a car radiator, and used to cool down the blood.
So?
Saint Vic claimed he was getting revelation from God when he was actually repeating what he heard from a conspiracy phone in site (the then version of QAnon).
Shall we say Saint Vic was an "impractical egghead"? I guess then the yolk would be on him.
When it comes to free will and the workings of the brain, Philosophy is to be regarded as folklore. See Patricia Churchland's MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy."
Example: Aristotle thought that the brain was like a car radiator, and used to cool down the blood.
Conversely, we could start out having a major influence on our behaviour and we would still have free will.
YES! YES! YES!
We still have the ability to choose whether or not to bend with the influence, hence we still have free will.
As Cuddy shows us the postures and body languages that influence our life, we can move from happenstance (pun intended) to being in control of our posture and body language through our free will, and thereby change our life.
Babies have free will, as they can choose to feed or not, cy or coo.
It is a mistake to think that when a person makes a choice, that the choice must automatically be a FREE choice. It could be a FORCED choice. We don't have the ability to sort those out when we observe others. It is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to sort that out just for ourselves.
What would FORCE a choice in a decision? The synapse set the person brings to the decision.
Babies are born with muscles and nerves just learning to function. The baby's skeletal muscles are very weak at birth.
I see adult free will to be LIKE a muscle.
A normal baby has all the parts needed for free will at birth, but no strength has yet been built up for making free choices. That takes time and effort. Many developing children never get this kind of "free will" exercise, and they become problem adults, unable to conform to function well with others.
Since the Sixties, our culture has encouraged less and less "free will" exercising for children and young adults, and it is falling apart for the distinction of pitifully weak wills. More and more people are being "blown about with every wind of doctrine" both spiritual and practical.
It is a mistake to think that when a person makes a choice, that the choice must automatically be a FREE choice. It could be a FORCED choice. We don't have the ability to sort those out when we observe others. It is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to sort that out just for ourselves.
What would FORCE a choice in a decision? The synapse set the person brings to the decision.
Babies are born with muscles and nerves just learning to function. The baby's skeletal muscles are very weak at birth.
Muscles and nerves have nothing to do with free will, the brain does, as it's were decisions are made. A babies brain thinks things like, "Am I hungary?" then I'll cry, "Am I happy?" then I'll coo.
Scientist will tell babies watch for the response of the mother so they can begin to persuade her, an act of free will.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
I see adult free will to be LIKE a muscle.
A normal baby has all the parts needed for free will at birth, but no strength has yet been built up for making free choices. That takes time and effort. Many developing children never get this kind of "free will" exercise, and they become problem adults, unable to conform to function well with others.
Adult have had plenty of time to exorcise their free will. What do you think that toddler's no is? What do you think that teenager's rebellion is? Both are acts of them exerting free will.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
Since the Sixties, our culture has encouraged less and less "free will" exercising for children and young adults, and it is falling apart for the distinction of pitifully weak wills. More and more people are being "blown about with every wind of doctrine" both spiritual and practical.
What your seeing is the result of too much choice. Science has proven the more choice you have the unhappier you are.
It is a mistake to think that when a person makes a choice, that the choice must automatically be a FREE choice. It could be a FORCED choice. We don't have the ability to sort those out when we observe others. It is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to sort that out just for ourselves.
Hi! Respectfully, this may be a personal challenge you face, or perhaps you know others who are challenged in thie regard and Im not discounting that nor denying the potential validity. However, it's not particularly difficult to sort out elements that affect our decision making abilities that God gave. A forced choice makes free will no less free...it simply means the will of another was impossed and had to be followed...such as is life...
I make the decicion to get up and goto work...when Im at work I am doing my employer's will but that still happens by my consent. Obviously there are times when people are left with little choice and have to do what someone else requires...thats just life...but barring extreme circumstances its not that difficult to sort out a matter to the point of understanding which choice is best..bussinessmen do that sort of thing all the time...
I respect what you feel and write here on decisions. This kind of talking about free will and decisions has gone on for over 20 centuries.
In this old mode of investigating free will we have at our disposal our own feelings, observations of others behavior, hearing words of them describing their decisions. They we weave a narrative that seems to make sense to ourselves, and hopefully to others also.
So the free will debate has proceeded this way (philosophically) for a long time, and it started thousands of years before the scientific method was perfected, which was only about 400 years ago.
The philosophical debate over free will has never been resolved; it rages forever, and never matured or progressed to the level of practical applications.
For 300 years science was not developed enough to deal with the complex issue of free will. Now it is beginning to deal with it.
In this scientific approach, decisions are made SOLELY on the basis of preparation. When a person is facing a decision they have no choise, and are forced into the decision by whatever synapse set they walked into the decision with.
An analogy of this would be an professional actor who is scheduled to perform in a practice run of the play WITH NO REHEARSALS.
When the curtain goes up, whatever lines he has well memorized beforehand are likely to be delivered well. The actor has prepared his synapse set to do this. He mas made these lines a HABIT. He can almost relax and perform them, as this habit is a synapse set that FORCES him to perform well.
But suppose his script had a missing page!
When that part in play comes up, his synapse set is unprepared, and the actor is FORCED by ignorance to flub those lines on the missing page.
An alleged atrophy of free will is NOT why people are so easily blown about by every wind of doctrine.
It is the inquisitive mind, not the will, that is atrophied. It's a lack of discernment, a lack of curiosity. It seems nobody wants to find out anything for themselves. Every one is so eager to be spoon fed.
No one has the patience or stillness of mind to simply look to see what is really going on.
I respect what you feel and write here on decisions. This kind of talking about free will and decisions has gone on for over 20 centuries.
In this old mode of investigating free will we have at our disposal our own feelings, observations of others behavior, hearing words of them describing their decisions. They we weave a narrative that seems to make sense to ourselves, and hopefully to others also.
So the free will debate has proceeded this way (philosophically) for a long time, and it started thousands of years before the scientific method was perfected, which was only about 400 years ago.
The philosophical debate over free will has never been resolved; it rages forever, and never matured or progressed to the level of practical applications.
For 300 years science was not developed enough to deal with the complex issue of free will. Now it is beginning to deal with it.
In this scientific approach, decisions are made SOLELY on the basis of preparation. When a person is facing a decision they have no choise, and are forced into the decision by whatever synapse set they walked into the decision with.
An analogy of this would be an professional actor who is scheduled to perform in a practice run of the play WITH NO REHEARSALS.
When the curtain goes up, whatever lines he has well memorized beforehand are likely to be delivered well. The actor has prepared his synapse set to do this. He mas made these lines a HABIT. He can almost relax and perform them, as this habit is a synapse set that FORCES him to perform well.
But suppose his script had a missing page!
When that part in play comes up, his synapse set is unprepared, and the actor is FORCED by ignorance to flub those lines on the missing page.
Well, you realize this is like investigating if oxygen is to be breathed or not...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
79
52
25
35
Popular Days
Aug 10
30
Aug 11
29
Jul 14
23
Jul 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 79 posts
Mike 52 posts
waysider 25 posts
Nathan_Jr 35 posts
Popular Days
Aug 10 2023
30 posts
Aug 11 2023
29 posts
Jul 14 2023
23 posts
Jul 23 2023
16 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
When I was in what must have been about the second grade or so, I heard something about how diamonds were made. Of course, the explanation was tailored for the understanding of a wide eyed 7 year old
waysider
I fixed that for you.
Nathan_Jr
Bravo! This reminds me only to believe something until there is no good reason to continue believing. It goes to why I don't believe in belief. Or, spelled with literal accuracy according to usag
Posted Images
OldSkool
Great video. Scripts. Thats a great way to state it. Not as conspiratorial as conditioning and definately commumicates learned behaviors, behavorial/societal expectations...etc. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hands down. Great video, have watched several on this topic and changed my diet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree. This is an extremely good video. It shows clearly that free will competes (as a minor player) in the mix of brain/mind activities.
Good thing she states in the beginning that she is no philosopher, and takes a practical approach to free will. At the end of the video she acknowledges at least some PARTIAL control to the entity we call our “self.” Philosophers go bonkers on that one; impractical eggheads that are they.
I remember when parts of this gut/brain connection was discovered in the 1990s. A famous visiting brain scientists announced one day at our weekly meeting, that it had just been confirmed, that some genuine “cognition computation” takes place OUTSIDE the brain.
Up till then, only the retina in the eye can claim anything close to that. He said our cognition processes extent to the gut.
What he reported was very simple, compared to this video’s reports of much more current research. He only reported that the gut can sense what kind of food is in the upper digestive tract and relay the information to the brain. The brain then can “decide” what downstream glands need to prepare for.
No free will was hinted in these processes back then, and that remains to this day. MOST of what goes on in our brain and body is mechanical, non-thinking, and compelled.
Breaking away from this mechanical norm, over to a different mechanical norm, is done in only in TINY increments called learning. This inspired me to search for a MINIMAL free will mechanism to support such a minimal move away from the norm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Socrates would like a word with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Socrates has an impressive success record,
but not in the area of free will.
Please tell Socrates that I am in a meeting.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This presupposes I want to meet with you.
Have your answering machine call my answering machine. They'll do lunch.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It wasn't me who claimed Socrates was an "impractical egghead".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Sounds like baby steps used in indoctrination to me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Learning doesn't necessarily have to occur in tiny increments. What you may be thinking of is the process of disciplined learning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When it comes to free will and the workings of the brain, Philosophy is to be regarded as folklore. See Patricia Churchland's MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy."
Example: Aristotle thought that the brain was like a car radiator, and used to cool down the blood.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So?
Saint Vic claimed he was getting revelation from God when he was actually repeating what he heard from a conspiracy phone in site (the then version of QAnon).
Shall we say Saint Vic was an "impractical egghead"? I guess then the yolk would be on him.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Where do I even begin?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Many things influence us, including ourselves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
YES ! YES ! YES !
We start out having only a very minor influence on our behavior, but with persistence that self-influence can grow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Conversely, we could start out having a major influence on our behaviour and we would still have free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
YES! YES! YES!
We still have the ability to choose whether or not to bend with the influence, hence we still have free will.
As Cuddy shows us the postures and body languages that influence our life, we can move from happenstance (pun intended) to being in control of our posture and body language through our free will, and thereby change our life.
Awareness + Choice = Free Will
@Mike
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Free will exists in babies, as they can choose their course of action from coming out of the womb. They just don't exercise their free will.
Babies have free will, as they can choose to feed or not, cy or coo.
About the terrible twos, about the time the child learns to say no, free will sharply increases.
Then there's another sharp increase when the child heads into the rebellious teen years.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It is a mistake to think that when a person makes a choice, that the choice must automatically be a FREE choice. It could be a FORCED choice. We don't have the ability to sort those out when we observe others. It is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to sort that out just for ourselves.
What would FORCE a choice in a decision? The synapse set the person brings to the decision.
Babies are born with muscles and nerves just learning to function. The baby's skeletal muscles are very weak at birth.
I see adult free will to be LIKE a muscle.
A normal baby has all the parts needed for free will at birth, but no strength has yet been built up for making free choices. That takes time and effort. Many developing children never get this kind of "free will" exercise, and they become problem adults, unable to conform to function well with others.
Since the Sixties, our culture has encouraged less and less "free will" exercising for children and young adults, and it is falling apart for the distinction of pitifully weak wills. More and more people are being "blown about with every wind of doctrine" both spiritual and practical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Muscles and nerves have nothing to do with free will, the brain does, as it's were decisions are made. A babies brain thinks things like, "Am I hungary?" then I'll cry, "Am I happy?" then I'll coo.
Scientist will tell babies watch for the response of the mother so they can begin to persuade her, an act of free will.
Adult have had plenty of time to exorcise their free will. What do you think that toddler's no is? What do you think that teenager's rebellion is? Both are acts of them exerting free will.
What your seeing is the result of too much choice. Science has proven the more choice you have the unhappier you are.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hi! Respectfully, this may be a personal challenge you face, or perhaps you know others who are challenged in thie regard and Im not discounting that nor denying the potential validity. However, it's not particularly difficult to sort out elements that affect our decision making abilities that God gave. A forced choice makes free will no less free...it simply means the will of another was impossed and had to be followed...such as is life...
I make the decicion to get up and goto work...when Im at work I am doing my employer's will but that still happens by my consent. Obviously there are times when people are left with little choice and have to do what someone else requires...thats just life...but barring extreme circumstances its not that difficult to sort out a matter to the point of understanding which choice is best..bussinessmen do that sort of thing all the time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I respect what you feel and write here on decisions. This kind of talking about free will and decisions has gone on for over 20 centuries.
In this old mode of investigating free will we have at our disposal our own feelings, observations of others behavior, hearing words of them describing their decisions. They we weave a narrative that seems to make sense to ourselves, and hopefully to others also.
So the free will debate has proceeded this way (philosophically) for a long time, and it started thousands of years before the scientific method was perfected, which was only about 400 years ago.
The philosophical debate over free will has never been resolved; it rages forever, and never matured or progressed to the level of practical applications.
For 300 years science was not developed enough to deal with the complex issue of free will. Now it is beginning to deal with it.
In this scientific approach, decisions are made SOLELY on the basis of preparation. When a person is facing a decision they have no choise, and are forced into the decision by whatever synapse set they walked into the decision with.
An analogy of this would be an professional actor who is scheduled to perform in a practice run of the play WITH NO REHEARSALS.
When the curtain goes up, whatever lines he has well memorized beforehand are likely to be delivered well. The actor has prepared his synapse set to do this. He mas made these lines a HABIT. He can almost relax and perform them, as this habit is a synapse set that FORCES him to perform well.
But suppose his script had a missing page!
When that part in play comes up, his synapse set is unprepared, and the actor is FORCED by ignorance to flub those lines on the missing page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
An alleged atrophy of free will is NOT why people are so easily blown about by every wind of doctrine.
It is the inquisitive mind, not the will, that is atrophied. It's a lack of discernment, a lack of curiosity. It seems nobody wants to find out anything for themselves. Every one is so eager to be spoon fed.
No one has the patience or stillness of mind to simply look to see what is really going on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well, you realize this is like investigating if oxygen is to be breathed or not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.