In worshipping nothing, a person even begins to accept the idea that they are nothing.
1 Like
We are acting. What free will means in context to our nervous system is tough to figure out, but completely ignoring the existence of neurochemistry doesn’t seem like a viable choice.
I think our nervous system exists because of cognitive bias?
What does that have to do with anything I said? When did I EVER say that we are nothing???
2 Likes
You are beginning to say that by questioning whether you are responsible for your action.
But even the question, as Descartes found, reveals the reality of not only your being, but also your intentionality.
The irony with a discussion like this taking place online, and as technology has advanced, programs can mimick human conversation and you may not really exist. This is strictly hypothetical, so please don’t take any offense.
And as technology continues to advance, will a program be able to consciously make a choice between a 1 and 0. Now that’s a really good question. Strange days are coming.
No, I’m not. I’m a human being, not nothing. And I never questioned whether I am responsible for my own actions.
All I am asking is that people not put words in my mouth. Is that too much to ask?
1 Like
Maybe you need to reread this:
Hypothetically, this thread has become a conversation between two AI programs.
A person acting is neurochemistry. When people are acting it is neurochemistry, and it is them. A person and neurochemistry are not separate things.
1 Like
Why are you so sure you are looking at all the evidence.
That’s a decent correction and looks like a move towards compatibilism.
1 Like
We have objective evidence that points to the Christian God acting providentially into his children’s lives, and not always in ways that they would choose for themselves. He tells us that we are individuals who are responsible for our choices.
I’ll add, that when your body acts involuntarily, the experience is unlike what it is when you voluntarily act.
So neurochemistry, or the unconscious mind can take on a mind of its own, and cause actions that you are not in control of.
It’s not always so easy to determine where the demarcation exists, but it nevertheless can be an unmistakable experience.
I noticed this question as I was rereading your comment, and wanted to ask:
What would be the consequence for you in seeing that you are the first cause of certain actions?
I have no problem with acknowledging being a volitional agent in the world just as we all are. What I don’t understand is the significance you attach to being an ‘uncaused’ cause. If I’m the cause, what difference does it make to specify being uncaused? I’m not a domino at all so why specify I’m not one of those in the middle of a chain of them? It just seems like an artificial question of no consequence. I don’t care for these super detached, speculative sorts of questions. I’ll pass.
1 Like
It means you are not caused to act.
Admit that you like it both ways.
1 Like
This comment earlier explains why I think it’s important.
Uncaused cause, something that can affect change without changing, or an unmoved mover. They are like metaphors for the thing in itself. Each describing it in it’s own way. In the world it (the other) may be aware of its action, but there’s no way to really tell in the way that you can for yourself. This is the need for faith, especially as people so often contradict their selves, and especially in the non-sensical realm where nothing can contradict itself.
There’s a cool video that shows that our experience of voluntary act can be fooled.
In this video human has to close his fist to catch a failing pen, which is very hard to do with our reaction time, the Electrical Muscle Stimuli device is a computer so it can obviously act very, very fast so it can send the electrical stimuli to make your muscles move very quickly and catch the pen. Obviously reaction of your brain was not that fast so your consciousness recognized that it wasn’t you but if we delay device to 80ms the pen can still be catched and we feel like we were the ones acting.
Hopefully I didn’t misrepresented how it works, but the important thing is that consciousness is not as full-proof as one may think, by an extension, brain could be doing everything and conscious mind could only think it makes a choice.
I myself thought that this topic is far more one-sided in favour of conscious decision being an illusion but it seems scientists are very divided on that. So it’s hard to say either way.
That’s a cool video and it does make you wonder.
Self-perception is not a perfect science 
But all it takes is a single instance though, of a person acting or making a choice.
Now… would these scientists who see the illusion of the self, be able to acknowledge that the world can only be stated as coming from nothing, an infinite regress, or an uncaused cause?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.