Current research is starting to look into that question:
2 Likes
So you are holding onto the possibility the neurochemistry is causing a person to act, and the person is mistaken into thinking they are the one acting.
I can only imagine what they find when they hook my brain up to that machine.
All it takes is a single instance of a person acting for this view of determinism to be false.
I’ve also noticed in choosing a random series of numbers, that the task starts to become boring and, as a kind of metaphor, the numbers start to choose themselves.
And as you say our brain’s process is our process. Our great advance is the ability not to act instantly and instinctively. It buys us time to weigh alternatives and language gives us a way to represent those to others. But what would it mean for us to be an uncaused cause? Would we really want to be unmoored from our experience and from any cultural milieux? I don’t think so and I don’t think you would either. Hey Mike, what about you?
3 Likes
There’s a load of meaning in our being contingent, and in our ability to determine our actions.
I’ll probably come back to expand on this comment.
1 Like
That is what happens when someone denies objective evidence. (What might St. Peter ask you at the gate, I wonder. ; - )
I am looking at all of the evidence that says this is exactly what happens. You seem to be rejecting this evidence out of hand.
Who is the one acting then, or are we impersonal automatons. (The latter plays nicely into an atheistic worldview, maybe some cognitive bias?)
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?