Post
The Neurobiology of Freedom
So, consciousness is accompanied by an experience of freedom, which phenomenologically speaking, does not seem illusory. But, what exactly does that mean about consciousness and our brain?
There are basically two options. One, the experience of freedom is simply not real, our brains, like every other physical object, operate deterministically. Like an elaborate computer program, the firings of various neurons (or whatever the exact mechanism is discovered to be) are causally sufficient for a decision to be made.
The second option is that consciousness does somehow allow for us to make and act upon free choices. How exactly could something like this occur without making the mind out to be a causal black hole somehow circumventing the laws of physics? (At this point, quantum mechanics is often brought up as a loophole of sorts, but introducing randomness isn’t quite the same as free will. See discussion in Phenomenology comments)
Let’s take an example of what we normally see as a “free” choice. In the famous case of the Judgment of Paris, there is a point right before Paris begins to consider his alternatives (Hera, Athena, or Aphrodite as the most beautiful goddess) where no decision has been made, and then a second point soon thereafter where he has made his decision and begins the motions of awarding the golden apple to Aphrodite. In the intervening period, Paris appears to make a free choice. He responds to the problem presented to him as a conscious being, considering the potential rewards and penalties as they affect him.
What is most important is that there is a necessity to this type of response. One simply must exercise this (potentially illusory) freedom. Paris, now a dejected determinist, cannot just sit back and wait for his fated choice to roll out of his mouth. No, whether genuine or random, he must at least make the mental motions that would produce one of the available three names.
Free will is then dependent on a conscious, self-aware being, and is a necessary component of even the simplest decisions. How exactly does this freely acting consciousness fit into our physical world then?
Now that’s a doozy and perhaps the single most fascinating question I can think of. My immediate inclination is to view consciousness as a higher-order aspect of traditional brain functions, neither entirely immaterial nor causally chained. Without being too nebulous, consciousness as a subjective phenomenon cannot be easily reduced to objective parts, and so it seems to somehow emerge from the activities of the brain. The relationship roughly corresponds to that between the molecules in a man-made object and the function of the artifact itself. For example, the table in front of me is composed of different molecules, and its solidity and brownness are reducible to properties of its molecules and their bonds, but its function as a table is not entirely contained by the particles buzzing around inside.
Similarly, consciousness seems to be rooted in but not entirely reducible to neural activity. Damage my brain, and my level of consciousness will appreciably suffer, but psychological abuse, for example, can be just as damaging and its effects aren’t always visible at the level of neurons and neural networks.
Is consciousness as a higher-level product of the brain’s activity therefore outside of the determined world? Not quite, but if we can establish, or at least allow for the possibility, that the state of my brain’s neurons at any point is not sufficient – causally speaking – to determine the state of my consciousness at the next point, then we have something like free will.
The big leap here is the “higher-level” part, and I’ll readily admit that it’s purely speculative. It’s difficult to describe without sounding as if consciousness spawns magically every instant, but there are no other cases where we have subjective, 1st person phenomena with objective, 3rd person ontologies. Like I said, it’s a doozy.
Archive
-
260.
The Ethics of Practicing Procedures on the Nearly Dead
The report from the field was not promising by any stretch, extensive trauma, and perhaps most importantly unknown “downtime” (referencing the period where the patient received no basic care like...
-
260.
The Ethics of Teaching Hospitals
I can’t imagine what the patient was thinking. Seeing my trembling hands approaching the lacerations on his face with a sharp needle. I tried to reassure him that I knew what I was doing, but the...
-
260.
Conscious Conversation: Behavioral Science
Dr. Eran Zaidel is a professor of Behavioral Neuroscience and faculty member at the Brain Research Institute at UCLA. His work focuses on hemispheric specialization and interhemispheric interaction...
-
260.
Progress Report
Two years down, I’m still going. The next two years are my clinical rotations, the actual hands-on training. It’s a scary prospect, responsibilities and such; but it’s equally exciting, after...
-
260.
Why Medical School Should Be Free
There’s a lot of really great doctors out there, but unfortunately, there’s also some bad ones. That’s a problem we don’t need to have, and I think it’s caused by some problems with the...
-
260.
The Cerebellum: a model for learning in the brain
I know, it’s been a while. Busy is no excuse though, as it is becoming clear that writing for erraticwisdom was an important part of exercising certain parts of my brain that I have neglected...
-
260.
Conscious Conversation: Philosophy
Daniel Black, author of Erectlocution, was kind enough to chat with me one day and we had a great discussion – have a listen.
-
260.
The Stuff in Between
I’m actually almost normal when not agonizing over robot production details, and quite a bit has happened since I last wrote an update. First, I’ve finally graduated. I had a bit of a...
Comments
I agree, that was indeed a doozy. It took me a while and a couple of re-read to wrap my head around it.
I think the higher level part you speak of exist only as a product of a function done by the brain, not a meta physic thing. Borrowing from one of Shelly Kagan’s analogy I am going to say Consciousness is to the brain as harmony is to an instrument. So what I am saying is that the brain does a function which results in consciousness. Destroy or damage the brain, and it will no longer be able to produce consciousness. So I think that it is sufficient to just have the brain’s neurons. Although you also need the neurons to function properly.
Although it is a quite interesting subject, I don’t see that much real world practically in it (other than to control the world with mind control laughs). Whether or not we actually have freedom or not doesn’t really matter. I think the question is similar to asking whether we live in a Matrix or not. Not to put down your writting at all. It was an interesting and eye opening read to say the least. Sorry if I mis understood anything.
Jonathan Solichin
Jul 28, 12:27 PM #
So, here is my deterministic view:
I believe free will is a concept that is functional and real in the sense that it exists by way of ignorance. I believe that most determinist’s are right in that we make decisions solely based on past events and that those past events are dictated via genetic predispositions. I do, and in that sense I AM a determinist, but I also hold that by disbelieving in freewill you may then, by using subconscious deterministic ‘calculus’, cease making decisions that impact your life because you added to your ‘calculations’ that you are not the one making those decisions and therefore have no need to do them. I disagree that determinism means one should lie down and has no control, I believe that freewill is a functioning concept that it is used to help us continue to thrive. When I say it exists ‘by way of ignorance’ what I mean is that WE do not know what the future holds, and even if it was calculable, as determinist’s hold, the reality of it would shift because we then hold new un-calculated information. So if WE don’t know what we are going to do next until we make that destined decision we essentially created that choice. Regardless of how destined we were to react in that manner, we were oblivious to it, we will always be oblivious to it. Freewill exists because we can’t ever prove otherwise. As far as we know we are on an awake conscious level we are in essence free-floating. You always add your own perspective to a situation once you are given information regardless of whether that information exists outside of you.
For instance, if you could see through another person’s eyes you would still be looking at it with your own perspective and would lose what was originally there. If you unravel your deterministic future you have destroyed the old one and created a new one, much like it is assumed that time travel would cause a separate reality to form. True determinism, if it exists, is destroyed by manner of it being discovered TO exist.
-Kat
Kat
Jul 28, 05:13 PM #
I believe free will is just that, free will. I cannot explain it nor can I even begin to justify my beliefs, however, I do not believe it is some sort of complex illusion.
I am, of course, totally ignoring the fact that we as humans living in a society, are not actually 100% free.
I make choices every day, often very spontaneous choices. Could these choices be made from a deterministic standpoint, of course they can. I just do not believe much in determinism.
The brain is a miraculous object, I really do not think that true free choice makes it a causal black hole though.
When a decision is being made, your brain takes the inputs and compares it to three things: Its knowledge of the past, its perception of the present, and its prediction of the future. Based on these inputs, a choice is made. This does sound like software, however, I do not believe it operates quite like that.
Our knowledge of the past is unique to each of us, and what makes it even more complex is that our memories of the past are fragmented and often inferred, same with our view of the future.
Many of our choices are made using our imaginations. We imagine much of what is in our past, due to the mechanism with which we remember. We imagine the future based on the past and the present.
I believe our imaginations are the root of our choices. We view what we expect the result of our choices to be, and choose the one that suits us best.
I wrote a little bit about this on my blog actually, I don’t normally link in comments but I feel the material is related.
Presentism
Bryan Chain
Jul 28, 09:23 PM #
Nice read, thanks for posting it, I have always thought of it this way, consciousness is ether — evoked (Called forth from a latent or potential state by stimulation) in the brain, in that case the brain is the totality of consciousness (a deterministic vew) or consciousness is — invoked (Summon into action or bring into existence) in which case the brain brings about consciousness from “out side” of the brain.
Richard Block
Jul 29, 12:19 AM #
Another way to look at this is that consciousness and free will are analog, not on-off. If you have a primitive brain, you have just a wee bit of consciousness and just a wee bit of free will. Humans have advanced enough brains that we can talk and think about these issues. The ability to experiment — try different ways of solving problems — is the root of free will. It’s a valuable feature to surviving and thriving.
Roger White
Jul 29, 10:58 AM #
I like your analogy a lot better, but the higher level part needs to be a metaphysical thing because otherwise the functions resulting in consciousness are causally determined. It’s a tough problem, either we adopt that consciousness is this completely new thing (and not determined), or it works the same way as everything else (and is).
Great point. I wonder though, if us gaining this previously uncalculated glimpse of the determined future would really shift things. Wouldn’t it, like everything be in the causal timeline, with us determined to discover it? If that’s the case, then even though we don’t have that kind of calculating power, if it is calculable, then we aren’t free and our decisions cannot be otherwise. I’m starting to question compatibalism more and more.
I think that’s a pretty accurate view, and it makes alot of sense from a evolutionary biology point…that sort of calculation/memory is critical for survival.
No problem, great article.
Why? Not to sound rude, but that’s a pretty interesting description and I’m just curious how you arrived at it.
I think that makes alot of sense (you may like this comment).
Thame
Jul 31, 06:48 AM #
I like Bryan’s idea of using the past, present and predicted future as the inputs towards making a choice.
Maybe the brain chooses its future state based on how close that comes to a predicted model – providing a possible feedback loop to allow learning to occur.
I’ve posted before suggesting that this could be a quantum effect where all states exist simultaneously until the collapse of the wave function of the brain (or parts of it). If the comparison with a future model is the trigger for that collapse it suggests where the minimum level of complexity for consciousness might be – the ability to model the future and compare against that model.
Does this addresses your objection to quantum mechanics as key part of consciousness and free will? Quantum indeterminism working not as a “random element” – but as a way for many possible futures to exist at the same time, to allow a choice to be made.
Alex Houseman
Aug 2, 12:52 AM #
This is a most interesting post. Perhaps I could offer you something to consider. Some time ago an article of Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel was published in The Lancet, in which he shared information acquired through interviewing people who have had NDE’s. Unlike Dennett he believes awareness isn’t a process entirely and exclusively occurring in the human brain. People who have officially been declared dead (having no measurable brain activity whatsoever) and who returned to life after having been resuscitated were capable of accurately describing events that have been taking place around what was supposed to be their corpse. They hovered above their own body and witnessed the actions of medical personnel, which indicates the process of awareness isn’t limited to the volume of the physical body. A person who has been brain dead for some time, should basically not be capable of observing, interpreting, processing and communicating the experience of the time in which they had been dead.
I enjoyed reading your considerations and pondering over them. Take care,
chris
chris
Aug 4, 01:45 AM #
a doozy? Maybe for someone who hasn’t taken an intro to philosophy course.
Nothing more than basic concepts of free will and determinism. Though, you do touch upon arguments that Douglas Hofstadter argues for in his book, “I Am a Strange Loop.”
tootles
James
Aug 10, 12:05 AM #
I wasn’t going to add a comment but apparently I have no choice.Hmmm.
John Kreidler
Aug 12, 02:07 PM #
Hi there,
There are a couple of wonderful discussions roughly about this at The Galilean Academy, specifically a discussion entitled Free will, rehashed, which includes references to relativistic concerns (which has touched off at least one separate discussion). Might be worth a look.
I’ll admit to not having fully read all the comments, but there seems to be this notion that if we can’t deduce the causal chain ourselves, then there must not be one. For instance, you, Thame, say, “[T]he higher level part needs to be a metaphysical thing,” which begs the question, “Higher than what?” My impression starts earlier, from this passage:
I am no neurobiology scholar, nor do I play one on TV; but all my recent amateur investigation tells me that psychological abuse is no different than conditioning or conscious learning or unattended (as in, subconscious) habit formation, in that they all change the physiology of the brain. I presume that’s is the prevailing theory of how we learn, here “learning” including not only scholastic learning but behaviors that result from abuse or injury or what have you.
Your claim here makes it sound as if there is some other source of our conscious agency, and it is in this odd, vague resource that we might find the nest of our free will. If, as I offer, there is no such distinct font of consciousness, and it is “merely” the result of neuron activity, then so, too, from your premises, must free will be their result. Emergence, remember, isn’t something beyond its substrate, but is contained by it. That is, no free energy.
@James
No one’s holding you back from making meatier references. These basic concepts are not settled definitively, let alone in introductory philosophy courses. If you know of more resolved literature, I think we’d all love to read it. Free will, however basic, is quite the doozy of a topic.
Daniel Black
Aug 12, 08:46 PM #
That does make sense, and I too rather like the idea that experiences of the past, present and predictions of the future are indeterminately responsible for our freedom.
That sounds very interesting, and it throws more than a few kinks into this model (Wikipedia entry for NDE’s)
Good points. The distinction I was trying to make between physical and psychological abuse was related to the pathway of their effects. Obviously blunt trauma directly impacts the brain and causes damage, but psychological abuse (or, more mildly, learning :D) “interacts” first with this conscious thing. I guess the end result is the same (stimulus causes brain damage)…
Also, I love how many times the word “doozy” appears on this page.
Thame
Aug 15, 04:34 PM #
This is how you know you’re doing it right. +)
Daniel Black
Aug 22, 07:05 AM #
This is off topic from consciousness and free will, but your article struck an idea.
You wrote that psychological abuse does not always show signs in neurological function. So consciousness is at least partially beyond the realm of our physical brain (or our brain is only a small part of our consciousness), and therefore a sound argument for a spirit or soul.
Hana Yohe
Sep 1, 10:55 PM #
Psychiatrists give and force their patients to take neuroleptics. Is this a medical act or deprivation of freedom? (or something else for those who don’t like either answer)
mark
Sep 15, 07:10 AM #
Thank you for your very interesting thoughts. Here is a glimpse of my views which relate to a few things you mentioned:
I think that, in every mental activity that we engage in, and this includes philosophical reasoning, it is important to consider ourselves as an entity that tries to discover itself. This may be problematic, as I will explain later on (four paragraphs after this line). But before I talk about the problem, I will discuss the concepts of systems and computers.
Let us think of the human organism as a system. What is a system? A system seems to be made of a particular design which relies on particular operations. (I will not discuss about what is the actual material basis of a system, because it is still an issue I am working on!) The particularity of the system’s design is probably only the consequence of the particularity of its fundamental operations – we are just considering the same thing at two different levels.
Now, I will (perhaps wrongly) make the assumption that all systems are conceptual computers. That is, they all have an input, an output, and some processing events in-between.
Following this assumption, we, as human beings, are a system and thus a computer. This means that we are provided with an input derived from the world that is exterior to our system, which we process internally to output something into the exterior world. Like in an electronic computer, our system’s inner workings are encapsulated, which means that the external world does not have direct access to our system’s internal mechanisms. The exterior world can only modify our system through very specific interactions, by virtue of passing through the system’s interface, which is directly exposed to the exterior world and selectively filters in the input. However, for self-sufficient regulation purposes, our system itself needs to have some limited access to its internal workings, and this role seems to be (at least partly) achieved by “consciousness”.
Consciousness is something (if it is anything) that accesses the internal content of our brain (like memories, thoughts, emotions, concepts, etc.). The human body’s design does not permit this type of access for an exterior agent. What people call “subjectivity” then refers to the encapsulated property of our system, that is, to the fact that our system’s inner content is “hidden” from exterior “eyes”.
So, getting back at the initial question, a philosopher wondering about its own organism can be thought of as a system trying to understand its own nature. Why can this potentially be a problem?
If we are a system, and so if our processing mechanisms rely only on specifically defined fundamental operations, then the possible output of this processing will also be specifically defined. Moreover, because of the specific nature of our interface, the possible input is also specifically defined. Therefore, the possible scope of discoveries that a philosopher can make is defined by the very nature of the philosopher’s own system. Depending on the nature of the system (the human body), this scope may be finite or infinite. If it is infinite, then it is possible that we eventually understand everything in the universe. If it is finite, then we will never be able to understand everything. I will call this scope of discoveries the “discovery window”.
We currently perceive consciousness as something mysterious and still quite nebulous. Why is consciousness so hard to explain? There are two possible answers:
1- consciousness is located within our “discovery window”, which means that it is possible for us to understand it, but we still haven’t reached this stage yet – we must be patient and it will eventually come
2- consciousness is located outside of our “discovery window”, in which case we will never be able to understand it, no matter how hard we try.
If the second answer is the right one, then the philosopher has a great problem! He or she will never be able to reach his goal of understanding consciousness. This does not mean, however, that consciousness is part of an otherworldly realm – it is a phenomenon that pertains to this world, but our body’s design is simply not sophisticated enough to enable us to understand it.
I think that it is also important to be aware of the psychological nature of our thinking, which includes philosophical thinking. In your post you say:
“[…] the table in front of me is composed of different molecules, […] but its function as a table is not entirely contained by the particles buzzing around inside.”
I do not agree with the last sentence. I think that each of the particles that constitute the table do entirely contain the elements necessary for giving the function of table to the physical table. I think that the concept of a “table function” is a psychological construct that our brain creates in order to summarize the total result of the complex interactions of the particles’ intrinsic properties into a singular label: “table function”. By definition, the label is equivalent to the things it describes: the “table function” equals, by definition, the sum of the interactions of the particles that constitutes the table. But biologically speaking, the term “table function” activates a larger network of concepts than the term “particle interactions”, because it is being integrated into our memory and is linked to more abstract concepts via some reprocessing that modifies its initial meaning. Our brain seems to want to modify our understanding of the label into a more abstract concept in order to increase its computing power. In the end, we have the feeling that “table function” is different in essence from “particle interaction”, but this is just the result of concrete processing that went on in our brains to modify the former into something more abstract and thus more interesting for further computation.
Further in the text, it is written that:
“Similarly, consciousness seems to be rooted in but not entirely reducible to neural activity. Damage my brain, and my level of consciousness will appreciably suffer, but psychological abuse, for example, can be just as damaging and its effects aren’t always visible at the level of neurons and neural networks.”
We hardly currently understand psychological mechanisms in the brain, but my current belief is that psychological abuse is a very concrete phenomenon that can be entirely reduced to neural activity. In this view, consciousness could be entirely reducible to neural activity. Again, I consider “consciousness” as a label in the same way as “table function”: people tend to think of it as a higher order phenomenon that differs in its nature from neuronal activity, but as I said previously, this may be just a psychological misleading effect.
I would like to note that all of the above is obviously pure speculation. I do not have any evidence for what I am arguing for; it is simply the result of my personal thinking and the expression of some of my hypotheses about the world.
Had I have more time, I would have refined my text into something more comprehensive – I am aware that I might have been quite unclear in some parts of my writing. I have done my best in the amount of time I have. I also apologize if this was perhaps too long a comment, but I could not resist discussing this article as it raises, in my view, critical issues in philosophy that humans have been pondering for millenniums. I am very eager to see what will be the contributions of science to these problems in my lifetime, and to see whether science (or philosophy) will be able or not to solve them.
Again, thank you so much for publishing such an interesting post! It makes me happy to see that other people are actually thinking about the same philosophical problems that bother me, and to get to know their perspectives on these problems.
If any of you readers have time, please let me know what you think, either through this website or by emailing me! I always love open discussions and constructive feedback.
Gen
Oct 5, 01:09 PM #
Part of what is good about philosophy is that it reaches beyond what we already know to attempt to formulate ideas. That is also what is often bad about it. The freewill-determinism problem is apparently intractible only because we apply a model of determinism that we perceive in time-space at a particular scale and attempt to extend it beyond the perception that created this model to an artificially absolute resolution. We use the perceptual sense of choice and expect it to extend somehow to the femto second and meter of interaction and lower. It would be more clear to say that choice is a description of mental processes based on the situational response of mental systems. Cause-and effect describes the world from the atom on up as described by classical physics. But the perenial arguments of determinism and freewill are different from choice and causation, and have the same Achilles heel. It is that we assume we must take them both as absolute. That’s not reasonable, and such thinking limits our ability to progress in understanding. It’s an old habit from religous language that was designed to end questioning in authority and justify eternal outcomes.
Erik Moore
Oct 5, 09:51 PM #
Hi Gen, thanks for your incredible comment, I hope I can respond adequately.
I think I agree. When I say that the “table function” is not contained by the constituent particles, I mean that the psychological construct is not contained to make the rough analogy of consciousness as an emergent function of neural activity.
The idea of a discovery window is very interesting, but I wonder if it actually restricts what we can learn about consciousness in general. What we’re trying to discover is where consciousness comes from, and we can do that by looking at other specimens aside from ourselves. Introspection on the nature of the subjective experience of consciousness could be restricted by our discovery window, but the nature of consciousness as a phenomenon does not seem to be, in principle, limited by us working as conscious beings.
See my response to Daniel earlier. Psychological abuse first interacts with “consciousness” then causes visible effects.
Thank you for writing such an interesting comment!
What do you mean by absolute? I agree that the dialectic is more harmful than helpful, but I’m not sure I understand your alternative.
Thame
Oct 24, 06:29 PM #
It is a simple illusion not a complex one. We don’t “go through the mental motions” we exercise our will through our brain’s causal, but complex, decision making program. We are not detached from the causal decisions making but watch it happen. We don’t pikc the outcome but we are SELF AWARE, which means we are aware of the decision making at higher (non autonomic) levels.
Free will is just supernatural mumbo jumbo and contrary to everything we know about the universe, science, and our bodies.
Slanderer
Nov 22, 10:31 PM #
Hey very nice css layout and color schema is amazing .. do you mind if i ask what font is use in your top header the big fonts that say “THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF FREEDOM“ thanks ..
Nick
Nov 26, 12:04 AM #
I had to read that a few times to really have a grasp of the concept. Indeed this is a doozy.
bq.. Hana Yohe: You wrote that psychological abuse does not always show signs in neurological function. So consciousness is at least partially beyond the realm of our physical brain (or our brain is only a small part of our consciousness), and therefore a sound argument for a spirit or soul.
I agree with Hana Yohe on this matter – the way you have everything written, and the way I interpret your words to mean, gives a lot of credit to the possibility of a “spirit” or “soul” that also helps our consciousness. If psychological abuse doesn’t always show signs in neurological functions, then what part does it effect?
Thomas Martin
Nov 28, 12:43 PM #
Thanks for bringing this up! Actually, the discovery window includes absolutely any kind of potential discovery that humans could make, regardless of whether these discoveries are attained via introspection or other methods. The way I see it, the discovery window would exist only if we apply to the human organism the model of a finite and clearly defined system, as described in my previous comment. So this is exactly my point: the discovery window may or may not include the possibility for humans to understand consciousness; if it does, then humans will stand the chance of understanding consciousness; if it does not, humans will never, in a way that is absolute, be able to do so. Hopefully this makes some sense and clears things up!
Well this all boils down to philosophical positions then, i.e. whether one believes that consciousness arises from neuronal activity, or that it is the other way around. Up until this point, I believe the former, but if you believe the latter, then I completely understand your reasoning.
Gen
Dec 8, 08:19 PM #
science is determinism and the work of determinism. Some sort of evolution is quite obvious within a lifetime. christian colleges are oxymorons.
Erik
Aug 1, 03:50 PM #
It seems this post is at least a year old, but it’s a thoughtful discussion, so maybe it’s worth chiming in…
By most measures, I’m a very intelligent person, but as an adult I was diagnosed with a general “executive function disorder” and prescribed stimulants (Adderall). Interestingly, I have found the medication gives me a much greater sense of free will. And I have spent a long time pondering why that is.
My conclusion is that our sense of free will arises from a two-step process: (1) clearly visualizing a possible future action and (2) subsequently seeing that action take place or fail to take place. Interestingly, the sense of free will does not depend upon which decision we actually make. (Therefore, whether the action arises from a deterministic or random process is likewise irrelevant.) Of course, the outcome is highly relevant for our sensation of efficacy (or “willpower”), but our sensation that we have free will will arise whether or not we carry out our premeditated course of action. However, we may note that not all actions give us an equal sense of free will. Which actions give us the strongest sense? The actions occurring in the scenarios that we most clearly and thoroughly visualized before they arose!
In other words, free will is all about the psychology of intention. It would be fair to say that your sense of free will tomorrow depends much more on what you think about today than what you do tomorrow. We may visualize things days in advance or minutes in advance, and all of that thinking can contribute to our sense of free will. But thoroughly visualizing an action moments before it is taken is difficult or impossible for most people in most situations. At any given moment, we generally behave instinctually, and can feel no sense of free will from such behavior unless the scenario was contemplated at a distinctly earlier point in time. I’m sure that all of this will resonate with your personal experiences and sensations if you think about it.
This also perfectly explains my experience with medication. Without medication, my mind is too shifty and uncontrollable to form solid pictures of possible actions I could take. For most of my life, I could only act (or fail to act) based on blurry, flickering impressions of future possibilities.
I can tell you from first-hand experience, life is not very fulfilling without a sense of free will, even when you succeed. After all, what does it even mean to succeed at something you didn’t mean to do?
A.B.
Sep 25, 12:35 AM #
Add a Comment
Phrase modifiers:
_emphasis_
*strong*
__italic__
**bold**
??citation??
-
deleted text-@code@Block modifiers:
bq. Blockquote
p. Paragraph
Links:
"linktext":http://example.com