3 ms·

> Scientific studies have shown that decisions are registered in the brain’s motor cortex milliseconds before a person decides to move, suggesting that in the b

> Scientific studies have shown that decisions are registered in the brain’s motor cortex milliseconds before a person decides to move, suggesting that in the brief moments before you become aware of what you will do next, your brain has already decided your next step. I always find the conclusion to this being that it shows we don't have free will to be missing a key point; it only means that if we are expecting our 'consciousness' to exist outside of our physical reality. Our consciousness and our free will and everything that is us IS our brain and body and biochemistry. Of COURSE our brain waves show up before we are aware of them, because our brain waves ARE our awareness. It is not coming before our awareness, it IS our awareness. I feel like the conclusion people make is along the lines of, "Hah! See, you aren't in control of your actions, your brain is!" That is us! Yes, our decisions are influenced by the physical world because we are part of the physical world. This is the same as the example of Charles Whitman. Yes, his actions were at least partially caused by his brain tumor, because his brain tumor was part of him. It changed who he was, but that is still him. Your brain is a physical thing, that doesn't make it not you.

mgh2 4y ago
It is not only in science that free will can be disproven but in many other areas as well, there is ample evidence. Read the links provided in the quote: "Yet copious studies from science, economics, mathematics, and theology seem to point by consilience, to the impossibility of free will." https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale... Maybe it is a trick our minds plays to make us survive, and we know the brain has many: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitive_bias_codex_en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitiv...
- hnfong 4y ago
  The coupling of "responsibility" and "free will" has always been a questionable feature of the modern justice system, I personally don't have any issue with that part in your linked article. However, on "free will" itself, the GP's point (which I agree with) is that the logic that "you don't have free will because XXX determines your choices" is flawed in the sense that, if XXX is actually you (or at least a part of you), then there's no conflict. The fallacy or problem is that it is very hard to define who oneself is, and as such we have culturally been indoctrinated to believe that we aren't our brains, we aren't the society that influences us, but some sort of abstract thing that totally lies beyond the reach of the physical world. (And many people believe this assumption even though they logically know that's not true.) In a sense the reason for this flawed assumption might come back to the concept of "responsibility". When society wants to blame and punish some poor soul for making their own "free choices", it's convenient to invent this abstract, ill-defined but "free" personality so that the rest of society can distance itself away to disclaim any associated responsibility. Because, if we don't apply this mental trick, upon closer inspection, a lot of "moral wrongs" committed by "bad people" would turn out to be the result of influences of their environment. We want to pretend bad people are inherently bad, so nobody else gets a share of the blame.

mgh2 4y ago

It is not only in science that free will can be disproven but in many other areas as well, there is ample evidence. Read the links provided in the quote: "Yet copious studies from science, economics, mathematics, and theology seem to point by consilience, to the impossibility of free will." https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale-4fecf8095812 https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale... Maybe it is a trick our minds plays to make us survive, and we know the brain has many: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitive_bias_codex_en.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitiv...

hnfong 4y ago
The coupling of "responsibility" and "free will" has always been a questionable feature of the modern justice system, I personally don't have any issue with that part in your linked article. However, on "free will" itself, the GP's point (which I agree with) is that the logic that "you don't have free will because XXX determines your choices" is flawed in the sense that, if XXX is actually you (or at least a part of you), then there's no conflict. The fallacy or problem is that it is very hard to define who oneself is, and as such we have culturally been indoctrinated to believe that we aren't our brains, we aren't the society that influences us, but some sort of abstract thing that totally lies beyond the reach of the physical world. (And many people believe this assumption even though they logically know that's not true.) In a sense the reason for this flawed assumption might come back to the concept of "responsibility". When society wants to blame and punish some poor soul for making their own "free choices", it's convenient to invent this abstract, ill-defined but "free" personality so that the rest of society can distance itself away to disclaim any associated responsibility. Because, if we don't apply this mental trick, upon closer inspection, a lot of "moral wrongs" committed by "bad people" would turn out to be the result of influences of their environment. We want to pretend bad people are inherently bad, so nobody else gets a share of the blame.