Free-will: The brain's veto rights (ScienceNow)

Ahnimus · August 2007

As Voltaire implies... I'm destined to these actions. Some are destined to disagree with me, and others destined to become aware. I'm simply doing my part, as are you.

I don't mean to come across as blaming or hostile. I appreciate your awareness of determinism Dan. Others, I feel, need help. Perhaps they don't want help, and perhaps they will persecute me, as others before me. But, it won't keep me from my destiny.

OutOfBreath · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

As Voltaire implies... I'm destined to these actions. Some are destined to disagree with me, and others destined to become aware. I'm simply doing my part, as are you.

I don't mean to come across as blaming or hostile. I appreciate your awareness of determinism Dan. Others, I feel, need help. Perhaps they don't want help, and perhaps they will persecute me, as others before me. But, it won't keep me from my destiny.

Well, good luck with that. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.

But I must point out that that is most thoroughly a belief, and infact, bordering on religious ways of reasoning. You're just doing God's will, without the God, and will weather the persecution come what may... Destiny is a very biblical and spiritual word.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus · August 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, good luck with that. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.

But I must point out that that is most thoroughly a belief, and infact, bordering on religious ways of reasoning. You're just doing God's will, without the God, and will weather the persecution come what may... Destiny is a very biblical and spiritual word.

Peace
Dan

Spinoza's God maybe, but it's in conflict with Allah, or Yehweh.. Spinoza's God is nothing to worry about.

OutOfBreath · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Spinoza's God maybe, but it's in conflict with Allah, or Yehweh.. Spinoza's God is nothing to worry about.

Any kind of God or belief backed by a certain fervour is something to worry about. Which is why I am just as uncomfortable with militant/fundamentalist atheism, as I am with militant/fundamentalist anything. I'm not accusing you of being a militant, just pointing out that one can be militant about pretty much anything, particularly when one have enduring, powerful dogmas. Which is why I am no supporter of building atheist dogmatism to replace the religious one. I dunno why I go on about this, other than I thought I detected a sense of crusader/martyr mentality in your former post.

I dont know enough about Spinoza's god, but if that is the same as a creator, not intervening, then I am somewhat in line with that.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus · August 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Any kind of God or belief backed by a certain fervour is something to worry about. Which is why I am just as uncomfortable with militant/fundamentalist atheism, as I am with militant/fundamentalist anything. I'm not accusing you of being a militant, just pointing out that one can be militant about pretty much anything, particularly when one have enduring, powerful dogmas. Which is why I am no supporter of building atheist dogmatism to replace the religious one. I dunno why I go on about this, other than I thought I detected a sense of crusader/martyr mentality in your former post.

I dont know enough about Spinoza's god, but if that is the same as a creator, not intervening, then I am somewhat in line with that.

Peace
Dan

Spinoza's God might simply be synonymous with the laws of the universe. Spinoza's God does not concern it's self with human affairs.

OutOfBreath · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Spinoza's God might simply be synonymous with the laws of the universe. Spinoza's God does not concern it's self with human affairs.

That would be somewhat in line with my view. That is, when I actually posit a divinity, and don't go for the animist approach.

Peace
Dan

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I actually know you are wrong Angelica.

I also know for absolute fact that your interpretation of reality and this notion of free-will are wrong. Of course you will believe in mysticism if you study life through the texts of mystics and ignore the more credible sources of information. While we share many values, I regard your philosophy as ignorant. There are billions of naive individuals with philosophies similar to yours. They structure religious cults and base their beliefs on ancient texts. Your's is no different and hardly worth considering. Your philosophy is indistinguishable from Kabbalah, a 2,500 year old Jewish philosophy based on the text of the Torah. We can get back into the arguement of credulity and credibility, but I doubt you will come to terms. Your philosophy is a result solely of your misfortune and a coping mechanism for living life.

I am at peace with or without vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence. I am completely satisfied with accepting that things probably don't exist until scientifically proven. Especially when the claims have drastically harmful consequences that spoil life, such as Free-will. Is it pride, envy, greed or hatred that keeps you clung to the concept? Do you need to be the absolute cause of your own doing to maintain your sanity?

I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain. They are illusions, much like those in optics. If you need your philosophy to maintain your sanity, then don't get into the debate. A debate that revolves around mere speculation, as your theories are, is completely frivolous. We can go back and forth all day talking about personal experiences and speculating on things we are ignorant of, it will get us nowhere. When you come to this debate to represent your view, have some evidence, have an understanding of the concept being discussed.

The fact remains, Ahnimus, that millions of people worldwide have this view of free will. You not believing in it does not diminish it's validity, anymore than my doing so establishes it.

As for the brain science, I'm sure we both rememember brain-dude Dr. Andrew Newberg's work that tells us spiritual experiences are as real if not more real than any other experience, as uncovered by his brain science work (as he says in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433) I understand that you will not be so quick to quote this body of brain science discovery.

Allow me to refresh your memory further. You might recall that certain people seem to be quite disposed to spiritual experience, like one might be a whiz with math, all the while others might not have much inclination towards these experiences, at all--like Richard Dawkins, or maybe even yourself.

You might also recall the quote from one of your own sources, Dr. Ramachandran, where he says this in the "God on the Brain" video series:

"Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. It may be God's way of putting an antennae in your brain to make you more receptive to the, to God. Nothing us scientists are saying about the brain or about neuropsychiatry in any way negates the existence of God nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA)

When one meets the scientific method and standards, one is trained to be very responsible in what conclusions they come to. This is a standard that the average lay person seems to not quite hold themselves to. When one meets scientific standard, one cannot claim knowing what is unproveable or has not been proven, and still consider one's self as quoting science.

baraka · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.

ok, Ahnimus, now you've gained back some credibility, at least in my eyes. Do note that those of us engaging you in this thread have NOT, at any time, said that determinism is false. We just take issue with hard determinism, which is as much as a philosophical stance as free will. You know, there is a movement in the US that would like intelligent design taught as 'fact' in science class. Like the theory of hard determinism, it can not abide by the 'rules' of the scientific method, therefor is not science, but philosophy. I absolutely see where your intellectual endeavors have led you to hard determinism, and that is fine. Just don't 'dumb down' your argument by resorting to the same tactics of the religious conservatives.

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.

Let's clarify what 'randomness' is. Randomness is 'several alternatives' or 'one out of many' and no way to know which one. But this can be seen on different levels, and the main distinction is the difference between ontic and epistic randomness.

Mostly known/understood/used is epistic randomness. That means, there are several potential alternatives, because of lack of information on our side. Because we have incomplete information, we are not able to say which, of several alternatives, will happen, is happening, or has happened. This is well described using probabilities indicating our degree of ignorance. It is the Bayesian view on probabilities. So it is sufficient to increase our knowledge, to decrease randomness. So randomness is not a concept inherent in nature, but just inherent in an observer that doesn't possess complete information about the situation and hence cannot discriminate between different alternatives.

However, it is conceivable (though of course not provable) that there is some ontic randomness - it is what I called irreducible randomness. What does that mean? It means that nothing in nature determines the event to happen. That several alternatives are open to the laws of nature, and that there is nothing at all in the fundamental state of nature that can determine which, of the several alternatives, will actually happen.

It is of course irreducible randomness, because if 'nature itself' doesn't 'know' what will happen, then of course there's no hope for any observer to know.

We can have an intermediate case, where there are 'hidden variables'; there are hidden quantities in nature, which will determine what will happen, but for one or other reason, they are not available to observation. This means that there is some kind of irreducible epistic randomness, but it is not ontic randomness. Nature, 'knowing' of these hidden variables, can determine precisely what will happen, but we can't, no matter how we try.

A theory that does not contain any ontic, irreducible randomness is called a deterministic theory. The laws of nature determine exactly what will happen, if the current (or past) state of nature is known. In such a universe, since the big bang, everything that happens and will happen is determined, and there are no alternatives possible.

If a theory has ontic randomness, that means that the past doesn't completely determine the future: certain alternatives are possible and there's nothing in nature that tells us which one of the alternatives is going to happen. Not simply because there's something that we ignore, but simply because the laws of nature do not determine it.

There's no discussion that classical physics is deterministic. The discussion is with quantum theory of course, which seems to be irreducibly random. However, it depends on how you interpret it to say whether the randomness is truly ontic, or whether the randomness is epistic, or whether, after all, there is no randomness.

Ahnimus · August 2007

angelica wrote:

The fact remains, Ahnimus, that millions of people worldwide have this view of free will. You not believing in it does not diminish it's validity, anymore than my doing so establishes it.

As for the brain science, I'm sure we both rememember brain-dude Dr. Andrew Newberg's work that tells us spiritual experiences are as real if not more real than any other experience, as uncovered by his brain science work (as he says in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433) I understand that you will not be so quick to quote this body of brain science discovery.

Allow me to refresh your memory further. You might recall that certain people seem to be quite disposed to spiritual experience, like one might be a whiz with math, all the while others might not have much inclination towards these experiences, at all--like Richard Dawkins, or maybe even yourself.

You might also recall the quote from one of your own sources, Dr. Ramachandran, where he says this in the "God on the Brain" video series:

"Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. It may be God's way of putting an antennae in your brain to make you more receptive to the, to God. Nothing us scientists are saying about the brain or about neuropsychiatry in any way negates the existence of God nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA)

When one meets the scientific method and standards, one is trained to be very responsible in what conclusions they come to. This is a standard that the average lay person seems to not quite hold themselves to. When one meets scientific standard, one cannot claim knowing what is unproveable or has not been proven, and still consider one's self as quoting science.

One hundred million people believe they've been abducted by aliens.

I cite Andrew Newberg's research all the time. But to me it implies exactly the opposite of what Newberg thinks. My opinion seems to be what Ramachandran thinks it implies, but he's made a public statement to avoid becoming the next Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Steven Weinberg.

In the absence of unrpovable theories, like Gods and Free-Wills you have provable theories like Determinism.

Ahnimus · August 2007

baraka wrote:

ok, Ahnimus, now you've gained back some credibility, at least in my eyes. Do note that those of us engaging you in this thread have NOT, at any time, said that determinism is false. We just take issue with hard determinism, which is as much as a philosophical stance as free will. You know, there is a movement in the US that would like intelligent design taught as 'fact' in science class. Like the theory of hard determinism, it can not abide by the 'rules' of the scientific method, therefor is not science, but philosophy. I absolutely see where your intellectual endeavors have led you to hard determinism, and that is fine. Just don't 'dumb down' your argument by resorting to the same tactics of the religious conservatives.

Let's clarify what 'randomness' is. Randomness is 'several alternatives' or 'one out of many' and no way to know which one. But this can be seen on different levels, and the main distinction is the difference between ontic and epistic randomness.

Mostly known/understood/used is epistic randomness. That means, there are several potential alternatives, because of lack of information on our side. Because we have incomplete information, we are not able to say which, of several alternatives, will happen, is happening, or has happened. This is well described using probabilities indicating our degree of ignorance. It is the Bayesian view on probabilities. So it is sufficient to increase our knowledge, to decrease randomness. So randomness is not a concept inherent in nature, but just inherent in an observer that doesn't possess complete information about the situation and hence cannot discriminate between different alternatives.

However, it is conceivable (though of course not provable) that there is some ontic randomness - it is what I called irreducible randomness. What does that mean? It means that nothing in nature determines the event to happen. That several alternatives are open to the laws of nature, and that there is nothing at all in the fundamental state of nature that can determine which, of the several alternatives, will actually happen.

It is of course irreducible randomness, because if 'nature itself' doesn't 'know' what will happen, then of course there's no hope for any observer to know.

We can have an intermediate case, where there are 'hidden variables'; there are hidden quantities in nature, which will determine what will happen, but for one or other reason, they are not available to observation. This means that there is some kind of irreducible epistic randomness, but it is not ontic randomness. Nature, 'knowing' of these hidden variables, can determine precisely what will happen, but we can't, no matter how we try.

A theory that does not contain any ontic, irreducible randomness is called a deterministic theory. The laws of nature determine exactly what will happen, if the current (or past) state of nature is known. In such a universe, since the big bang, everything that happens and will happen is determined, and there are no alternatives possible.

If a theory has ontic randomness, that means that the past doesn't completely determine the future: certain alternatives are possible and there's nothing in nature that tells us which one of the alternatives is going to happen. Not simply because there's something that we ignore, but simply because the laws of nature do not determine it.

There's no discussion that classical physics is deterministic. The discussion is with quantum theory of course, which seems to be irreducibly random. However, it depends on how you interpret it to say whether the randomness is truly ontic, or whether the randomness is epistic, or whether, after all, there is no randomness.

That's all I'm saying Baraka. Quantum Theory is more true to the common definition of theory than is Evolution Theory. Quantum Theory, IMO, is speculation, it's a mathetmatical model that seems to work, but like Newtonian Physics, it may need to be revised as we learn more about it. As 't Hooft points out, there may be particles smaller than quantum particles that determines the behavior of the quantum particles and we won't know, because we can't see them.

Quantum Randomness is not a problem with the free-will debate anyway, as pointed out by Nobeal Laureate in Particle Physics Murray Gell-Mann and in Michael Shermer's article Quantum Quackery "If mvd is larger than h, then the system can be treated classically.". Neurons are not quantum computers, and although the chemists might need to know some Quantum theory to determine the behavior of neurotransmitters, they will probably behave the way they normally do. The whole concept of probabilities seems incompatible with ontic randomness. If it was truly random all outcomes would share an equal probability.

Ahnimus · August 2007

Actually, I'll point out that there are particles smaller than protons, electrons and neutrons. They are called Gluons and Quarks. That's the kind of stuff Fermilab is working on. We are a hella long way from a complete understanding of QM.

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

One hundred million people believe they've been abducted by aliens.

I cite Andrew Newberg's research all the time. But to me it implies exactly the opposite of what Newberg thinks. My opinion seems to be what Ramachandran thinks it implies, but he's made a public statement to avoid becoming the next Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Steven Weinberg.

In the absence of unrpovable theories, like Gods and Free-Wills you have provable theories like Determinism.

You said you are at peace without "vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence."

The problem is that you are as evangelical about your own beliefs and interpretations as anyone. You continue to try to prove that which is unproveable. The fact remains that you cannot prove your philosophies and beliefs any more than I or anyone else can prove our own.

You can go on all day about science, and yet you are interpreting far beyond known scientific fact for your particular beliefs and philosophies--which you essentially acknowledge here. Your interpretation or "beliefs" are no better than neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's or my own. You try to demonize and minimize other forms of intelligence, and frankly it doesn't work. It just proves your own personal bias.

You said:

I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain.

You actually say "none of them transcend the brain". It's the height of arrogance, imo, to claim something as unproveable as that.

You are smug with your assertions that such things have not been proven, and yet the limits of science cannot (at least yet) prove them. This doesn't prove your point--it proves your own and science's limitations at this time.

Ahnimus · August 2007

angelica wrote:

You said you are at peace without "vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence."

The problem is that you are as evangelical about your own beliefs and interpretations as anyone. You continue to try to prove that which is unproveable. The fact remains that you cannot prove your philosophies and beliefs any more than I or anyone else can prove our own.

You can go on all day about science, and yet you are interpreting far beyond known scientific fact for your particular beliefs and philosophies--which you essentially acknowledge here. Your interpretation or "beliefs" are no better than neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's or my own. You try to demonize and minimize other forms of intelligence, and frankly it doesn't work. It just proves your own personal bias.

You said:

You actually say "none of them transcend the brain". It's the height of arrogance, imo, to claim something as unproveable as that.

You are smug with your assertions that such things have not been proven, and yet the limits of science cannot (at least yet) prove them. This doesn't prove your point--it proves your own and science's limitations at this time.

The human brain is causal and the cranium blocks NA+/K+ and EM Fields from passing through. There is literally no basis for anything psychic or paranormal. All evidence suggests that the brain is autonomous and causal. That it is. You aren't just arguing with me on this point, you are arguing with neuroscience. But, it just shows your ignorance of the topic.

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The human brain is causal and the cranium blocks NA+/K+ and EM Fields from passing through. There is literally no basis for anything psychic or paranormal. All evidence suggests that the brain is autonomous and causal. That it is. You aren't just arguing with me on this point, you are arguing with neuroscience. But, it just shows your ignorance of the topic.

Nice try.....until we remember that science CAN'T prove what is beyond it's parameters.

Your "all evidence suggests" stuff is a bunch of malarky.

You say having mystical beliefs shows ignorance. I say trying to prove your beliefs and the unproveable with science shows ignorance.

Ahnimus · August 2007

angelica wrote:

Nice try.....until we remember that science CAN'T prove what is beyond it's parameters.

Your "all evidence suggests" stuff is a bunch of malarky.

You say having mystical beliefs shows ignorance. I say trying to prove your beliefs and the unproveable with science shows ignorance.

Yea, you can make all kinds of speculations.

"Don't breath, because by doing so you cause global warming."

I can think of a hundred million different possible claims that cannot be proven, or have some merit but are largely speculation.

You can't believe them all, many will be in conflict with each other.

"There is life after death"

"There is no life after death"

So... you need something to base your beliefs on. I know that you like to base your beliefs on personal desire and introspection. That's a very common method, that's how we got 3,000 different religions to begin with. But.. science uses a different method. It only bothers it's self with what can be tested. I use the scientific method for my beliefs. If I cannot prove or disprove something, I need not concern myself with it.

Consider the following claims:

"Some things are determinate"

"Some things are indeterminate"

The first statement can be proven. The second statement cannot be proven. A potentially fallacious syllogism would be:

Some things are determinate
Therefor all things are determinate

But this is not what I believe. It's more like this:

Most things are determinate
No things (so far) are indeterminate
Most likely all things are determinate

The probability of anything existing which is not determinate is very slim, since all things observable thus far have been determinate. It follows that all thinks are likely determinate, at least in any matter which concerns free-will, E.g. neurons, synapses, etc.. everything involved in human cognition has proven to be causal and determinate with no sustainable support for indeterminate elements.

To say that "We don't have free-will because all observable elements of cognition are causal and determinate." is far less of a fallacy as to say "We do have free-will, because I believe that elements exist which are indeterminate, regardless of what has been observed and the law of conservation mass-energy" The first statement might be incorrect, and it can be revised in the event that indeterminate elements of human cognition are identified. The latter statement is not open to revision, it's taken on faith that elements exist which can not be proven to not exist. Just as, you cannot prove that a teapot orbits saturn because it's too small to detect, and even if you raked saturn's rings a thousand times, it could still be claimed to be there beyond your detection.

The greater fallacy is in your assumptions. Not mine, my beliefs are very well structured on scientific principles and philosophical principles. Side-by-side, there is no comparison in these systems of belief. You want to reduce my methods to reflec the weaknesses of your own, but there is no comparison.

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

So... you need something to base your beliefs on. I know that you like to base your beliefs on personal desire and introspection. That's a very common method, that's how we got 3,000 different religions to begin with. But.. science uses a different method. It only bothers it's self with what can be tested. I use the scientific method for my beliefs. If I cannot prove or disprove something, I need not concern myself with it.

We both base our beliefs on numerous things, including science. In the end, they are still beliefs.

Taking liberties and stating you know things for a "fact", etc. to support your beliefs is illusory. It's your subjective opinion, based on facts. I don't take issue with the facts we use for basis, or that support our beliefs. Using facts for support is fair. Misconstruing that basis as being the same as the beliefs is a distortion that does not work. For example, here you say, "I use the scientific method for my beliefs". You cannot. It's impossible. Beliefs cannot be proven. The scientific method only concerns itself with what can be proven. You've reached far beyond that, despite your denial, and it's woven in your every sentence.

The probability of anything existing which is not determinate is very slim, since all things observable thus far have been determinate. It follows that all thinks are likely determinate, at least in any matter which concerns free-will, E.g. neurons, synapses, etc.. everything involved in human cognition has proven to be causal and determinate with no sustainable support for indeterminate elements.

The problem arises when one displays a pygmalion complex. This means one believes that if others just looked at the world in the same way--through the same filters--everyone would get the "truth". It's a psychological problem to view things this way. It shows lack of insight and objectivity.

The concept of the psyche itself, as the basis of psychology can't be located it in the brain. The ego doesn't exist because we can't quantify or test it, fully. Same with the unconscious--it doesn't reside in a "place". We use all kinds of intelligences to widely agree upon, and understand such concepts as real. Even though they are invisible. You are not a very metaphorical person, and your personality type does not process human based systems well. That is about you. It's not about whether such systems exist or not. That includes more mystical/religious and spiritual topics. Because you are not disposed to this understanding or perception is, again, about you, and not about the Truth. Others perceive metaphors, and symbols and their power, and their existence, and their value/meaning in the lives of individuals. Others "see" and "get" the fact that such symbols are representative of natural life forces. Because it cannot be carved up in your world and quantified is irrelevent to me. It is irrelevent to the Truth. And it's irrelevent to many, many millions.

It's great for you to see and believe what you see and believe. Unfortunately, your problem is that you need to tear down what others see and believe, because you don't comprehend it due to your own blind spots. And frankly, it is impossible to tear down the truth of others, no matter what "back-up" you use. People will continue to see what their filters show them, as it should be.

Ahnimus · August 2007

Angelica

You base your beliefs on personal desire. You cleave to certain scientific findings that agree with your beliefs and you disregard the rest. You like Newberg's research, but you never mention Ramachandran's findings, Ben Libet, Michael Persinger, or anyone else. You simply cleave to two things Niels Bohr's description of QM and Newberg's TPO findings. You don't even understand 90% of what they are talking about.

So don't give me that shit.

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica

You base your beliefs on personal desire. You cleave to certain scientific findings that agree with your beliefs and you disregard the rest. You like Newberg's research, but you never mention Ramachandran's findings, Ben Libet, Michael Persinger, or anyone else. You simply cleave to two things Niels Bohr's description of QM and Newberg's TPO findings. You don't even understand 90% of what they are talking about.

So don't give me that shit.

Only when one is aware of the subjectivity of their view, can they appreciate what objectivity is.

Bottom line: you're as entranced by your own ego as anyone. Hence all beliefs being equal.

Ahnimus · August 2007

Our belief systems are not equal, to even call my system a belief system reduces it to the absurd description of your beliefs.

They are not comparable. If you can't see the logic that has been laid out before you. The same logic that has lead science to the top of understanding. A method that has given us magnificent things that dreams can only dream about.

Your helpless. I can't help you any more than I have already.

angelica · August 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Our belief systems are not equal, to even call my system a belief system reduces it to the absurd description of your beliefs.

They are not comparable. If you can't see the logic that has been laid out before you. The same logic that has lead science to the top of understanding. A method that has given us magnificent things that dreams can only dream about.

Your helpless. I can't help you any more than I have already.

Suit yourself.

The interesting irony for me is that you are, on some level, aware that our programming causes us to look at the world through distorted lenses. Just like a Christian is aware that they are a sinner on some level. And yet you continue to give your ego--the flaws and distortions accumulated in your lifetime--full arrogant reign. Like the "PJ board stereotyped Christian". On one level understanding one's flaws, and on another level barrelling forward and denying them while unconsciously learning the hard way--by acting them out.

I rest assured you will awaken from that paradox in practice, someday, (beyond mere theory) given your intuition, which interestingly, is like mine--predisposed to be insightful in the invisible inner worlds.

Until such an awakening, you will continue to rail against that which you act out yourself. It's par for the course.

Free-will: The brain's veto rights (ScienceNow)

Comments

Categories