On Mar 14, 2:52 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 3/14/2012 10:08 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 12:32 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/14/2012 7:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> On Mar 13, 11:15 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 3/13/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>>>> Abstract
> >>>>> The feeling of being in control of one s own actions is a
> >>>>> strong subjective experience. However, discoveries in psychology and
> >>>>> neuroscience challenge the validity of this experience and suggest
> >>>>> that free will is just an illusion. This raises a question: What would
> >>>>> happen if people started to disbelieve in free will? Previous research
> >>>>> has shown that low control beliefs affect performance and motivation.
> >>>>> Recently, it has been shown that undermining free-will beliefs
> >>>>> influences social behavior. In the study reported here, we
> >>>>> investigated whether undermining beliefs in free will affects brain
> >>>>> correlates of voluntary motor preparation. Our results showed that the
> >>>>> readiness potential was reduced in individuals induced to disbelieve
> >>>>> in free will. This effect was evident more than 1 s before
> >>>>> participants consciously decided to move, a finding that suggests that
> >>>>> the manipulation influenced intentional actions at preconscious
> >>>>> stages. Our findings indicate that abstract belief systems might have
> >>>>> a much more fundamental effect than previously thought.
> >>>>> Has anyone posted this yet? Hard to explain what brain correlates are
> >>>>> doing responding to an illusion...
> >>>> I think they just rediscovered hypnotism.
> >>>> Brent
> >>>> "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
> >>>> --- Schopenhauer
> >>> If someone is hypnotized to think that they are eating an apple when
> >>> they are really eating a raw onion, they have to be able to imagine
> >>> what it is like to eat an apple.
> >>> If someone is hypnotized to think that they have no free will, but
> >>> free will doesn't exist to begin with, why would there be any
> >>> difference to the brain?
> >> I someone says to you, "You are paralyzed. You can't lift your arm." and
> >> you hear these
> >> words and interpret them how would that happen without any changes in your
> >> brain?
> > Voluntary movement has to first exist in order for a suggestion of
> > paralysis to be meaningful. If all movement was involuntary in the
> > first place then there would be no significant difference between
> > passively watching yourself move and passively watching yourself not
> > move, so the suggestion of paralysis would not change the brain more
> > than any other non-sequitur suggestion.
> > If we had no free will, our belief about it should have no effect on
> > the actual ability to execute our wishes though our motor cortex.
> Compare: "If you had no immortal soul that would be judged after your death
> your belief
> about it should have no effect on your religious behavior." Beliefs can have
> whether they have real referents or not.
False equivalence. Belief itself is inseparable from free will. An
immortal soul doesn't supervene on being able to believe in something.
To have a valid comparison you would have to say something like 'If
you had no car then you couldn't drive your own car" - which would be
> > We
> > might be able to fool ourselves, but if our brain cares what we
> > believe in then our ability to execute our will can hardly be said to
> > be deterministic.
> A double non-sequitur.
Makes sense to me.
We might be able to fool ourselves...
if our brain cares what we believe (as is proved by this study)
our ability to execute our will can hardly be said to be
because our beliefs influence our ability to execute our will and
they are not deterministic if they can be intentionally manipulated by
whatever deterministic cascade of consequence supposedly controls our
every thought and action is superseded by someone's deliberate
intention to change it. If I can change someone else's belief then I
am determining their behavior, not their biology.
> > Hypnosis is further evidence that physiological
> > process of the brain can be directly influenced semantically, and by
> > extension belief, or self-hypnosis is evidence of the same.
> Wow! We've discovered that if we shout, "LOOK OUT!" people will duck. I'll
> be sure to
> publish this evidence of direct semantic influence.
It doesn't need to be published. Evidence of semantic influence is not
generally denied outside of the Everything List.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at