The research mattered to me, because they were seeing that there's a difference between consciousness and awareness -- BIOCHEMICALLY SPEAKING. This to me is major. To pursue this line of exploration could yield some clear proofs that awareness is ooga-booga that none-the-less 100% controls ALL processes anywhere WITHOUT ANY INSTRUMENTALITY. Pure magic.
"Trivial" decisions are use for experimenting, because they can be controlled for variables. The "hard thinking" you're putting on the table differs by degree not kind. Of the thousands of thoughts one might have before asking someone to marry one, all were, presumably, based upon the same mechanisms. Free will can't be said to be "present" if consciousness is absent. For instance, a person in a coma might thrash around and break a vase next to the bed -- by your reckoning, that was a mindful act.....and same deal for tons of other examples which folks will disavow as "my purposeful act." And what of all the autonomic processes? Are they too our actions? Clearly the word "mine" becomes the issue. Identity with processes, no matter how subtle, is the primal error. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Interesting (really!). Re the original experiment that showed a "readiness potential" occurs in the human brain just before ‘spontaneous’ actions. In fact, this brain event happens even before we are aware of deciding to act.: Well yes, but as many critics have pointed out the kinds of decisions that were being monitored were pretty trivial (eg, choosing whether or not to flex a finger). It didn't involve the kind of hard thinking you'd have to do if you were deciding whether to get married or make a career change. On a more philosophical point: suppose it is true that your brain decides things and you only become aware of what "you've" already decided to do a second or so later? It is still *you* - your deeper self/your unconscious - that made that decision. So what if your conscious self only learns what choice you freely decided upon slightly later? The original research is intriguing but not as world shattering as the scientists involved are claiming. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/12/rats-free-will/#.VGVxi_nF-Sp http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/12/rats-free-will/#.VGVxi_nF-Sp