This whole discussion seems to come down to semantics. No, we don't choose our brain, no, we don't have "control" over the actual processes in the brain. We do, however, have a machine up and running that, under circumstances where there is no immediate threat (ie, it doesn't fully operate on the primal parts of the brain/the Basal ganglia, limbic system etc), has the capacity to make decisions based on good/bad, wise/stupid, this is a process of deliberation, anticipation, and not beyond our control.
Neuroplasticity shows that we can work to change the machine, this initiation of "work on the machine" is a conscious effort of becoming a "better human being".
Sure, quite a few people freak out when sam harris mentions there being no free will, but it seems like his whole perception of it seems to be "your brain is an evolutionary machine, therefor you have no fee will, although it can make choices and i can separate good from bad, all that is conditioned and evolutionary behavior that will always end up the same way"...
While this
might be true in some sort of abstract physical essence, it takes away, and completely undermines, the
human experience, and I think it's bordering on arrogant and irresponsible to make those claims...
We, as people are completely capable of making decisions. Every moment we decide to make a movement out of "free will", can be considered a decision. I can decide to move my hand right now, or move my hand in 20 seconds and i'm going to do none of those because my free will gave me the option not to and i'm tired. Me saying that doesn't change the fact that I'm here capable of moving my hand
out of free will, a perfectly rationalizable concept that can exist within that machine that spawned from a deterministic universe.
I might not have control over my range of thoughts, but I do have control over which ones I choose to be valuable and which ones I don't.
Close to 90% of people experience intrusive thoughts.. saying there is no free will is like saying they'd actually act on those, but no one ever does. There is a big difference between a psychopath and someone with intrusive thoughts. The person that experiences these intrusive thoughts normally doesn't value them as relevant, or he freaks out over them, something that can over time develop into a form of OCD. But no matter how intrusive these thoughts become, there have been no (properly diagnosed, which is very easy to do) people that actually acted out on their thoughts.
How do we make these thoughts become less intrusive again in the case of this form of OCD? We teach them to accept them, not pay attention to them and treat them as just what they are, manifestations of a complex mind, something that everyone experiences, but that they became overly obsessed with out of fear of becoming a bad person. (note that these people are considered to be extremely moral beings, hence their fear of otherwise normal thoughts). This therapeutic model only works when people actively engage in it, out of free will. When properly attended, this form of therapy is very effective.
There is a reason why 90% of psychologists are compatibalitits and only 40% of neurologists (can't find references but someone posted that here). Psychs understand the "mind" much better on a conceptional level, neurologists only understand it on a (very limited) mechanical level.
Anyway, have fun with your semantics breakdowns and endless discussions about a different concept. I'll be here, enjoying me free mind.
Last edited by (.)(.)(.)(.)(.)(.); 09-17-2014 at 06:19 AM.