Nothing. But throwing in terms like “neural pathways” or “flight-or-fight mechanisms” makes you sound a little like Deepak Chopra. That’s what I call “sneaky.” It’s difficult to debate people like you (or the creationists, or Chopra) who jump hither and thither between scientific terminology and theology/philosophy/spirituality/etc.
OK. That’s fine. I felt that I was in an area where I am not at home, and therefore I used the speculation-mode tags. However, I am convinced of the high-level description: both actions that are free and those that are coerced are determined. But they are determined in a different way, and I am convinced that free and coerced actions in the nearby future can be recognized with neurological means, in the same way that we can now measure what happens in the brain during different mental activities.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “different way.” Most emotional reactions (“coerced actions”), such as the fight-or-flight response, take place in the amygdala. Other more complex thought processes (“free actions”) involve other areas of the brain (and the rest of the body), but in the end the difference between the “coerced action” and the “free action” is more like the difference between a duet and a symphony than between noise and music. Every “free action” is based on an initial emotional reaction, where additional computing is added.
Free Will need not be a historic event——asteroids to meteors——
“free” of bias “will” the effects of Biology (philosophy and physiology) be discussed—-
Both are concerned with time—the past, future and the present—-
Is fear and survival challenged now, from understandings of evolution,
as effects of eternal infinite objects; like—-unknown for known and
interactions of philosophy, physiology and physical sciences?
:with help from the Oxford Dictionary of Current English
I guess it depends on what you mean by “different way.”
I think I was quite explicit about it: coerced actions involve fear for consequences. My speculation is that this is neurologically measurable, which would mean that in the future it might be possible to measure the difference between free and coerced actions. Where both definitely do not differ is that both are determined.
Arnold, you are the Jackson Pollock of philosophy. Throw in some words and see what we get. Although, that analogy would be more accurate if you were actually trying to accomplish anything here. Maybe your posts are more like mistakenly kicking a bucket of paint. Are you okay?
I am not a philosopher, but, I have been trying to use this forum “to objectify our current means of existence”;
In this way all science can be better understood as a value for our means of existence;
What is life without values?
I propose use need minimum of three different pots of paint—-one plus one equals a result,
and so it is with Faith and Reason equal Being—-
Well, that’s clear, don’t you think, George?
Especially in relation with the original question of Morgantj about Ryle’s homunculus and the problem of free will. I could not have said it clearer than arnoldg does.
Arnold, what I am trying to say is that your posts make zero sense. Ask simple questions and use simple words. Why, for example, do you capitalize the word “Being”? What is the meaning of this? (Not that setting it in lower case would make any more sense.)
Try again. Reword your question and make it as simple as possible. Stay away from trying to sound (what you think is) philosophical or deep, and forget about metaphors or sounding poetic. That is, if you want to engage other people here in a conversation with you.
