Science of Self (Humans)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 14:17 (3902 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, March 18, 2014, 14:53

ROMANSH: Either way ... free will (the definition I use) is an incoherent proposition, even in David's hypothesis.
> 
> dhw: David has asked you for your definition, though you gave it to us last time we discussed this topic. (It would take too long for me to find it and to find my own.) I see nothing incoherent in the proposition that we have the ability to make conscious choices. You don't believe the self can control its own mental processes owing to the endless chain of cause and effect. David presumably believes that an immaterial consciousness may be capable of influencing the chain of cause and effect (as opposed to being coerced by it). Two different beliefs. You may disagree, but that does not make the proposition incoherent. Your move.-The fact of the interplay of our actions, under our self-control and decision-making, dictate to the brain how it must develop, is a feed-back mechanism which refutes Romansh's contentions. Not just contrary, but really not accepting the import of current findings.-This study is in support of my view that we interact with our brain and can change what is memorized there:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-suppressing-unwanted-memories-unconscious-behavior.html-"Dr Pierre Gagnepain, lead author at INSERM in France said: "Our memories can be slippery and hard to pin down. Out of hand and uncontrolled, their remembrance can haunt us and cause psychological troubles, as we see in PTSD. We were interested whether the brain can genuinely suppress memories in healthy participants, even at the most unconscious level, and how it might achieve this. The answer is that it can, though not all people were equally good at this. The better understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying this process arising from this study may help to better explain differences in how well people adapt to intrusive memories after a trauma.'"