Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity
ScienceDaily.com
A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. (Thanks to Scott.)
So what does this mean for passages such as Matthew 5:21?
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
In light of this research, that seems extreme. How is one accountable for "Flash" Anger? How does one prevent "Flash" Anger? If a large percentage of your action or decision is prepared in the "background" how much of that are we in control of? I'll stipulate that we have the final choice, but how we feel about it is quite another thing. The brain is like a modular unit. Its made up of modular circuitry that have processes that run in background of which we are not aware. Any poor performance in any one of those circuits could cause us to do something or feel someway we wouldn't normally. For example lack of sleep and the resultant crabbiness that accompanies it. It seems extreme to put our fates in the hands of a three pound meatball that is so easily influenced to operate outside of "specifications"
Excerpts from the article.
A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. (Thanks to Scott.)
So what does this mean for passages such as Matthew 5:21?
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
In light of this research, that seems extreme. How is one accountable for "Flash" Anger? How does one prevent "Flash" Anger? If a large percentage of your action or decision is prepared in the "background" how much of that are we in control of? I'll stipulate that we have the final choice, but how we feel about it is quite another thing. The brain is like a modular unit. Its made up of modular circuitry that have processes that run in background of which we are not aware. Any poor performance in any one of those circuits could cause us to do something or feel someway we wouldn't normally. For example lack of sleep and the resultant crabbiness that accompanies it. It seems extreme to put our fates in the hands of a three pound meatball that is so easily influenced to operate outside of "specifications"
Excerpts from the article.
This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose. The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.
More than 20 years ago the American brain scientist Benjamin Libet found a brain signal, the so-called "readiness-potential" that occurred a fraction of a second before a conscious decision. Libet’s experiments were highly controversial and sparked a huge debate. Many scientists argued that if our decisions are prepared unconsciously by the brain, then our feeling of "free will" must be an illusion. In this view, it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person’s conscious mind. Libet’s experiments were particularly controversial because he found only a brief time delay between brain activity and the conscious decision.
In contrast, Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts -- even up to 7 seconds ahead of time -- how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."
26 comments:
I don't see where that is unsual. We hold all sorts of beliefs in our brains all the time without conscious thought. Example: For years you (readers) have held the believe that dogs are animals, but that thought is NOW in your brain because I've just raised the subject. The "belief" has been there all along.
What does this say about those that voice the belief that they would kill to protect their family's? Are they walking around "premeditaiting" murder by holding this belief?
Hi Lee,
Maybe the key lies in the phrase "in danger of". Doesn't necessarily mean that you are headed for fire and hell for every instance of anger but rather you are subjected to judgment for anger. Also don't we have to add in the repentance factor here?
The research also said that they weren't sure whether the decision made in by those areas of the brain would be able to be changed once made.
I wish I could remember the URL, but the other day I read where someone was using this to make the case for libertarian free will. In effect, the soul only informs the consciousness of its decision after it informs other parts of the brain. I'm afraid my own understanding of these things isn't sophisticated to answer that.
Hi Rich,
Its still excessive if it is a biological reaction that comes on unexpectedly and we are to be held accountable for it. It seems to be the christian view to overlook the negative influence on our free will while decrying any positive influence as apt to make us into robots.
Its logically inconsistent.
Hi mikespeir,
Thats not the soul doing that it is the little homonculus that drives us around like we are transformers.
;-)
The Kinks mentioned it in one of thier song "Destroyer"
"Girl, I want you here with me
But Im really not as cool as Id like to be
cause theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little yellow man in my head"
Hi Lee,
How is one accountable for "Flash" Anger? How does one prevent "Flash" Anger?
First, where does the verse say anything about "flash" anger? The verse says nothing about a momentary burst of anger or whatever. The point is that you should not be in a state of anger toward "your brother" (i.e. other Christians), like holding a grudge or staying angry. Also, Jesus is explaining that obeying "the Law" was more than just adherence to the letter, but included adherence to the spirit of the law. So if you were really mad at your "brother", and really just wanted to kill him, but never actually committed the act, the Pharisees taught that all was well, no problems. Jesus is taking things up a notch by explaining God's intention with such a law was more than just the act, it includes attitudes too. This is far different from your "flash" anger.
I'll stipulate that we have the final choice, but how we feel about it is quite another thing.
Well, good, glad you stipulate that at least. But you're saying that we can choose our actions but not our feelings? Do you have kids? Because if so, I'll bet you've told them at least once that "attitude is a choice" or something along those lines. Even as adults, we can choose to let ourselves be extremely irritated by the slow cashier, or we can choose to smile and let it go.
It seems extreme to put our fates in the hands of a three pound meatball that is so easily influenced to operate outside of "specifications"
That's why we discipline ourselves, in order to do a better job making right choices. And of course, there's the whole repentance/forgiveness factor that changes things. But Jesus says that if you are angry with your brother, then you'll be subject to judgment. No problem there anyway, we'll all be judged for our works, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be automatically transported to hell the moment you become angry. Same thing goes for the last part, note that you'll be "in danger" of hell, not automatically there. It's a warning that this is the kind of thing that leads to greater consequences. It's like saying, "don't start even one criminal behavior, or you'll be in danger of lengthy incarceration".
The exercepts from the article pretty much shot down your whole point, so thanks for them. :-)
Let's see:
The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.
Libet’s experiments were highly controversial and sparked a huge debate.
And the study authors say,
"Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."
Besides what I said in the other thread where Scott initially brought up this study, what causes the subconscious to "prepare" for these decisions? This study looked at adults, who by this time in life have made millions of decisions that have shaped their subconscious. I think it's likely that our choices affect our choices which affect our choices. Each choice we make becomes part of who we are, which affects how we will make the next choice.
Also, in the link Scott gave originally, the authors noted that pressing a button was an extremely simple decision, and so their study might not apply equally to more complex decisions.
Hi Lee,
Its still excessive if it is a biological reaction that comes on unexpectedly and we are to be held accountable for it.
I agree if that is in fact what happens. But I think they left room for there being a possibility to change the decision once it's made. I also wonder if we are able to precondition ourselves to change how we react to certain things that we know would make us angry for example. I remember the football playing days and that I would go over things in my head all week long that could happen during a game. I would invision myself reacting a certain way. So I wonder if that help those decisions that came up in the coarse of the game. Since unconsciously we apparently make decisions prior to us being aware of them, can we basically make a decision about something before ever being faced with it so that when we are faced with that scenario the decision has already been made? If not I sure wasted alot of daydreaming time in High school that I could have been checking out girls or something!
I just don't see how judgment can possibly be so cut and dried as "I'm sorry you got angry with your brother it's time for the swim trunks cause you're taking a dip in the brimstone lake." I think that this is logically inconsistent because we don't have the whole picture and make assumptions based on partial information. Even if you become angry and are headed for judgment, why can't you get part of that mercy through repentance?
Oh I almost forgot my homonculus (or is that homunculus?) is in the shop so for now I'm being driven around by a rented soul;)
But we do not know yet where the final decision is made.
There could be different areas or processes in our brain that deal with decisions of different priorities and importance. Lack of information does not point to a human soul. It just means we have yet to identify the precise a biological process.
Also, in the link Scott gave originally, the authors noted that pressing a button was an extremely simple decision, and so their study might not apply equally to more complex decisions.
Part of the challenge of interpreting brain states is the fact that our minds can hold significantly different representations about a particular idea, thought or object.
For example, a non-musician's model of a piano would be quite different than a concert pianist. The same could be said for someone who builds pianos or tunes them.
For some, a piano is a thing that other people play. It's meaning may be defined by their indirect relationship to another person whom they know who plays the piano. For a concert pianist, a piano has much wider depth and brings with it the idea of notes that can be played to create a song, tactual physical sensations and the particular feelings they associate with playing. As such, the patterns displayed in these individual's brains would look significantly different, even though we were thinking about the same object.
Another, more obvious example, would be the idea of God. Surely, you can see how you and I would have different mental constructs we associate with God. If a computer were to look at the patterns in our brains when thinking about God, they would look rather different.
Until we learn how to compensate for these differences, we'll be limited to identifying simpler decisions, ideas and processes. However, this does not mean this concept does scale to more complex decisions. It's likely we simply haven't fingered out how to identify them yet.
Even as adults, we can choose to let ourselves be extremely irritated by the slow cashier, or we can choose to smile and let it go.
But is this option obvious to everyone? I think not. Without some kind of education, this 'ability' might not be apparent to someone. Even then, an intellectual knowledge might not be enough to overcome every situation. Those who are not aware of these options see themselves will a limited number of choices. Just as computers who are not programmed with a escape function could get stuck in a infinite loop.
I think it's likely that our choices affect our choices which affect our choices. Each choice we make becomes part of who we are, which affects how we will make the next choice.
Simply put, if the whole of our experiences are written into the and electro-chemical state of our brain, then there must be a process that causes our experiences be interpreted and transcribed. This process is based on our genetic makeup and disposition.
If God designed human beings, then he explicitly designed the biological and genetic process in which our experiences are converted into our mental picture of the world. If God created the universe, then he is ultimately responsible what we experience by his act of omnipotent creation.
By his very definition of being omniscient *and* omnipotent, God cannot escape his role as the causal agent of everything in the universe.
Rachel,
You wrote, "Do you have kids? Because if so, I'll bet you've told them at least once that "attitude is a choice" or something along those lines."
Speaking for myself, I have never said that to my children, in fact, I have tried to encourage the opposite.
I ask them what they think about the following statement, "Well, my actions may have been entirely inappropriate, but I have a great attitude."
I try to curb the inappropriate actions. And I do that through praise and blame of actions. I don't expect immediate results, instead it is slow process of trying to get them react differently when their behavior is inappropriate or react the same when they acted appropriately.
I want them to be sucessful in life. And the evidence shows that is truly about actions and not about attitude.
So, I really don't care if they're annoyed or smiling at the long check-out line, what I care about is how they react to being annoyed or happy.
Rachel, you wrote,
“The point is that you should not be in a state of anger toward "your brother" (i.e. other Christians)”
and
“So if you were really mad at your "brother", and really just wanted to kill him, but never actually committed the act, the Pharisees taught that all was well, no problems. Jesus is taking things up a notch by explaining God's intention with such a law was more than just the act, it includes attitudes too.”
Are you saying if someone were not a Christian, Jesus would say it is acceptable to think about killing him or her?
I’m not a theologian, just curious if that is what you were trying to say.
Scott,
Lack of information does not point to a human soul.
I didn't say it did. I haven't said a word about a human soul. My point really is that this study doesn't really prove much of anything. It leaves so much still up in the air that it simply does not offer any particular substance either way in the free will debate.
However, this does not mean this concept does scale to more complex decisions. It's likely we simply haven't fingered out how to identify them yet.
Oh, so you're invoking the "science of the gaps" theory? ;-)
But is this option obvious to everyone? I think not. Without some kind of education, this 'ability' might not be apparent to someone.
I think the ability to choose our attitude is obvious to everyone with normally functioning mental abilities. Someone with severe mental problems might not realize it, but otherwise I think life is enough "education" for people to realize fairly quickly that you can choose your attitude.
Even then, an intellectual knowledge might not be enough to overcome every situation.
Certainly not, I'm not saying it would be. But the more we choose proper attitudes, the more we'll choose proper attitudes. And of course, as a Christian, I would say that the Holy Spirit working within a Christian is necessary to produce the proper attitude in "every situation".
If God designed human beings, then he explicitly designed the biological and genetic process in which our experiences are converted into our mental picture of the world. If God created the universe, then he is ultimately responsible what we experience by his act of omnipotent creation.
He designed the process, but as I continue to say, that process (and everything else) has been degenerating since the Fall of Adam. And as I said earlier, each of our choices shape how we will respond in the future... in effect, our choices now play a large part in who we are becoming. So while God may be responsible for the overall process of how humans in general assimilate information, each of us is responsible for how we specifically assimilate information by the choices we make.
By his very definition of being omniscient *and* omnipotent, God cannot escape his role as the causal agent of everything in the universe.
Sure he can. Being all-powerful doesn't mean he is always using all his power. If God is all-powerful, then he could wipe us all out right now. But he didn't. Just because God can cause everything in the universe doesn't mean he actually does. He has chosen to allow us to make our own choices. God's omnipotence is what gives him the freedom to make such a choice. But it doesn't logically force him to be the cause of every single thing in the entire universe.
M Tully,
I ask them what they think about the following statement, "Well, my actions may have been entirely inappropriate, but I have a great attitude."
I never said anything about such a dichotomy. Clearly, wrong actions are wrong. The point that Jesus was making was that wrong attitudes are ALSO wrong. No one is saying that it's okay to kill someone as long as you have a smile on your face.
I want them to be sucessful in life. And the evidence shows that is truly about actions and not about attitude.
Actually, the evidence shows that your attitude will determine your actions in large part. A kid with an "I can't" attitude will almost always act as if they can't, whereas a kid with an "I can" attitude will almost always act as if they can. Guess which one will be successful. And it all starts with attitude.
So, I really don't care if they're annoyed or smiling at the long check-out line, what I care about is how they react to being annoyed or happy.
Which attitude is more likely to produce patience in the long line, the annoyed attitude or the happy attitude? I'm not talking about initial reactions here, I'm talking about staying a certain way. When I'm in a slow line, my initial reaction is pretty much always irritation that someone is screwing up somewhere. But then I have a choice: maintain my irritation, or let it go and remember we all make mistakes and maybe there is a good reason and I should just be patient. I suppose it's possible to act happy but actually be irritated, but it would be highly unusual to act irritated when you're actually happy. So rather than try to teach actions that don't naturally flow from certain attitudes, I prefer to teach them to control their attitudes, which will then naturally result in appropriate actions.
M Tully,
Are you saying if someone were not a Christian, Jesus would say it is acceptable to think about killing him or her?
No. What I'm saying is simply that the verses Lee cited here are directed specifically to Christians vs. Christians. Of course, the principle would apply generally to all.
Hi Rachel,
First, where does the verse say anything about "flash" anger? The verse says nothing about a momentary burst of anger or whatever.
Hi Rachel using this principle, then we can apply it to the trinity. We can dismiss the tenet of the trinity because it is not explicitly stated in the bible.
I know the point and it was a jewish strategy to be more restrictive than the law in practice to avoid accidentally breaking the law.
And it is different than flash anger superficially but my point goes deeper. It goes into the limbic system in the brain. It goes into where do desires, feelings and motivations come from. There are a whole host of influences on the limbic system that you don't seem to be aware of or don't care about.
But you're saying that we can choose our actions but not our feelings? Do you have kids? Because if so, I'll bet you've told them at least once that "attitude is a choice" or something along those lines.
I am saying that we can, in a certain context, choose our actions and I think in a certain context we don't choose our feelings.
Try this. Stop loving your kids. Bet you can't.
I used to facilitate personal responsibility seminars and teach that "no one makes me feel any way that I don't choose" until I was consistenty pummelled by evidence from groups of ten to twenty sitting in a circle that showed me that philosophy is mostly bunk.
I can choose my attitude where tolerating my co-workers are concerned, but I don't choose my attitude where the tree man is concerned. Have you seen the tree man article? How does it make you feel? Where does that come from? Did you manufacutre it? Did you choose it? no you didn't.
That's why we discipline ourselves, in order to do a better job making right choices. And of course, there's the whole repentance/forgiveness factor that changes things.
I have to modify my attitude when talking to a wife beater alcoholic to tolerate them enough to work with them but am I going to be judged because I can't get over the hate i feel for them?
The exercepts from the article pretty much shot down your whole point, so thanks for them. :-)
You seem to have adopted a faulty heuristic (as a defense mechanism i suspect) by correlating controversy with falsity. Just because a veiwpoint is controversial doesn't make it wrong. Just ask Galileo, or Einstein. I suppose you've picked this up in church as a defense against evolution. Where are the huge amount of christian scientists doin research to unravel the data that is accumulating in secular science? Nowhere because once they get skilled enough to interpret what it is they are seeing, they drop creationism. The devil is in the details.
I'll use the christian argument on you. You don't have enough data to say that we have free will. You don't have enough data to say that we can change our mind once the biological mechanisms present enough to make the prediction. This is the Anti-God of the gaps theory.
Hi Rich,
once again,
you are my favorite believer! My homunculos's humonculus is on holiday and so won't be back for a week. Me an my homunculus are having a great time just lazing around. We kind of resemble boneless chickens. ;-)
anyway...
So I wonder if that help those decisions that came up in the coarse of the game. Since unconsciously we apparently make decisions prior to us being aware of them, can we basically make a decision about something before ever being faced with it so that when we are faced with that scenario the decision has already been made?
I think you are right. It has been shown that a persons skill level can be improved by imagery. I think this has a relationship to "body maps" and "phantom limbs". I know from learning how to play guitar, I improved exponentially just by memorizing scales and finger positions and patterns. But this does not say anything about the limbic system, our motivations and desires. I'll concede that we can superficially, in some contexts, manipulate our feelings and desires, but for Jesus to say something so apparently excessive and provide no mechanism to remediate it is irresponsible. The hindus and the The buddha after them gave some mechanisms to remediate it, nameley meditation and a type of emotional dissassociation to ease the problem of suffering, but thats was not Jesus way. Jesus way is just a brutish implementation of Eastern Philosophy. In fact, I think I can show that christianity has more that a superficial resemblence to hinduism and buddhism, and I will during the course of this year.
To give a task with such profound consequences and not to provide a means more than trial and error is impossibly irresponsible in a God, in my view.
Hi all,
I'm going to bail from this thread because I have undertaken a huge project of debunking Genesis 1-11 and Romans 5 and it is taking a lot of time and research. I need to balance my time between comments and content preparation.
I hope you continue without me.
one more thing, then I'm off.
Rachel,
If you want to test your theories on attitude and emotions, try using Microsoft Outlooks Address book for a little while.
After using that for a few years, you'll be as good as toast in gods eyes.
;-)
A quick reply to Lee then I'll move on.
I'll concede that we can superficially, in some contexts, manipulate our feelings and desires
Great, I'm all for common ground! I'll even raise you a concede that there are instances that we can't control our desires.
but for Jesus to say something so apparently excessive and provide no mechanism to remediate it is irresponsible.
And I would agree that it's excessive without the mechanism to remediate. But, I would have to say that is not the case. A quick look at other passages would show that in fact we are given a mechanism to a get out of hell card. Repentance being the key.
Now to move on without Lee. I have to side with Rachel in that I think a good attitude has a much greater chance of fostering appropriate behavior. I also think that Christ's teachings tell us that attitude is more important than actions in many cases.
Rachel,
“Actually, the evidence shows that your attitude will determine your actions in large part. A kid with an "I can't" attitude will almost always act as if they can't, whereas a kid with an "I can" attitude will almost always act as if they can. Guess which one will be successful. And it all starts with attitude.”
The “I can / I can’t” dichotomy isn’t about attitude; it’s about the perception of ability. Yes, if someone perceives that they truly don’t have the ability to accomplish things then they won’t put effort into it. However, that is only a negative if their perception is incorrect. If for instance I were to tell my child that yes, they can be a great basketball player if they only say “yes I can”, and they do not posses the talent nor drive to get there, I do them a disservice by trying to convince them that is “all about attitude.”
On, the other hand if they say, “I just don’t like doing homework.” I’m not going to tell them, “Well, you if just believe homework is fun then it will be fun.” Instead, I may try to find a way to make it more appealing to them. But, in the end, if they tell me they still don’t like it, I tell them, “That’s alright, I didn’t like homework at your age either, but it still needs to be done and here’s why.” They can keep the attitude that homework sucks. I don’t care; they still get the knowledge out of it that they need.
It’s the same thing in the checkout line. Yep, I’m in a line with an incompetent cashier. I’m irritated. I take action to take a deep breath and concentrate on something else, I decide to take action and bring a book with me next time I go to the store so I can accomplish something while I’m waiting on the incompetent cashier. But, if you interrupt my reading to ask me what my attitude toward the situation is, trust me I’m still annoyed about having my time wasted. And for me to say that I thought it was wonderful would be a lie.
Let me put it another way. Your household drains are backed up. You have the choice of two plumbers. Plumber One is an energetic, happy young man with a can-do attitude and a pleasant demeanor. Plumber Two is a grumpy old lady who always tells here customers, “I don’t know, I’ll give it a shot, but realize you may need a new septic tank.” On the other hand, Plumber One frequently botches jobs or is totally unable to fix the problem and charges a high-end price. Plumber Two, despite her attitude, usually finishes in half the normal time and charges a reasonable price.
Who do you hire?
Lee,
I know you're not responding here anymore, but in case you're reading (and for others) I wanted to at least give you a response.
using this principle, then we can apply it to the trinity. We can dismiss the tenet of the trinity because it is not explicitly stated in the bible.
No, because the Trinity is strongly implied in a variety of passages in the Bible. There is no passage that implies in any way that a momentary "flash of anger" brings judgment. Especially in this case, Jesus is clearly talking about MORE than a moment of anger here and there. So this isn't even a matter of something maybe being implied. "Flash of anger" is simply not in view in these verses.
There are a whole host of influences on the limbic system that you don't seem to be aware of or don't care about.
But Lee, I keep telling you that this isn't about "influences". No one denies that things beyond our control can and do influence us. My point is that we still have the final choice of which influence to listen to.
Try this. Stop loving your kids. Bet you can't.
Not right away, but over time, and given the right circumstances, sure I could stop loving them. People (unfortunately) do it all the time.
I have to modify my attitude when talking to a wife beater alcoholic to tolerate them enough to work with them but am I going to be judged because I can't get over the hate i feel for them?
I don't think so, nor do I think that's what these verses are talking about.
Just because a veiwpoint is controversial doesn't make it wrong.
You seem to have adopted faulty reading skills, as I never said that. I didn't say this study was wrong because it's controversial, I'm saying that it's difficult to use a controversial study as definitive proof of something. Lee, I know you're not responding on this thread anymore, but perhaps others would like to answer. Lee seems to be using this study to try to say that we don't really have free will. But if we don't really have free will, why do we punish criminals? It might be answered that we need to remove them from society to keep them from harming others or themselves, but then why not remove them in a less "punishing" way? If we really don't have free will, then nothing anyone does for bad OR good is their fault, thus people should not be punished for doing bad, nor should anyone be lauded for doing good.
I suppose you've picked this up in church as a defense against evolution.
Um... what? Actually, I've never really heard much about defending against evolution in any church I've attended. Of course, creation is taught and assumed, but it's very theological and doesn't really address the debate at all. Beyond that though, I think you're reading too much about evolution/creation these days... you're seeing it everywhere!
Lee,
try using Microsoft Outlooks Address book for a little while.
Precisely why I try to avoid using Microsoft as often as possible... ;-)
M Tully,
if someone perceives that they truly don’t have the ability to accomplish things then they won’t put effort into it. However, that is only a negative if their perception is incorrect.
And that's really all I'm saying. Two people who are otherwise equal in abilities and potential will be unequal in success if one has a negative attitude and the other has a positive attitude.
On, the other hand if they say, “I just don’t like doing homework.” I’m not going to tell them, “Well, you if just believe homework is fun then it will be fun.” Instead, I may try to find a way to make it more appealing to them. But, in the end, if they tell me they still don’t like it, I tell them, “That’s alright, I didn’t like homework at your age either, but it still needs to be done and here’s why.” They can keep the attitude that homework sucks. I don’t care; they still get the knowledge out of it that they need.
I agree with this. But I'm not really talking about liking or disliking something per se. Most people don't like cleaning their bathrooms, but if they have negative attitudes ("I hate doing this, I don't know why it has to be done") they are less likely to do it well and often than if they have positive attitudes ("this isn't much fun, but it's so nice to have clean bathrooms for our family and guests, I'll just do it now and get it done and over with"). So one can dislike something and still have a positive attitude about it.
Let me put it another way. Your household drains are backed up. You have the choice of two plumbers. Plumber One is an energetic, happy young man with a can-do attitude and a pleasant demeanor. Plumber Two is a grumpy old lady who always tells here customers, “I don’t know, I’ll give it a shot, but realize you may need a new septic tank.” On the other hand, Plumber One frequently botches jobs or is totally unable to fix the problem and charges a high-end price. Plumber Two, despite her attitude, usually finishes in half the normal time and charges a reasonable price.
Who do you hire?
See, this is a dichotomy that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that "it's all about attitude". I'm not saying that actions don't matter as long as your attitude is good. I'm simply saying that, outside of natural ability, your best shot at being successful in something is by starting with (and maintaining) a positive attitude. You had said earlier that being successful was about actions, not attitude. I'm saying that starting with a positive, hard-working attitude is much more likely to produce success than starting with the opposite kind of attitude. True, success can come with both kinds of attitudes. But all things being equal, success comes to the person with the former attitude by a significantly greater percentage. And that attitude is a choice we make.
i'm still reading,
thanks for the response,
Free will is one of my favorite topics so I'll bring it up again and since the theistic responses are pretty common, i'll cover them after I get these other articles out of my head.
for the record my view is that since our frame of reference is our brain, and we can not get outside our brain, then our frame of reference could be skewed even slightly and we would not know the difference because our frame of reference would necessarily follow it. I don't think we have 100% control over doing the right thing, since I think the right thing changes in our minds from time to time and in the context of the situational environment we find ourselves in.
its like this; you don't know you are traveling in a circle at 1600 km per hour because your frame of reference is inside of it. Its only once you get off the earth and are motionless that you can see what is going on. Hope this analogy helps clarify my viewpoint.
Repentance follows suit. My repentance depends on how I feel, and how I feel is not entirely my choice and I will probably not stop feeling disgusted by pedophiles in the foreseeable future. I can say i forgive them all I want and say I feel bad because I hate them, but it would be intellectually dishonest.
But why should I consider myself "sinful" and ask forgiveness because I hate them?
Obviously I think it works this way for everyone or I wouldn't take the time to talk about it.
Thanks for everything, I am really happy you take the time to contribute.
M Tully,
Lets say you are hiring someone for a job, two people have equal qualifications. In the interviews one shows a negative attitude and the other has a positive attitude. Who do you hire?
This is closer to what Rachel is saying I think. For me I would say the later will win almost every time. We usually don't want people with bad attitudes in the business world working for us or we end up losing costumers. And I am still on Rachel's side in the attitude department, she's right:)
If free will is deterministic as the findings of Haynes, et. al. indicates, then free will is not contra causal. If free will is not contra causal, then the free will defense theodicy cannot protect any God from the charge of creating or causing to obtain evil. If any God is the creator or cause of evil, and if any God is defined as omnibenevolent, then either the God in question cannot exist in objective reality or cannot be omnibenevolent. If the later, then that God is not a being most worthy of worship. If any God is not most worthy of worship, then that God cannot be the God of Classical Theism and hence cannot exist as the God of Classical Theism.
Since Haynes and others have shown free will to be deterministic, we are justified in ascertaining that free will is deterministic. That is the proposition that free will is deterministic in nature is a true justified belief based on empirical evidence. If this is so, then the conclusion mentioned above would be true.
Post a Comment