Quote:
Originally Posted by vienna
Is that a fact?... 
<O> |
We got taught about it at university already in the early 90s, but back then it was not as substantially supported by neurological evidence from examinations as it probably is now, 25 years later.
There are quite some surprising things possible and happening on the level of neural hardwiring. We are more animals reacting to the functioning of our hardware, than most humans are enjoying to admit. Add to this the "secret tyranny" of hormones, and you lose even more of what man claims is a major difference between himself, and "lower" animals: the freedom to choose and to decide. Free will, sentiments and emotions, and decision-forming - these things are not at all as clear in their relation to each other as many people think, and since we started to scan the brain for its regional activities, we got evidence that would surprise, even worry quite some people: that we more often than we like probbaly get decided by our hardware - and after that formed the subjective conviction that that choice was our free will. Same is true for our emotional reactions to something, inclduing phyical status and body processes. The question whether we are sad and thus cry, or whether we cry and thus feel sad, already was asked by I think William James in the 19th century. And the answer is not as clear as you now might think.
My advise would be: never take it for granted that the other has "freely" decided it, whatever "it" is. He indeed could have gotten decided, being unaware of it, however.
And if you think of it, this opens an abyss of philosophical implications about ethics, morals and sanctions and penalties for criminal behavior. A nightmare debate, imo. For all rules and standards we base our morals and ethics and laws on, take the "free will" for granted. But what if there is no really free "free will"...?
