Of course is needs the brain. If it did not need the brain it would not have manifested the brain.



I would hope that your entire self identity is not dependent upon what you have come to believe. If this were true and you were to discover that what you have come to believe was all a lie or an illusion, then you truly would not be able to handle the truth because if you did you would loose your grip on reality and who you are. It would be very traumatic.

Even "innate" preferences were at one time "chosen" and initiated whether those choices are conscious or not. We make unconscious decisions and choices all the time. That we are not consciously aware of them or pay attention to them, does not mean that we don't make them. WE DO MAKE THESE CHOICES.

Just because they are unconscious choices does not mean that they are not made freely by our own self influences that result from where we choose to place our attention. The choice of where we place our attention is responsible for what we perceive and how we interpret and react to what we perceive is responsible for our beliefs and our experiences. When you make claims that these choices are 'innate' and we have no control over them, this is your insistence and refusal to accept responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Its like saying, "Its not my fault."

Self analysis is okay if you are doing it to understand your own process of thinking, but don't you have to step away from yourself to observe and analyse your own actions? In doing this, don't you become aware of yourself as an observer observing yourself? Do you feel like there are more than one of you during this process? If you do, then you are in touch with the will or the true observer. (self) If you don't, then you must have a difficult time being objective in your self analysis because you are too much involved with that which you are trying to objectively observe.

The pay off for believing their is no "free will" is that you can claim that you are not responsible for your choices and even for your situation in life. You will hear some people say "I had no choice in the matter." Here are some examples of excuses and claims I have heard from people who don't take responsibility for their actions or lives.

"It was not my fault, I was drunk.
I can't help myself, I'm insane.
It's in my genes, its an inherited trait.
The devil made me do it.
The voices in my head made me do it.
I see too much porn so I have been conditioned to be a rapist.
I see too much violence on television, thats why I felt the need to be violent.
Its those violent video games, that made me do it.
My husband or boyfriend made me do it.
My wife or girlfriend made me do it.
My mother made me do it.
I came from a dysfunctional abusive family, thats why I killed my parents.
I was abused as a child, thats why I'm a serial killer."
I was angry, disturbed, confused, that is why I (fill in the blank) and so its not my fault!

I believe that the amount of freedom a person has is proportional to the amount of responsibility they are willing to accept for their own life, and their thoughts and actions. There is always a price to pay for your choices and your actions and even your thoughts. Blaming others for everything you don't want to take responsibility for is giving away your power and your freedom and the more you do it, the more you become a victim of circumstance.

What else could it possibly be other than what you have come to believe, personal preference, and genetic predisposition?



That all depends upon who you are and what it is that you have come to believe. If one thinks in black/white, right/wrong, good/bad, etc., and completely identifies their world-view and themself with these things then this caould be the case. One could also deny relevent and accurate contradictory factual information and delve into delusion even further...

There is something to be said about blissful and/or willful ignorance...

This is where your not making logical sense and it is causing your thoughts to go in circles. Innate means your born with it/them already intact. That does not constitute being "chosen". If your claiming that they are previously chosen before birth, by some unobservable 'entity', then where does that leave the human 'free will'?



Unless this discussion begins to attain some form of intelligibility, which necessitates keeping the distinction between unconsious and conscious actions, it is going to continue to go in circles. Writing things with big letters shows the level of confidence that you have in the belief that we make unconsious decisions, it does not - however - mean that that is a true belief. It is self-contradictory.

We do not make unconscious decisions. It is impossible to make a decision without consciously thinking about the options. Decision making requires volition. Volition requires conscious thought. In order to even be able to say that one is making a decision, one must be in the process of consciously considering options. You have got to be thinking about it, anything less is an involuntary/unconscious response/action. All decisions are made consciously.

That does not mean that our current conscious thoughts do not affect our future unconscious actions. We do act unconsciously, and those actions are often a result of prior conscious thought, but those actions are not being thought about, and therefore cannot constitute our making a decision at all. That distinction needs to be held in thought during this discussion. Most human actions are taken without thinking about them as they are being done. That is why they are considered to be unconscious actions/behavior. They are not being currently 'chosen'.



I could write a book on why *some of this* is nonsense. Some of it is also very close. I have numbered the different claims in order to effectively respond in some type of orderly fashion.

1.)Just because they are unconscious choices does not mean that they are not made freely by our own self influences...

If your saying that our current conscious thoughts/decisions affect our future unconscious 'thought' and actions, then I agree...

Unconsious choices do not exist for reasons already laid out. Being influenced is not being 'free', no matter what the influence is, and that includes the necessary influence that one's conscious thoughts/decisions have on the unconscious aspect of future human behavior. If an unconscious action is influenced, no matter what the influence actually is, then it cannot be considered to be freely chosen. Unconscious actions are not 'chosen'.

2.)...(self-influences) that result from where we choose to place our attention.

This is an oversimplification.

While I agree that we can help to influence ourselves(and our future unconscious actions) by deliberate conscious action such as seeking out specific information/outside influences, where we place our attention is not the sole determining factor in what influences us. There are unconscious influences as well, which are a result of prior conscious thought in addition to unconscious perception which happens continuously.

The act of focusing one's attention - in and of itself - is a conscious and deliberate(willful) action and although one may voluntarily choose where that attention is placed, how that observation is mentally processed is determined by the belief system and reasoning capabilities of that individual.

3.) The choice of where we place our attention is responsible for what we perceive...

No. Where we choose to place attention is not 'responsible' for what we perceive. Places and/or choices have no responsibility, in and of themselves. People do. The above seems to be stating an obvious falsehood anyway...

"Whatever it is that we look at, that is what we are perceiving?"

The above is true only if our perception is a flawless account of reality. That is known to be false.

4.) ...and how we interpret and react to what we perceive is responsible for our beliefs and our experiences.

I think I agree in some ways, if I understand you correctly. Although I do not necessarily agree with your specific wording here.

How we interpret(make sense of) things is completely contingent upon not only how well we consciously interpret(critical thinking skills) but also upon unconscious perception and what has been previously accepted as true - the belief system.

Our reactions do not make up the sum total of our experience.



And when you make claims for me that I have not made, you end up saying things like this.



Choices are not innate.



Uh... no.

It is not as if I am floating above reality. It is a simple exercise in critical thinking. My own history, thoughts, beliefs, actions, and influences just happen to be the subject matter.



Uh... no.



If my own thinking were the only means, I would agree. However, I make use of other dependable resources.



Here we are once again, at the beginning of a circular line of reasoning. I have already shown you how and why that is not necessarily true. It is only *sometimes* applicable. To state it is as a universal absolute is a good sign that one does not have an accurate conceptual understanding.



While I would agree with the idea that some of these could be sorry excuses, others are not necessarily a deliberate attempt at avoiding responsibility. They all do not necessarily belong in the same category. This, again seems like an oversimplification. It most certainly does not consider things on a whole.



That is false. The reality is that not everyone has your personal 'brand' of morality, therefore your 'prices' are different as well.

There are people who justify their own actions for their own reasons, and that includes a deliberate and willful avoidance of personal accountability. In fact, that can and is often justified by the ends of such measures. That would include deliberately taking actions that will knowingly cause harm to others without thinking that such a thing is 'wrong'. It happens somewhere every day.

Acknowledging that part of reality does not make your victim argument true.



Such closed-mindedness and absolute certainty. Do you really believe that all 'good and bad' or 'right and wrong' choices are rewarded accordingly?

Do you not realize that there are people who do this very thing and reap a financial and even mental benefit, while the person being falsely blamed takes the punishment for an action which they are not truly responsible for?

What reality are you in?

Yes.

Although I don't qualify choices as "good" or "bad." That judgment would depend on the desired outcome and/or opinions.

Choices are "cause" then what follows are the effects or the "consequences."

The "deterministic" attribute of this reality (Law of cause and effect or "Karma" and laws of physics etc.) assures that you will reap what you sow (here) eventually unless it is dealt with from a different level than the one in which these laws operate. (Call it a spiritual level.)

In other words, you can escape your physical karma if it is resolved (by the self) from a higher state of awareness.

But this truth is on a different level than the level of pure objective physical reality that you are speaking from. (according to your beliefs) It follows a different premise than the one you hold dear. (It involves a completely different definition of "self" than the one that you hold.)

My truth assumes 'self' is an eternal being having a human experience.

At one point previously in our conversation you had assumed the premise of the existence of an eternal self or soul. Now it seems you have reverted back to your previous premise, and that is why none of what I said makes any sense to you.


I could address each and every one of your arguments but your understanding is coming from a different premise (and level) and it would be pointless (and difficult and time consuming) for both of us.

I'm sure from your position, all of what you say and believe makes perfect sense, but the premise is completely different and would eventually get back to the argument for and against the existence of the eternal self. (spirit or soul) (I think I know what your position is on that subject.)

So, in your understanding of what "reality" is, I understand why none of what I have said to you makes sense or holds true from where you are coming from.




If you are trying to say that "Life is not fair" I get the message.

A lot of people feel this same way simply because they can't see the whole picture. No one can actually see the whole picture or understand why things happen the way they do and why they seem so "unfair" on the surface.

I don't hold this belief.

Honestly JB, none of what you said consistently made/makes sense assuming the existence of spirit either. Your concept of spirit continuously changes along with a conversation.

What I wrote is based upon this, our earthly human existence, and it does not require the need for spirit. It was based upon knowledge and logical inference, not religious-based ideological remnants with new shoes.



I can definitely agree with the inherent difficulty in understanding that comes along with the unconscious aspect of human existence, and assessing it is not an exact science, however, to call it pointless based upon the difficulty level involved???



I guess believing in 'God' is much easier, and therefore has a point, assuming one changes his 'clothing' a little?

An "unconscious" decision is one that has reached a level of habit to the point where we do things without really "thinking" (much) about it.

When I type this sentence I do not "consciously think" about placing my finger on a particular letter on the keyboard. In fact, if someone asked me to draw a picture of a keyboard and put the right letters on each key I would have a very difficult time doing that. Even if someone showed me a picture of a standard keyboard and asked me to write the letters on each key without placing my hands on the keys I would have a very difficult time doing that.

I can recite the alphabet and I can count out loud but I can't tell you what letters are on the top row of the key board because I have not memorized them in that order. And yet I can type without looking at the keyboard.

If you think you are conscious all the time and always make conscious choices and actions, sit down and write out in detail everything you did yesterday from the time you got up to the time you went to bed. Do not leave anything out including every time you scratched your nose or looked out the window. If you were fully conscious of everything you did you would have perfect recall of every second of your life.

The truth is, we are not fully conscious. Human consciousness is not fully conscious. We are still emerging consciousness.

Why call it a decision then? That only confuses the discussion and the conceptual understanding through unnecessarily and inaccurately muddying the waters of thought.

Repeated conscious actions can become unconscious ones, but it is wrong to call those unconscious 'decisions'. They are not decisions at all, they are actions/behaviors without conscious thinking. In order to correctly frame them in thought, we must assess their cause, which is a repeated conscious action.



More evidence which further proves that unconscious actions not properly called unconscious 'decisions'.



What does this have to do with anything I wrote? Do you not realize that this does not contradict my claims? It follows accordingly, and it does not require the invocation of spirit.



The fact that we have unconscious habitual behavior does not mean that we are not 'fully conscious'. It is a good indication of how well our memory is ingrained into our behavior.

If we were fully conscious in the way your describing, then we would have no use for our memory to take over actions and behaviors which no longer need our conscious attention in order to be performed. That is a benefit of the unconscious, not a detriment or proof of our not being 'fully conscious'.

Yes they are actions/behaviors without conscious thinking, but they are still "decisions" and they are still under our control.

I "decided" to respond to this post. I 'decided' to type a certain response. I "decided" to type it in. Then I initiated my pre-programed training of the keyboard in order to do so.

Many years ago I 'decided' to learn to type because I knew there would be one day when I would be glad I had this skill. (I actually hated typing class but I took three years of it because I had "decided" I wanted to be a writer and in order to do that, I knew that I would need to know how to type.)

Learning to type was a decision.

Starting to smoke cigarettes is a decision. Now people do those things "unconsciously" but a decision was made to start.

Every action you take conscious or unconscious is a decision whether or not that decision is a conscious one or not.

Nevermind.

Once a skill or action is learned (ingrained) then it becomes more on auto-pilot. But the learning of it took a conscious decision.

Whenever you are learning something new, you have to play close attention. You have to really think about what you are doing in a very conscious way. Once you learn it, and practice it, it becomes automatic and you can do it without so much conscious attention.

It took me many many years to learn to paint pictures and draw. It took a conscious effort and close attention to details about color mixing, contrast, value, composition etc. Lots of practice ingrained this skill into my mind.

Now I can sit and watch television and paint a portrait at the same time, not even closely thinking about how I mix the colors or where I place the paint. It has been learned and recorded. I do it unconsciously, until I reach a problem I have not yet mastered.

The difference is that "unconscious" actions are the result of a conscious decision made prior to the actions in question.

For example:
A person decided to start smoking only once. Now, each time they reach for a cigarette they do not "decide" to start smoking all over again. That decision has already been made. They are just carrying out the prior decision in an automatic manner. The more practiced they become at doing a thing, the more automatic and "unconscious it becomes.

Your so close to making sense, JB. It seems that I am being reminded of some of the new-age religious explanations for human behavior and the soul. If your expressions are a result of prior conscious thought which has been adopted by such, take my advice and forget about that.

I am not arguing nor attempting to argue with how you've presented evidence, your giving more and more examples to work with and it is all good information from which we can draw some conclusions. I am telling you that your conclusion does not logically follow from your claims.

This...



...does not follow from what your claiming, and it is not even true regardless of that.

Every action that one takes is not necessarily the result of a decision, let alone the action be considered as a decision itself. Every willful and deliberate decision is made consciously, for reasons explained already. Those can and do have unconscious affects.

Some, maybe even most, unconscious behavior(s) stem from an earlier conscious thought. That alone does not make them 'unconscious decisions', or even decisions at all.

Your throwing much too large a blanket on things here.

I guess that depends on your understanding of conscious and unconscious.

Today, my father, who has Alzheimer's disease, appears to be conscious but he is totally in a state of "sleep walking" and has very little idea of what is going on around him or where he is most of the time. I consider him to be essentially "unconscious" and hallucinating. Yet he still makes decisions even if they involve pouring his water all over the carpet and searching for an hour for a set of missing car keys that don't exist.

Consciousness (awareness) seems to exist in degrees. I am aware of more now than I was at age 14. I look back on my life then and see that I was less conscious, and less aware.

Human consciousness is an emerging awareness. We are not completely aware of the true nature of reality. Human consciousness does not have the capacity to grasp the true nature of everything that exists.

We do not understand ourselves.
We do not have perfect memories because we don't have enough consciousness to hold and process everything. Its like a computer that stores programs because it does not have enough RAM to run them all at the same time.

We (humans) have a lot of information and we store it, perhaps in what we call the subconscious mind. We use it naturally just like we use programs on a computer that operate while we (the user) is consciously focused on something else. But we (humans) are responsible for the programs in our computers. We put them there.

If someone knows what they are looking for, but do not know that that does not exist, it does not make them unconscious. Consciousness is an alert state of mind. Just because one is unaware that something does not exist, it does not mean that they are not in a conscious state of mind.

Now your equating illogical thoughts to unconscious.

That is not right.

If a person is sleep walking, he is not conscious. (Yet he appears to be by all appearances.) But when he "wakes up" and finds himself in a strange place and does not know how he got there, he will probably agree that he was unconscious.

I was knocked unconscious after falling off of a horse and had temporary amnesia. For about three hours I appeared to be conscious to other people. Yet when I "became aware" it was like waking from a dream. I could not remember much of anything I had done for the last few hours. For me, I had been "unconscious" because I could not retain those memories.

Consciousness has a lot to do with our ability to be aware and retain memories of everything we experience. How good are your memories? How much of your life do you remember?

I think it is easy to become confused about the unconscious mind when discussing things like amnesia and being knocked unconscious. The unconscious mind is not unaware of events. Unconscious perception shows otherwise.

Memory and the unconscious are two separate things which work in conjuction with conscious thought.

There is no such thing as "THE unconscious" (There is a subconscious.)

The "unconscious" is just a term that means "not conscious."

If you notice the way I usually use the two terms, I don't think I have ever used the term "the unconscious mind." It is the "subconscious mind."

If 'conscious' means alert and aware, then the term unconscious would mean not alert and not aware.

There is no "unconscious mind."

Consciousness has to do with memory.
Subconsciousness also has to do with memory. That is why people will use hypnotism to remember things locked in their subconscious mind.

Things are not locked in an "unconscious mind."

Whatever...

Carl Jung and many others who are educated in the matter say otherwise. I take expert opinions based upon years and years of personal study and rigorous documentation over an illogical opinion. It seems the concept is conveyed regardless of what it is called...

Subconscious mind is often used as well.

Now, tell me - regardless of what you or I call it - how is the human will still considered 'free' after establishing that the subconscious mind exists and affects our decision making?