An essential problem with the article is with the assumptive attitude endorsed at the end especially. Here at the end is the argument against free will being assumed:
According to Seth, when the volunteers in Libet's experiment said they felt an urge to act, that urge is an experience, similar to an experience of smell or taste. The new model is "opening the door towards a richer understanding of the neural basis of the conscious experience of volition", he says.
Why not say that the new model is opening the door towards a richer understanding of the volitional basis of the neural phenomenon? Because of this assumptive oversight or blindside, what is supposed to be an objective report based in science, is in fact infected with off the cuff opinion.
What's basic is our experience. Unless we are zombies, we all have that. What's secondary is our observations of what we relate to as physical. We also intuitive know, and then have to be "brainwashed" out of it, that anything pre-cognitive is subconscious or even unconscious until it emerges. That there is a physical parallel in the brain for what we experience is remarkable echoing. Anytime we discover how the mirroring is in existence, we are not creating an argument for the physical to be the basis. That's like saying the real me is not the observer, but the one in the mirror.
An essential problem with the article is with the assumptive attitude endorsed at the end especially. Here at the end is the argument against free will being assumed:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Seth, when the volunteers in Libet's experiment said they felt an urge to act, that urge is an experience, similar to an experience of smell or taste. The new model is "opening the door towards a richer understanding of the neural basis of the conscious experience of volition", he says.
Why not say that the new model is opening the door towards a richer understanding of the volitional basis of the neural phenomenon? Because of this assumptive oversight or blindside, what is supposed to be an objective report based in science, is in fact infected with off the cuff opinion.
What's basic is our experience. Unless we are zombies, we all have that. What's secondary is our observations of what we relate to as physical. We also intuitive know, and then have to be "brainwashed" out of it, that anything pre-cognitive is subconscious or even unconscious until it emerges. That there is a physical parallel in the brain for what we experience is remarkable echoing. Anytime we discover how the mirroring is in existence, we are not creating an argument for the physical to be the basis. That's like saying the real me is not the observer, but the one in the mirror.