I've posted how I wasn't keen on the Netflix 'Black Mirror: Bandersnatch' episode. To those who haven't seen or heard about it, this is an interactive episode whereby the viewer is invited to 'choose' how the story progresses.

Not to spoil it, but the whole thing is an exploration of our lack of free will. At least according to the writers.

This got me thinking and researching about free will and determinism. I can at least thank Bandersnatch for that, even if I wasn't entertained!

Quote:Quote:

Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.

After reading a little, I strongly suspect that the whole argument against the existence of free will is a con-job. A ruse by 'scientists' to erode our morality and steer us down the nihilism road. Having no actual free-will is a handy way of excusing any and all bad behaviour; after all, we had no choice!

But I've been wrong before, so am interested to hear the views of other forum members on the subject.

I'd have to look closer at the "science" to fully comment because with these sorts if things the interpretation of the evidence can be more important than the evidence itself. I don't think it proves we have no free will simply because we are not conscious of exercising it until shortly thereafter. In something like a computer system there will be various lag times between when a decision is made and the other parts of the system "knows" about the decision.

I would say the worst case scenario for free will is that choices are probabilistic down to the quantum level: some quantum event or group of events occurring randomly are filtered through the brain's wiring resulting in one choice among many that if somehow repeated might yield a different result according to a probability function.

The more interesting question regards what lies behind quantum events and whether they are truly random.

If you really mind-fuck someone through trauma, torture, gas lighting and such, it appears possible to "program" people, or mess with their innate programming, which has been a staple of many spy/thriller/sci-fi movies.

Free will is a muscle - it is very very weak if you don't exercise it and just ponder about it's existence like philosophers do or neglect it like a hedonist or a work drone or outright deny it as an atheist seeking justification for your weakness.

There is also a confusion on how a free will should work - amoral thinkers who think like mathematicians without any moral judgement make you believe that free will is choosing between A and B, where A and B are two equally valuable but different items, like vanilla ice cream vs chocolate ice cream or red candy vs blue candy. This is not how it works and such a thing might be scientifically impossible indeed. This is however the common understanding of free will and any discussions with that flawed definition are bound to fail, therefore this question keeps getting unanswered for ages and repeats itself again and again.

To understand free will you need to understand what it is from a holistic moral perspective. A scientific perspective that ignores morality as one of the "human" a.k.a "fundamentally unprovable or "not falsifiable " aspects cannot explain it.

Free Will is a Conscious Choice to choose the Single Best Option as suggested by one's Prudence, Courage, Justice and Temperance (the four cardinal virtues) as opposed to any number of less optimal options that are variants of lowered consciousness or compromised virtues, a.k.a. vices or sins.

Free Will is a result of hard work - tempering your native born Temperament into Character that possesses the virtues allowing you to choose the best choice within your sphere of awareness.

Thus Perfect Free Will can result in only one Choice and is therefore not even contradicting scientific determinism, should it prove to be correct, which it is not at quantum level.

In real world where nothing is perfect - Will is measured in magnitude of satisfaction of 4CV. Similarly how you can never distill a perfectly pure water or how you can never achieve perfectly empty vacuum - so no Will is perfectly Free. However since there are arbitrary and practical definitions for clinically pure water - water clean enough to wash clothes has one level of purity and water good for drinking has another level of purity.

So if you wonder about the Freeness of your Will you must ask yourself - have I filtered my choice trough the four filters of Prudence, Courage, Temperance and Justice? If you have done so then your Will is Free proportionally to the quality of your personal filters. If you fail to give your Choice these tests then your choice is most likely not Free.

Given the queues that you get outside Apple stores when the latest i-phone is launched, the answer has got to be "No".

Quote: (01-03-2019 04:58 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I strongly suspect that the whole argument against the existence of free will is a con-job. A ruse by 'scientists' to erode our morality and steer us down the nihilism road. Having no actual free-will is a handy way of excusing any and all bad behaviour; after all, we had no choice!

But I've been wrong before, so am interested to hear the views of other forum members on the subject.

You're correct in a way. I've read through the entire Newbie Forum and I've read enough about the various things in there to make some general comments. The most frequent themes from the threads are the following:

1. Those who actually listen, learn and improve are those who are inclined towards the "free will" principle. They take the initiative to read the feedback, make adjustments and gradually begin changing themselves, like how a mustard seed transforms into a huge tree over the years.
2. Those who moan about their situation and don't change are those who are inclined towards the "determinism" principle. They look for external factors (aka "fate") as the reason why they can't change; they don't accept feedback and as a consequence, are unlikely to get out of their situation.
3. NPC thought processes are difficult to identify and then unlearn if you've been moulded by it your entire life.
4. In some way, dreams are linked to this. If someone has a dream and actually makes it come true, was it due to their own actions or was it due to "fate"?
5. Fear of the unknown is the main stumbling block for many. Whether one overcomes their fear is a question of their belief in conscious action, or "fated events".
6. Purpose is everything. Without purpose, there's no point in being.
   
   
7. If you coast, you're toast. If you settle, you'll disappear.
   

It's possible that what's expressed as "free will" is the conscious experience from a person's own point of view, while the apparent "determinism" is expressed as witnessing someone else express their "free will".

Quote:Quote:

Exodus 3:14 (KJV)
14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am:

However, if a person only has NPC thought processes, then all bets are off. This topic will only induce an automated "triggering".

Quote: (01-03-2019 07:08 AM)winnerjoeburrows Wrote:  

Do humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates—a concept more commonly known as free will? Or our people's futures determined solely by powers outside of their control, like the physics and biology of the brain? The question of free will has long challenged philosophers and religious thinkers, and scientists have examined the problem from psychological, biological, and genetic perspectives.

Either way, this is one of many endless debates that will take a long time to conclude, if it ever gets there. Science is just another religion these days, so take whatever is published with a discerning eye.



It's better to believe that you can change yourself instead of thinking of reality in terms of "fate" or "conscious action".

_______________________________________________
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." #266

I've done a bit more reading and I still just don't get it. Every site I visit references this infamous test from the 1980's that just looks pretty basic to me; measure your brain impulses while you decide to lift your left or right finger .......

I've even read how a few Scientists have said that while they don't believe in Free Will, we should be encouraged to believe in it, as it's in our best interests. We should keep up the lie of its existence. Otherwise, law and order, democracy (why vote if you don't have a choice!?), it all goes out the window.

I get how our bodies are really in charge; we get moody because we are hungry. Women convince themselves to settle down, but it's really their wombs telling them to have children etc. But I can't extrapolate this to absolutely everything. A martyr being burned at the stake who refuses to renounce his views, but doesn't? He's surely choosing a grisly end himself, even when his body is telling him to shut the fuck up.

Kind of makes your head hurt after a while.

Your life is a series of variables. If suddenly there were a million identical universes made, would one copy of you make different choices? If those universes experienced different entropy (ie. not identical), the likelihood of change, including your own existence, goes way up. IMO, the world is way too connected and there isn’t such a thing as breaking the laws of science, therefore we are set on a path. Divine intervention (other worldly) would need to occur to change this path.

Wouldn't doubt be a simple proof of the existence of free will ?
Morality being encoded genetically is a tempting theory though, but yeah those are two different things.

What are you trying to achieve by asking yourself these questions ?
If you found out tomorrow that there was no free will, would you change something in your life ?

Also how is all this relevant ?
In a hundred years nobody will remember whether you were a free soul or a moral person.
Chances are nobody will remind any of us, the only thing they will see will be our descendants.

But what can I say, I am not an intelligent person according to Mr. Taleb, since I choose to be a moral man and this decreases my chances of survival ..
Or maybe my genes chose for me the way they thought was best to perpetuate themselves
In any case I'll do my best to help them, it's both the least and the most I can do.

Everything we do, say and think is the result of electrical and chemical penomenon in the neurons of our brain. Since our neurons follow strictly the law of physics, it is difficult to imagine a mechanism by which we could do something different from the direct consequence of the laws of physics (i.e, have free will).

Quote: (01-03-2019 04:58 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  

I've posted how I wasn't keen on the Netflix 'Black Mirror: Bandersnatch' episode. To those who haven't seen or heard about it, this is an interactive episode whereby the viewer is invited to 'choose' how the story progresses.

Not to spoil it, but the whole thing is an exploration of our lack of free will. At least according to the writers.

This got me thinking and researching about free will and determinism. I can at least thank Bandersnatch for that, even if I wasn't entertained!

Quote:Quote:

Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.

After reading a little, I strongly suspect that the whole argument against the existence of free will is a con-job. A ruse by 'scientists' to erode our morality and steer us down the nihilism road. Having no actual free-will is a handy way of excusing any and all bad behaviour; after all, we had no choice!

But I've been wrong before, so am interested to hear the views of other forum members on the subject.

My initial reaction to this without reading further is how do they tie this into more strategic long term choices. Because sure our brain makes all kind of rapid fire actions in the moment but that doesnt mean thats all its capable of. Just because your brain can unconsciously make you yank your hand off a hot stove doesnt mean you cant reason that you want to put it there in the first place.

Yes, absolutely. It's constantly under siege, both deliberately and circumstantially, to the point where the 'free' part is more obvious than the 'will', though-the range of choices you CAN make often outstrips the range of choices that it's within your power to CONSCIOUSLY make and follow through on.
So many things diminish your ability to make decisions and your power to actually adhere to them-booze, drugs, formulaic life-anything that makes you a creature of (bad) habit. Self-discipline isn't a widespread virtue today, and when you have little time for reflection, little space that's not crowded and chaotic, and when convenience is a big driver of your actions, a lot of people feel like corks on a wave, carried along by diminished self-control and with much of life determined by bad decisions made a long time ago rather than in the full grip of their day-to-day awareness. Challenging my baser instincts is an exercise of free will-without awareness and the ability to make decisions with foreknowledge of the consequences, I'm not much more than a dependent child, or an NPC. Free will's always there, but like physical strength, it falls into disuse with inactivity.

Absolutely we do have free will. God would not be able to know that we choose to love him if we did not.

Without free will there is no choice. Without choice there is no meaning.

I tend to think that the impetus for behavior is largely a manifestation of genetics and biology. We can guide the impulse (or we can suppress it), and there is a wide range of ways in which we can express it in our lives.

A man who is 6'5" and strong will behave differently to a woman who is 5'6", otherwise he will run into mental/emotional resistance. The man can try to resist the impulse to use his physical advantages, he can suppress the electrical impulses, but he will become unhappy and frustrated.

It's only sinking in now, how much religion is intertwined in the argument. So ...

You can't have Free Will without God? Is that it? That God gives his creation Free Will in order for them to choose Good over Evil. Otherwise nobody can actually be 'good' or 'choose' God.

Just been reading Mackie's Logical Argument From Evil;

God is Omnipotent? Yes
God is Omniscient? Yes
Omnibenevolent? Yes

Yet Evil exists .....

After my experiences with Hormones and steroids, I'm going to say "no." There are so many ways to manipulate people without their knowledge. Electric impulses administered to certain parts of your brain can change your temperament and mood almost instantly.

However, I do think savvy individuals know this and can mitigate these things and even use them to their own advantage,. They can manipulate their hormones and environments to put themselves at a massive advantage over the people who don't know how to do these things.

Human behavior tends to be habitual. That's why we tend to get into patterns and ruts. The way you break out of these patterns is through reflection. As the philosophers say, an unexamined life isn't worth living. NPCs coast through life without questioning why it is they think and believe the way they do, even when challenged by others. I'd like to think most of us go through life constantly reevaluating things. Just moving through life stages alone provides a catalyst for this.

That being said, the various primal drives in the human animal, our thirsts and desires, put limits on the choices we make. I don't have much say over the fact that I love pussy. It wasn't a choice. It's instinct. But that doesn't mean there is only one way to deal with that. There's a whole host of ways. And even when you decide on dealing with it a certain way (like game) then you have the actual individual choices right down to every interaction you have with women, etc... Go into the Game forum and you'll see this. Conscious thought is almost nothing but weighing doing X vs. Y a million times a day, even down to what color shirt to wear or whether to drink coffee or tea. The mundane randomness of these choice feels just as random as snowflake patterns.

So I think when people think there's no freewill they are mostly focusing on habits and addictions and primal drives since these tend to have the most impact and we have less influence on them.

@Richard Turpin

Quote:Quote:

It's only sinking in now, how much religion is intertwined in the argument. So ...

You can't have Free Will without God? Is that it? That God gives his creation Free Will in order for them to choose Good over Evil. Otherwise nobody can actually be 'good' or 'choose' God.

Just been reading Mackie's Logical Argument From Evil;

God is Omnipotent? Yes
God is Omniscient? Yes
Omnibenevolent? Yes

Yet Evil exists .....

This is the rub, isn’t it?

I personally struggled with the understanding of God for a three year hermitage. These are just ideas, ramblings, take them as you will.

I have come to see God as a habitation, a common theological foundation. That God is the Dao if you’re familiar with that concept. With regards to the material universe, this space and time that we exist within seems to be contained within a branching network of possible configurations - this is the many world’s formulation. Now in the hyperspace one could imagine this universe situated near thousands of others very much like it. In moving further from this universe the differences between this existence and some other potential universe begin to dramatically diverge.

Imagine a spider’s web in the light of dawn, each drop of dew a different world.

Generally, religion postulates that there is a center to this network - often described as a blinding plane of magnanimous radiance; the samadhi of the hindu tradition. This is Source in this understanding.

Omnipotence is not from the power to do anything, rather it is the animating power to do ALL things. It is the force that sustains this intricate tapestry. Omnicience arises as a consequence of omnipotence. One has the potential to inhabit any of these possible existences, where-in everything is in it’s place so to speak. Everything is formed. Omnibenevolence depends on the assumption that conciousness can to return to Source regardless of where it finds itself within the multiverse.

With regards to the fatalistic material approach to consiousness and free-will, breathing blows my mind. It’s astounding how neurochemistry can be manipulated by something so basic. If you’ve never tried it, take stock of your mood, rate it from 1-10, then breath deeply for 5 minutes. Generally, you’ll find that your mood has been bumped up by a point (or more). While it may not be much, at the very least some minimal amount of mental energy has been unblocked, released, and could potentially be brought to bear upon your personal situation. This is one of the mechanisms by which we navigate the many worlds.

Regardless, stimulating conversation. Grateful for it.

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:45 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

More than just practicality prevents that; mathematics itself has proven that such a thing is impossible. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

For an 'In Universe' example of why it's impossible, check out this video:

If we agree that "free will" is the ability for one to make his own choices, then yes I believe we have that. Are these choices always unimpeded as some hardliners like to define it? Absolutely not. People can be persuaded, manipulated, or put under duress into making decisions not in their best interest. Decisions, for the most part, are based on past life experiences and acquired knowledge which help guide us -- just like when you learned touching a hot pan is a bad idea. There's also the fact that many of the choices we are given are also limited, which you can chalk up to external factors. But even here we choose which path to take. In this regard, free will for a human is no different than that of a stray dog roaming the streets.

By the way, I thought Black Mirror: Bandersnatch sucked. I agree with Tim Pool's take (it was bad video game more than a good story): https://www.bitchute.com/video/MzbtJsu7hhU/

Quote: (01-04-2019 05:08 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:45 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

More than just practicality prevents that; mathematics itself has proven that such a thing is impossible. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

For an 'In Universe' example of why it's impossible, check out this video:

Well, in a finite closed space you can predict the future of that space if you can accurately scan the contents of that space and model them. Hypothetically you could make a copy of a person's brain and then if you control the environmental stimuli they experience you would be able to predict their responses. Quantum effects just average themselves out on the scale of a cell with trillions of atoms.

Problem is scanning a brain to that level of detail without destroying it in the process, storing that much data, knowing how to model the behavior of the organic molecules in the neurons correctly enough to accurately predict exactly whether or not they fire, and 100% controlling the environmental stimuli. Heck, a cosmic ray hit or isotope decay might be enough to misfire a single neuron, and hypothetically alter the output between both brain copies ever so slightly.

Experimentally proving or disproving free will is a task for a K2 civilization. All we can do is argue about it on the internet.

Quote: (01-04-2019 09:07 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 05:08 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:45 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

More than just practicality prevents that; mathematics itself has proven that such a thing is impossible. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

For an 'In Universe' example of why it's impossible, check out this video:

Well, in a finite closed space you can predict the future of that space if you can accurately scan the contents of that space and model them. Hypothetically you could make a copy of a person's brain and then if you control the environmental stimuli they experience you would be able to predict their responses. Quantum effects just average themselves out on the scale of a cell with trillions of atoms.

Problem is scanning a brain to that level of detail without destroying it in the process, storing that much data, knowing how to model the behavior of the organic molecules in the neurons correctly enough to accurately predict exactly whether or not they fire, and 100% controlling the environmental stimuli. Heck, a cosmic ray hit or isotope decay might be enough to misfire a single neuron, and hypothetically alter the output between both brain copies ever so slightly.

Experimentally proving or disproving free will is a task for a K2 civilization. All we can do is argue about it on the internet.

Unless Maxwell's Demon is your lab partner, scanning the space with 100% accurately is impossible. Even if you get 99.999%, chaos theory explains how things will quickly spiral out of control.

Dinosaurs everywhere man.

Quote: (01-05-2019 12:36 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 09:07 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 05:08 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:45 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

More than just practicality prevents that; mathematics itself has proven that such a thing is impossible. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

For an 'In Universe' example of why it's impossible, check out this video:

Well, in a finite closed space you can predict the future of that space if you can accurately scan the contents of that space and model them. Hypothetically you could make a copy of a person's brain and then if you control the environmental stimuli they experience you would be able to predict their responses. Quantum effects just average themselves out on the scale of a cell with trillions of atoms.

Problem is scanning a brain to that level of detail without destroying it in the process, storing that much data, knowing how to model the behavior of the organic molecules in the neurons correctly enough to accurately predict exactly whether or not they fire, and 100% controlling the environmental stimuli. Heck, a cosmic ray hit or isotope decay might be enough to misfire a single neuron, and hypothetically alter the output between both brain copies ever so slightly.

Experimentally proving or disproving free will is a task for a K2 civilization. All we can do is argue about it on the internet.

Unless Maxwell's Demon is your lab partner, scanning the space with 100% accurately is impossible. Even if you get 99.999%, chaos theory explains how things will quickly spiral out of control.

Dinosaurs everywhere man.

Well yeah, but a brain scan that captures each neuronal connection and their activation energies is still orders of magnitude less resolution required than what would run you up against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Like we can model a game of pool with sufficient accuracy using tape measures to disprove the free will of the pool table without having to worry about quantum effects or needing such a high frequency scanning beam that we move the balls by accident.

Quote: (01-05-2019 04:48 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (01-05-2019 12:36 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 09:07 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 05:08 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (01-04-2019 04:45 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

At least from the materialist end of things on a physical level matter just does things with probabilities, so anything we think or do is just the averaged sum of a zillion dice rolls. And just replacing determinism with randomness doesn't add free will (your soul isn't helping much if all it can do is act randomly on quantum states). But the only situation in which the existence of free will has any practical implication is if you could build a large enough computer to predict the future, and absolute physical limitations on computing power (regardless of technology) preclude that.

More than just practicality prevents that; mathematics itself has proven that such a thing is impossible. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

For an 'In Universe' example of why it's impossible, check out this video:

Well, in a finite closed space you can predict the future of that space if you can accurately scan the contents of that space and model them. Hypothetically you could make a copy of a person's brain and then if you control the environmental stimuli they experience you would be able to predict their responses. Quantum effects just average themselves out on the scale of a cell with trillions of atoms.

Problem is scanning a brain to that level of detail without destroying it in the process, storing that much data, knowing how to model the behavior of the organic molecules in the neurons correctly enough to accurately predict exactly whether or not they fire, and 100% controlling the environmental stimuli. Heck, a cosmic ray hit or isotope decay might be enough to misfire a single neuron, and hypothetically alter the output between both brain copies ever so slightly.

Experimentally proving or disproving free will is a task for a K2 civilization. All we can do is argue about it on the internet.

Unless Maxwell's Demon is your lab partner, scanning the space with 100% accurately is impossible. Even if you get 99.999%, chaos theory explains how things will quickly spiral out of control.

Dinosaurs everywhere man.

Well yeah, but a brain scan that captures each neuronal connection and their activation energies is still orders of magnitude less resolution required than what would run you up against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Like we can model a game of pool with sufficient accuracy using tape measures to disprove the free will of the pool table without having to worry about quantum effects or needing such a high frequency scanning beam that we move the balls by accident.

Modelling the brain? Maybe. But next you need to model the environment around said brain. And even then, you're confusing a mimicry of consciousness for an explanation of consciousness.

In the short form, minds are predictable. You offer a person a choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Their brain goes back and forth, weighing their preferences, and then it comes to a decision. Now rewind time and do it again. Their brain performs the same analysis, and chooses the same thing. In that sense - when we're including possibilities such as time travel - we're predictable.

But choosing between possibilities is the definition of free will. Just because there's a logical aspect to it doesn't diminish that. Furthermore, we're able to self-reflect and modify our behaviour. Not in the moment - in the moment you're running on auto-pilot - but over time, you can meditate on what you've done, and how you should do things differently. You can simulate a VR environment in your own head and 'practice' these new behaviours through imagination. One thing I've learned from studying mental illness is that - at the primordial level - it's impossible to define, because as soon as you define it, the mentally ill person wilfully changes their behaviours.

There is no absolute definition or explanation for human behaviour; it cannot be reduced to gears operating in a watch. Any attempt to over-define it will go hideously wrong for you, as the subject rebels against your predictions.