In some ways true, but the more evolved one is consciously, the better we are at overriding subconscious urges. For example, the maturation process for children involves learning to overcome the Id. Some psychotherapy is all about learning to recognize childhood trauma and then consciously training to override it.
When we notice...that's when we have the power to choose.
So ignorance isn't a choice? Just happenstance? How could ones senses not notice being moved at any moment of ones existence? What powers sense (awareness; perception)?
Reasoning (better vs worse) diminishes choice, because it focuses on outcomes through the lens of conflict. Implication (if/then) focuses on origin without a conflict.
Others suggest outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one into conflicts (of reason).
Being aware is a tool that allows us more choices.
a) once again reasoning (more vs less); plus suggested collectivism (more choices) tempting one to ignore one's only free will of choice.
b) nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each ones awareness (perception), and to be aware of implies to be different from, hence different (choice) within same (balance).
c) tool aka instrument aka IN (being within) STRUERE (to spread) MENT (mind/memory) aka being within (life) spread (inception towards death) of mind/memory (momentum).
Momentum implies memory of motion, because only within momentum can ongoing (inception towards death) establish temporary (life)...MEM'ORY, noun - "exemption from oblivion" aka exemption (living) from oblivion (process of dying)....at least momentarily.
d) allow aka ALL (whole) LOW/LOCAL (partials)...one implies lower than all; all implies circumference for each local one, hence one being center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable).
Others tempts one with their suggested choices to ignore ones singular free will of choice. Consent tempts one to get lost in surrounding choices, while ignoring how to be choice at center of balance.
Furthermore; consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one into a conflict of reason (want vs not want) aka imbalance, which further distracts one from perceivable balance.
Many people on this forum use energy to convince other's of their opinion.
a) FO'RUM, noun - "a public place, where causes were judicially tried, and orations delivered to the people; also, a market place"...consent (buying) meets suggestions (selling)...opinions suggested; become opium for ones consent.
On a bigger scale...the consent (want or not want) of the many, sets the suggesting few as the happy merchants of temptation. If many ignore all nature offers; then a few will become the substitute merchant for nature...selling perceivable (reality) in disguise of suggested (fiction).
The disguise of suggested implies both the ignorance of the many and the "chutzpah" of the few wielding the "art of the deal".
b) "convince" tempts one to blame others; "consent" implicates self. If one tries to convince others about their consent, they will deny self implication, while blaming one for whatever sticks...anything to shirk response-ability onto another.
Choose a side
a) a suggested side shaped by the choice of another.
b) a side within imbalance aka within a conflict of reason...want vs not want; true vs false; us vs them; agree vs deny; believe vs disbelieve, good vs bad; hamas vs jews etc.
c) being choice implies within balance (need/want). Motion implies both need to resist and want to ignore resisting for those within. It ain't a conflict against others; but a struggle for the sustenance of self aka "Mein Kampf/my struggle".
How to distract one from my struggle? Suggest an idol (Hitler) and make "Mein Kampf" about him.
in reality the real choice is walking away and not choosing.
Suggested "away" tempts one to ignore being (life) within way (inception towards death)...each choice adapts to being moved. One cannot walk away within a way.
If energy (internal/inherent power) is the foundation of everything within, then AWAY (absent) implies ones ignorance thereof aka being absentminded...
Try using implication before thinking: "if all implies one in energy; then....".
an artificially created ultimatum
a) ignoring natural (perceivable) establishes artificial (suggested). Nature gives (sound) and those within take and repack it (words) to get what's given without sharing.
b) suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation (partials within whole).
c) suggested progressivism (ultimate) tempts one to seek furthest (suggested outcomes), while ignoring nearest (perceiving origin).
What's nearer? That which is perceivable or that which others suggest will be or was?
a choice to give energy and attention to that cause
Cause (velocity) gives (inception) and takes (death) effect (resistance)...resisting sustains self (life) during give/take balance by choosing need to adapt to given or want to consent to taken.
If I choose to ignore you, what power do you have over me?
Your consent to suggested nihilism, since ignorance implies ones denial of perceivable, when choosing to ignore suggested. That -ism can be shaped by my suggestions to steer your already consenting choice.
Furthermore; claiming "me; myself and I" shapes every ONE else into a "you". So "I choose to ignore you" implies anyone can take the place of "you", without drawing suspicion when making suggestions.
That's the trick underneath you/jew. That's why a so called jew utilizes this brand to masquerade as any "you" a "me" categorizes the world as.
A claim (me) seeks to obtain a debt (you)...
If I'm presented with two choices, am I smart enough, and do I have enough awareness, to choose a third or fourth choice?
a) suggested collectivism tempts one to count others (pluralism); while ignoring self (singular aka partial within whole aka one within oneness). Ones consent to another one implies dualism (two), hence establishing the foundation for collectivism. That dualism implies RELIGIO - "to bind anew" or mercantilism (buying and selling) or contract law (consent to suggested), while ignoring natural law (adapt to perceivable).
b) each choice implies ones free will of choice..."there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one".
c) consider "self" discernment...others can choose to give it to you; but you cannot take it without ignoring to discern "self". One cannot choose choices (plural) without ignoring to be choice (single).
Choosing another shapes "chosen ones", while ignoring "one's choice".
At what point do we choose to go along with something which leads...
a) by discerning self to be a life "sentence", one diminishes the temptation of suggested "points" (end of sentence) by others.
b) by discerning self to be one (singular); suggested pluralism (we) loses potential.
c) being discerning to be (life) directed (inception towards death) one can comprehend the need to resist the want to follow along.
You entire sentence implies the solution to the problems you seek answers for. Sleight of hand from the Rofschild-thread: "any poison which occurs in nature, has its remedy within 3 meters".
there might be other choices then the ones that were presented
Nature presents balance (momentum of motion aka moving differences aka perceivable inspiration) towards ones free will of choice...others within nature shape suggestions with their free will of choice to distract you from yours.
Indifference is a strong weapon during a time of great polarity and divisions.
a) division of whole into partials implies internal/inherent differentiation, hence energy.
b) electric (male; motion) generates magnetic (female; momentum) for electro-magnetic trans-mutation of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
c) the only weapon (instrument of offense/defense) implies ones free will of choice aka "weapon of choice".
I enjoy how you break down words
Thanks; I break down what others build with suggested words within perceivable sound. Why? To make it harder for others to ignore sound (reality) for words (fiction).
Holding onto definitions (definite; affixed) tempts one to ignore being (instrument) within motion (sound).
Whole to partials implies the origin of "break". Being implies apart from one another as broken partial (growth aka form) within unbroken; sound; entire; whole (loss aka flow). This can be discerned by self; not gained from others.
deeper thinking
Any suggested information one holds onto aka ones beliefs; ideas, all the -isms one consents to be part of; all the meanings and definitions one upholds within mind/memory, everything one reasons over....that's what buries ones thinking aka ones adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
In short...one ignores flow, when holding onto form. "falling" for temptations "sinks" one deeper...
I'm using to express
"to" aka towards implies the impressing motion (loss) using your expression (growth).
And exactly what do you think are most sources of trauma, how much of it is a response of economic/societal degradation. How much control of a life does a person really have outside of their own personal day to day decisions.
I agree with you, I would love to move on from what happened to me.
I was poisoned with refrigerant, denied medical help. I was laughed at, I was lied to, had two doctors break their Hippocratic oath(One lied about a medication I was never given, and the other diagnosed my heart rhythm without every answering what my heart was doing at night), and its 5 years later, im still suffering. Looks like this is how im going out too.
I got my parathyroid results a few days back, its not good. About 4 times whats it supposed to be. Its either kidney damage or its a a benign growth, either or are a death sentence. Am I supposed to just ingest 3-5times as much phosphorous as a normal person, somehow, and hope my kidney doesnt completely fail at some point. I also wont go under the knife of a people who use the Hippocratic oath as toilet paper.
You may call that irrational, but it sounds perfectly fucking logical to me.
I would legitimately like to know how you would move on?
For me, getting the truth would be a big fucking start.
TRAUMAT'IC, adjective (Greek; a wound)...motion generates momentum (inception towards death), which implies a wound for the struggle of health (life) within. Living implies within the process of dying aka cauterization aka "to burn or sear with fire as morbid flesh".
Sapolsky was raised in an Orthodox Jewish household in Brooklyn, the son of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Sounds like an interesting character. He makes some good points. There's a reason many of us refer to the general populace as NPC's. How much agency do people have who are so easily manipulated by the media and their authority figures? They are almost certainly living their lives by a script and make very few (if any) choices that are outside of their programming.
You may have had the uncanny experience of talking about an upcoming camping trip with a friend, only to find yourself served with ads for tents on social media later. Your phone didn’t record your conversation, even if that’s what it feels like. It’s just that the collective record of your likes, clicks, searches and shares paints such a detailed picture of your preferences and decision-making patterns that algorithms can predict — often with unsettling accuracy — what you are going to do.
This is another great example of how predictable a human is.
However, I do think there is a line that some people cross into sentience. It seems like our species has been flirting with the idea of sentience for thousands of years, and occasionally someone breaks through into relative sentience. Eventually, our entire species will become sentient, but I think the majority are as easy to understand as any animal that you can observe in the wild.
How much agency do people have who are so easily manipulated by the media and their authority figures?
Manipulated by implies "reacting" to. Others utilize manipulation to distract one from being regent (life) within agent (inception towards death).
Manipulation aka MANIPULUS (manual) -ATION (automatic) aka manual reaction (life) within automatic action (inception towards death).
how predictable a human is
PRE (before) DICO (to tell) aka the suggestions by others, while tempt one to ignore how human (form) comes to be...animal (animation aka flow).
Those who ignore motion follow dictated directions, which permits those suggesting to predict outcomes.
someone breaks through into relative sentience...Eventually, our entire species
Whole (inception towards death) breaking into partials (life) establishes sentience aka awareness of being perception within perceivable.
Others suggest pluralism (our) and collectivism (entire) to distract singular (one) from discerning self to be apart from one another.
will become...
...implies the suggested inversion of coming (inception towards death) to be (life) free will of choice.
Two suggested words "will become" can flip ones perception of existence (coming to be will)...if one consents to it and thereby establishes dual-ism (two).
Nobody in science of consciousness worth anything takes Sapolsky seriously. He is considered a low-level hack in this field. His main publishing is in neuroscience, which cannot explain consciousness (see "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology", by Bernardo Kastrup and his successive books on the subject).
Well, a lot of people do behave like stupid repeating robots with low consciousness. And yes, they do seem to be useless eaters. I know a lot of them.
This guy seems more like a dumb white guy liberal than an arrogant Jewish intellectual. But he is stupid beyond reason where he asserts that because people are robots, you can't hold then accountable for their crimes. Seems like a Soros type in disguise.
I believe one does not find people on the right claiming that lack of free will justifies freedom to commit crimes without consequence. It is only the liberal left that denies responsibilities for one's acts, and forum trolls.
Quantum mechanics crushes the idea of hard determinism by introducing proof that pure deterministic mechanisms cannot exist at the QM level. However, the effect of that can be reduced or alleviated by proper system architectures. In other words, we build CPUs that work because we make them resistant to the effects of low-level uncertainty. Similarly, the mind can be made resistant to the effects of subconscious tugs and hence be made more reliable through resistance to emotions in decision making.
This might not go where Sapolksy thinks it should.
A rabid dog has no responsibility either, but is still put down. The only reason for prison time is if you do believe there is free will and the person can will themselves to chainge.
Here's a comment on the article I found interesting:
Karma is related to thought, intention, and action. So, if a person commits a crime once, there's probably not a whole lot of karma there. If a person lives a life of crime, then there is a whole lot of karma there. If you live a life in which you were raised in neglect and poverty, and turned to a life of crime because it was easier, then there's a pattern of behavior involving intention, thought, and action related to crime - that pattern is karma (Karma is not "do a good thing, and good will come back to you/ do a bad thing, bad things will happen to you" - there is an element of that, but it's much more complicated). In any case, many people extract themselves from a life of crime. How? They decide to change their lives - in this way, they are breaking a karmic pattern. There are many ways to do it, but one way to break a karmic pattern is to meditate, see clearly one's thoughts and actions, and in the stillness, let go of negative thoughts that might keep one in a certain (in this case, a life of crime) karmic cycle. But again, intention is involved: if a person doesn't have an intention to change, no amount of meditation will help. Shorter answer: yes, Buddhism (not me) says that a person can meditate on their karmic situation, and seeing it clearly, they can let go, and thus, at least to some degree, change their karma with present thought, intention, and action.
a) suggested "free will" tempts those who choose to consent willingly to ignore "free will OF CHOICE".
b) suggestions shaped by the free will of choice of others tempts those who consent to ignore their free will of choice.
c) if being (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of motion; then as choice (life) within balance (inception/death).
declares
DECLA'RE, verb - "to clear; to free from obscurity; to make plain"
Being free will of choice implies unique (life) within plain (inception towards death), hence in-between light (clear) and dark (obscure).
there is no
Where is "nothing"? What is "nothing"? Why is "nothing"? Who is "nothing"? If nothing implies ones consent to suggested nihilism, then can one in denial discern that?
Does one in denial wield the free will of choice to resist denying?
no responsibility
What enables one to respond? Does motion imply action enabling those being moved to react? Does being reaction imply being within action?
Can reaction choose to deny perceivable action for suggested reactions by others?
criminal act
CRIME, noun (Latin , Greek, to separate)...being (life) implies separated (crime) within natural law (inception towards death).
Action (law) generates (crime) reactions (free will of choice).
after decades of study, concludes...we don't have free will.
a) STUDY (setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject) aka subjecting oneself willingly to the suggested teachings by others aka slave (student) generating master (teacher).
b) being alive implies as a commencing life sentence...only death concludes life.
c) others suggest pluralism (we) to distract singular (one) from self as partial (growth) within whole (loss).
d) others suggest nihilism (don't) to distract one from everything perceivable and thereby from discerning ones position at the center thereof.
more likely to hail from an individualistic culture rather than a collective one.
Rofl, so basically mainstream yuppies. Ive showed before, where Appalachians are "collectivist". So are many other cultures.
In general, the Appalachian culture is collectivist, compared to the individualist mainstream U.S. culture.
The brainwashing is strong in this article.
You may have had the uncanny experience of talking about an upcoming camping trip with a friend, only to find yourself served with ads for tents on social media later. Your phone didn’t record your conversation, even if that’s what it feels like. It’s just that the collective record of your likes, clicks, searches and shares paints such a detailed picture of your preferences and decision-making patterns that algorithms can predict — often with unsettling accuracy — what you are going to do.
I cant even finish this word vomit. Its just basically trying to convince the reader free will does not exist, by just listing examples. No real proof. Doesnt believe in god, doesnt believe in the spirit. How does evolution happen if free will did not exist? (if you believe in god, i know your answer)
This article sounds like an excuse for rich people to do whatever they want and still sleep at night comfortably. I hope your material riches are worth an eternity in purgatory, or being reincarnated as a fucking cockroach for the next million cycles. Thats the only thing that really gets me through everything. I know that what we see is not everything there is.
Our bodies are just masks that we are given when we are born into this world.
How did my free will allow me to be poisoned by someone else's negligence, sure Ive thought about this time and time again, was it fate? And I have no answer for that, but what happened afterwards? That was the definition of free will.
If I had no free will, I would have burned their shop down. And in the 200/160 blood pressure, the thought kept creeping back to me. I dont believe in hurting people, for any reason. A cell is a worse punishment than death. But property can be replaced, its just material bullshit.
In some ways true, but the more evolved one is consciously, the better we are at overriding subconscious urges. For example, the maturation process for children involves learning to overcome the Id. Some psychotherapy is all about learning to recognize childhood trauma and then consciously training to override it.
So ignorance isn't a choice? Just happenstance? How could ones senses not notice being moved at any moment of ones existence? What powers sense (awareness; perception)?
Reasoning (better vs worse) diminishes choice, because it focuses on outcomes through the lens of conflict. Implication (if/then) focuses on origin without a conflict.
Others suggest outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one into conflicts (of reason).
a) once again reasoning (more vs less); plus suggested collectivism (more choices) tempting one to ignore one's only free will of choice.
b) nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each ones awareness (perception), and to be aware of implies to be different from, hence different (choice) within same (balance).
c) tool aka instrument aka IN (being within) STRUERE (to spread) MENT (mind/memory) aka being within (life) spread (inception towards death) of mind/memory (momentum).
Momentum implies memory of motion, because only within momentum can ongoing (inception towards death) establish temporary (life)...MEM'ORY, noun - "exemption from oblivion" aka exemption (living) from oblivion (process of dying)....at least momentarily.
d) allow aka ALL (whole) LOW/LOCAL (partials)...one implies lower than all; all implies circumference for each local one, hence one being center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable).
Others tempts one with their suggested choices to ignore ones singular free will of choice. Consent tempts one to get lost in surrounding choices, while ignoring how to be choice at center of balance.
Furthermore; consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one into a conflict of reason (want vs not want) aka imbalance, which further distracts one from perceivable balance.
a) FO'RUM, noun - "a public place, where causes were judicially tried, and orations delivered to the people; also, a market place"...consent (buying) meets suggestions (selling)...opinions suggested; become opium for ones consent.
On a bigger scale...the consent (want or not want) of the many, sets the suggesting few as the happy merchants of temptation. If many ignore all nature offers; then a few will become the substitute merchant for nature...selling perceivable (reality) in disguise of suggested (fiction).
The disguise of suggested implies both the ignorance of the many and the "chutzpah" of the few wielding the "art of the deal".
b) "convince" tempts one to blame others; "consent" implicates self. If one tries to convince others about their consent, they will deny self implication, while blaming one for whatever sticks...anything to shirk response-ability onto another.
a) a suggested side shaped by the choice of another.
b) a side within imbalance aka within a conflict of reason...want vs not want; true vs false; us vs them; agree vs deny; believe vs disbelieve, good vs bad; hamas vs jews etc.
c) being choice implies within balance (need/want). Motion implies both need to resist and want to ignore resisting for those within. It ain't a conflict against others; but a struggle for the sustenance of self aka "Mein Kampf/my struggle".
How to distract one from my struggle? Suggest an idol (Hitler) and make "Mein Kampf" about him.
Suggested "away" tempts one to ignore being (life) within way (inception towards death)...each choice adapts to being moved. One cannot walk away within a way.
If energy (internal/inherent power) is the foundation of everything within, then AWAY (absent) implies ones ignorance thereof aka being absentminded...
Try using implication before thinking: "if all implies one in energy; then....".
a) ignoring natural (perceivable) establishes artificial (suggested). Nature gives (sound) and those within take and repack it (words) to get what's given without sharing.
b) suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation (partials within whole).
c) suggested progressivism (ultimate) tempts one to seek furthest (suggested outcomes), while ignoring nearest (perceiving origin).
What's nearer? That which is perceivable or that which others suggest will be or was?
Cause (velocity) gives (inception) and takes (death) effect (resistance)...resisting sustains self (life) during give/take balance by choosing need to adapt to given or want to consent to taken.
Your consent to suggested nihilism, since ignorance implies ones denial of perceivable, when choosing to ignore suggested. That -ism can be shaped by my suggestions to steer your already consenting choice.
Furthermore; claiming "me; myself and I" shapes every ONE else into a "you". So "I choose to ignore you" implies anyone can take the place of "you", without drawing suspicion when making suggestions.
That's the trick underneath you/jew. That's why a so called jew utilizes this brand to masquerade as any "you" a "me" categorizes the world as.
A claim (me) seeks to obtain a debt (you)...
a) suggested collectivism tempts one to count others (pluralism); while ignoring self (singular aka partial within whole aka one within oneness). Ones consent to another one implies dualism (two), hence establishing the foundation for collectivism. That dualism implies RELIGIO - "to bind anew" or mercantilism (buying and selling) or contract law (consent to suggested), while ignoring natural law (adapt to perceivable).
b) each choice implies ones free will of choice..."there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one".
c) consider "self" discernment...others can choose to give it to you; but you cannot take it without ignoring to discern "self". One cannot choose choices (plural) without ignoring to be choice (single).
Choosing another shapes "chosen ones", while ignoring "one's choice".
a) by discerning self to be a life "sentence", one diminishes the temptation of suggested "points" (end of sentence) by others.
b) by discerning self to be one (singular); suggested pluralism (we) loses potential.
c) being discerning to be (life) directed (inception towards death) one can comprehend the need to resist the want to follow along.
You entire sentence implies the solution to the problems you seek answers for. Sleight of hand from the Rofschild-thread: "any poison which occurs in nature, has its remedy within 3 meters".
Nature presents balance (momentum of motion aka moving differences aka perceivable inspiration) towards ones free will of choice...others within nature shape suggestions with their free will of choice to distract you from yours.
a) division of whole into partials implies internal/inherent differentiation, hence energy.
b) electric (male; motion) generates magnetic (female; momentum) for electro-magnetic trans-mutation of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
c) the only weapon (instrument of offense/defense) implies ones free will of choice aka "weapon of choice".
Thanks; I break down what others build with suggested words within perceivable sound. Why? To make it harder for others to ignore sound (reality) for words (fiction).
Holding onto definitions (definite; affixed) tempts one to ignore being (instrument) within motion (sound).
Whole to partials implies the origin of "break". Being implies apart from one another as broken partial (growth aka form) within unbroken; sound; entire; whole (loss aka flow). This can be discerned by self; not gained from others.
Any suggested information one holds onto aka ones beliefs; ideas, all the -isms one consents to be part of; all the meanings and definitions one upholds within mind/memory, everything one reasons over....that's what buries ones thinking aka ones adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
In short...one ignores flow, when holding onto form. "falling" for temptations "sinks" one deeper...
"to" aka towards implies the impressing motion (loss) using your expression (growth).
And exactly what do you think are most sources of trauma, how much of it is a response of economic/societal degradation. How much control of a life does a person really have outside of their own personal day to day decisions.
I agree with you, I would love to move on from what happened to me.
I was poisoned with refrigerant, denied medical help. I was laughed at, I was lied to, had two doctors break their Hippocratic oath(One lied about a medication I was never given, and the other diagnosed my heart rhythm without every answering what my heart was doing at night), and its 5 years later, im still suffering. Looks like this is how im going out too.
I got my parathyroid results a few days back, its not good. About 4 times whats it supposed to be. Its either kidney damage or its a a benign growth, either or are a death sentence. Am I supposed to just ingest 3-5times as much phosphorous as a normal person, somehow, and hope my kidney doesnt completely fail at some point. I also wont go under the knife of a people who use the Hippocratic oath as toilet paper.
You may call that irrational, but it sounds perfectly fucking logical to me.
I would legitimately like to know how you would move on?
For me, getting the truth would be a big fucking start.
Justice and truth in canada DO NOT EXIST.
TRAUMAT'IC, adjective (Greek; a wound)...motion generates momentum (inception towards death), which implies a wound for the struggle of health (life) within. Living implies within the process of dying aka cauterization aka "to burn or sear with fire as morbid flesh".
Sounds like an interesting character. He makes some good points. There's a reason many of us refer to the general populace as NPC's. How much agency do people have who are so easily manipulated by the media and their authority figures? They are almost certainly living their lives by a script and make very few (if any) choices that are outside of their programming.
This is another great example of how predictable a human is.
However, I do think there is a line that some people cross into sentience. It seems like our species has been flirting with the idea of sentience for thousands of years, and occasionally someone breaks through into relative sentience. Eventually, our entire species will become sentient, but I think the majority are as easy to understand as any animal that you can observe in the wild.
Manipulated by implies "reacting" to. Others utilize manipulation to distract one from being regent (life) within agent (inception towards death).
Manipulation aka MANIPULUS (manual) -ATION (automatic) aka manual reaction (life) within automatic action (inception towards death).
PRE (before) DICO (to tell) aka the suggestions by others, while tempt one to ignore how human (form) comes to be...animal (animation aka flow).
Those who ignore motion follow dictated directions, which permits those suggesting to predict outcomes.
Whole (inception towards death) breaking into partials (life) establishes sentience aka awareness of being perception within perceivable.
Others suggest pluralism (our) and collectivism (entire) to distract singular (one) from discerning self to be apart from one another.
...implies the suggested inversion of coming (inception towards death) to be (life) free will of choice.
Two suggested words "will become" can flip ones perception of existence (coming to be will)...if one consents to it and thereby establishes dual-ism (two).
Nobody in science of consciousness worth anything takes Sapolsky seriously. He is considered a low-level hack in this field. His main publishing is in neuroscience, which cannot explain consciousness (see "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology", by Bernardo Kastrup and his successive books on the subject).
He's so jewish, his early life section says this:
Well, a lot of people do behave like stupid repeating robots with low consciousness. And yes, they do seem to be useless eaters. I know a lot of them.
This guy seems more like a dumb white guy liberal than an arrogant Jewish intellectual. But he is stupid beyond reason where he asserts that because people are robots, you can't hold then accountable for their crimes. Seems like a Soros type in disguise.
Wait, are you implying that Joe Biden is a Stanford professor?!! By god sir, you may be onto something there.
This is not related to the fake right left paradigm, and it isn't a new idea.
Hard determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism
I believe one does not find people on the right claiming that lack of free will justifies freedom to commit crimes without consequence. It is only the liberal left that denies responsibilities for one's acts, and forum trolls.
Quantum mechanics crushes the idea of hard determinism by introducing proof that pure deterministic mechanisms cannot exist at the QM level. However, the effect of that can be reduced or alleviated by proper system architectures. In other words, we build CPUs that work because we make them resistant to the effects of low-level uncertainty. Similarly, the mind can be made resistant to the effects of subconscious tugs and hence be made more reliable through resistance to emotions in decision making.
This might not go where Sapolksy thinks it should.
A rabid dog has no responsibility either, but is still put down. The only reason for prison time is if you do believe there is free will and the person can will themselves to chainge.
Here's a comment on the article I found interesting:
a) suggested "free will" tempts those who choose to consent willingly to ignore "free will OF CHOICE".
b) suggestions shaped by the free will of choice of others tempts those who consent to ignore their free will of choice.
c) if being (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of motion; then as choice (life) within balance (inception/death).
DECLA'RE, verb - "to clear; to free from obscurity; to make plain"
Being free will of choice implies unique (life) within plain (inception towards death), hence in-between light (clear) and dark (obscure).
Where is "nothing"? What is "nothing"? Why is "nothing"? Who is "nothing"? If nothing implies ones consent to suggested nihilism, then can one in denial discern that?
Does one in denial wield the free will of choice to resist denying?
What enables one to respond? Does motion imply action enabling those being moved to react? Does being reaction imply being within action?
Can reaction choose to deny perceivable action for suggested reactions by others?
CRIME, noun (Latin , Greek, to separate)...being (life) implies separated (crime) within natural law (inception towards death).
Action (law) generates (crime) reactions (free will of choice).
a) STUDY (setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject) aka subjecting oneself willingly to the suggested teachings by others aka slave (student) generating master (teacher).
b) being alive implies as a commencing life sentence...only death concludes life.
c) others suggest pluralism (we) to distract singular (one) from self as partial (growth) within whole (loss).
d) others suggest nihilism (don't) to distract one from everything perceivable and thereby from discerning ones position at the center thereof.
Rofl, so basically mainstream yuppies. Ive showed before, where Appalachians are "collectivist". So are many other cultures.
The brainwashing is strong in this article.
I cant even finish this word vomit. Its just basically trying to convince the reader free will does not exist, by just listing examples. No real proof. Doesnt believe in god, doesnt believe in the spirit. How does evolution happen if free will did not exist? (if you believe in god, i know your answer)
This article sounds like an excuse for rich people to do whatever they want and still sleep at night comfortably. I hope your material riches are worth an eternity in purgatory, or being reincarnated as a fucking cockroach for the next million cycles. Thats the only thing that really gets me through everything. I know that what we see is not everything there is.
Our bodies are just masks that we are given when we are born into this world.
How did my free will allow me to be poisoned by someone else's negligence, sure Ive thought about this time and time again, was it fate? And I have no answer for that, but what happened afterwards? That was the definition of free will.
If I had no free will, I would have burned their shop down. And in the 200/160 blood pressure, the thought kept creeping back to me. I dont believe in hurting people, for any reason. A cell is a worse punishment than death. But property can be replaced, its just material bullshit.