So you think we have cures for all viruses?

Do you understand why the term "virus" has been used for religion? A quick summary can be found at: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1997/11/virus.html

All ills can be cured if they are not normal to the presence of reality. Virus is a word created around an aggressive counterpart to bilogical and mental processes.
Everything that is seen as separate from ones self can be given a life of its own, seen with a life of its own, seen as a threat or as a counterpart to the present moment and all the intricacies of the present experience.

Religions are like branches of a Tree and the tree has its roots in something substantial enough to support its branches. All too often the mind looks at the branch and surmises the root as being exactly like the branch. Very few see the Tree and even fewer know the root of the tree.

Not necessarily so. For example, many see [biological] viruses as part of the natural world, and an important part at that. We can explore this further if you like.

You need to get out more. Schools have been invented.

I didn't say it was necessarily so.


I'm familiar with Schools, just not the one that explains how life is supposed to be lived, experienced and understood by all.

?? You got me there.

A good start is to learn about the natural world. After all we are part of it.

Actually it is a projection of our relationship with ourself

Dude I do not get you...You preach that everything is an illusion, yet you throw around terms like ignorance. If everything is an illusion, how then can you construct a concept like ignorance if everyone is ignorant of the true reality? Ignorance is a relative term, and without some relative truth, ignorance can not exist.

As for the virus comment...I would have to say that religion IS a virus. It spreads throughout the population infecting minds and chokeing the life out of what makes us human; thought (or as you like to put it ignorance). And I do agree, there would be a scientific counterpart called the cure, unfortunately that cure has yet to be found. Not to say that I am against all religion. If it helps you then who am I to judge, but it would be nice if people created their own ethical codes once in a while rather than following the words of some "prophet". It just seems to me that if God by whatever name you call him was truely all powerful, and truely wanted me to follow the dogma of his church, he would in all of his/her greatness compel me to abide. If god gave man free will, then he also gave him the ability to sin, and if god did not want me to sin then why would he grant me free will? I am sorry but the idea that freedom of thought is EVER ignorance is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. I will be the first to admit that I am ignorant, and in saying so I am implying that there is some hard truth out there, and for me that truth is life--I have just yet to figure out all of its complexities.

Oh, I don’t believe in many things
But I do believe that anything
Can be the thing that makes you bring
Your best to life
And I don’t believe in miracles
But I do believe in far-fetched goals
And questioning what you’ve been told
You know what feels right.

[pc]
Don’t criticize
What you can’t see with your eyes

[Chorus]

Don’t breathe
Don’t speak
Don’t think, and don’t you look at me
‘Cuz I’m guilty,
Yeah, I’m guilty, but at least I’m free
Free of beliefs
Oh, I’m free to fall to pieces
Or I’m free to find some genuine peace


[Verse]
Jesus, you say he taught a man to fish
Well why then does the Christian church
Feed you freeze-dried bible verse
When you ought to catch fresh thoughts

I’m not trying to be blasphemes
Not trying to tell you that from this
I’m thinking my own thoughts, that’s it
My mind cant be bought

[pc]
no need
To be right in your eyes
Cuz I use mine
[Chorus]

Don’t breathe
Don’t speak
Don’t think, and don’t you look at me
‘Cuz I’m guilty,
Yeah, I’m guilty, but at least I’m free
Free of beliefs
Oh, I’m free to fall to pieces
Or I’m free to find some genuine peace


[bridge]
Don’t think twice
No, don’t think three times
Don’t think at all for all I care
No don’t think at all if you don’t care
To know you mind from theirs
And there’s no price, no price on freedom
You just gotta leave em
You just gotta leave em
Or believe em if that’s your choice…
But if you believe em then God damn it--
[Chorus]

Don’t breathe
Don’t speak
Don’t think, and don’t you look at me
‘Cuz I’m guilty,
Yeah, I’m guilty, but at least I’m free
Free of beliefs
Oh, I’m free to fall to pieces
Or I’m free to find some genuine peace

I don't know about your relationship with yourself, but mine sure as hell doesn't have a war in Iraq.

Sure it does, you just ignore it.

Clearly I don't if nature truely does reflect our relationship with ourself~ Obviously if I'm aware of the war in Iraq I am not ignoring it. Why then would the nature that I project just happen to coincide with the nature that you project? That would suggest that you have the same relationship with your self as I do with mine. Maybe we have more in common than I thought. Actually that whole war in Iraq is most likely the result of my masturbation in the shower, and the inner turmoil that it caused--lets compare notes, do you think that is why your self reflected a war?

The tree of religion and its roots come from direct spiritual experiences of people who are later made into prophets. After the experience is described, rituals and scripture are created around it, and this solidifies the experience into dogma and male dominated (usually) social structures.

Religions often don't want people to experience the very thing their prophets are talking about. They see any direct experience in the spiritual realm (meditation, fasting, entheogens) to be a possible rival that requires stamping out, at least historically. This stinks of abuse and control and is not something a free mind should have to deal with.

Its one thing to preach about ecstatic visions of "our Lord" or the Virgin Mary - but no one else must experience it. If they do then they usually become tolerant to all beliefs whilst searching for their own truths in many different religions and will stop giving full control to a single religious entity. This is something those entities dont want.

I just find it extremely odd that many people who are devout Christians, Muslims, Yoga practitioners, Hindus etc. have not had a single transcendent personal experience. Its like sheep following THE sheep. It should be a requirement that the high priests of religions have direct personal experience, and understand the conscious enough to advise others how to attain this experience to solidify their belief.

However this is not what the organisations want, this experience actually creates freedom from dogma.

I didn't say you were unaware of the war in Iraq, just ignoring the relationship that exists between yourself and it.

There is no separation in consciousness itself, only on the surface levels of perception and belief that is created through individuality of the ego.

The individual expression that is the you and I have a relationship with consciousness. The individual by appearance extends itself from the One, in acceptance of perception through filters of identity.
At a personal level the mind can come up with all kinds of reasons for this or that, but from a distance, like standing back a bit further and witnessing humanity as a whole, it would be closer to the turmoil created through the projections of right and wrong, fear of not being supported and the need to protect ones self from invasion of the opposing beliefs and thoughts.
But that is just a convenient excuse to find reason for creation being perceived from anything less than omniscience and perfection.

I think it's safe to say you can keep masturbating without fear of escalating the war into WWIII. You might want to let go of any guilt. That can cause stress, and blind you of your more subtle experiences with the relationship you have with your manifest reality and knowing how perception is built through a habit of entertaining certain thought streams

I was referring to the Tree which has its roots in the presence which is witnessed by those have a spiritual experience of it, further spreading out to those who are touched by the presence of such a person. The reactions of the individual are not bound to dogmatic behavior. When the heart and the mind are balanced in the experience of that which expands conscious awareness and everything in life then they have no attachment to rituals nor a need to contain the power that exists everywhere.


Religions are built by people, they function as well as they are built, they have no power over individual choice, they can only appeal to those who are drawn to it and want to experience the Truth at a level that is passed around like a hat that was worn by God. If one doesn't have the ability to believe they can know and touch God then they will only allow themselves to hang out with others who can talk about what it might be like to hang out with God.


It doesn't work that way.
You might ask yourself why those who met and followed Jesus or Buddha didn't gain notariety as having reached the same understanding and level of consciousness as their Guides.
You can hold any type of class and that class can have hundres of thousands of students and many of them will not retain the class material. Mainly because their interests are selfish and what they experience in a master is twisted into personal desires for self satisfaction based on limits of themselves and the universe.
The master offers the mint which all banks get their wealth and the disciple can't imagine what they would do with 100 dollars. Those that take the 100 dollars then spend it without expanding it into more.

I mostly agree with you, but just because people mightn't use a direct spiritual experience to full effect doesn't mean they shouldnt be able to experience it to confirm the validity of their prophet(s).

I only bring this up because its a classic example of taboos, fear and control holding humanities spirituality back. No wonder faith has waned over time.

You think that someone who has the universe wouldn't have enough and would manipulate those around them to worship them rather than spread the wealth.

I think you are confusing the enlightened with one who has an enlightened ego. One who mentally projects a spiritual belief rather than one who lives the spiritual experience.

There is a big difference.

I'm not confusing them at all. I accept that truly enlightened individuals know that material wealth and property is an illusion that brings suffering, and that people can be enlightened in thought and not their lives. But it doesnt stop other people taking an enlightened persons word and putting in a box, then controlling people with the box and charging to hear the word.

All I'm saying is religion teaches about enlightened states, but in most cases make it illegal or frowned upon for followers to have the same experience as their prophets. They assume it must be fake or a threat to the power they have over others.

Disbelief in humanity is created by fear of annihilation, fear that ones perception, values and identity is wrong. Oddly enough fear of this can create enough of a destructive force to move some to extreme measures.
Each person is responsible to choose for what is truth in their reality. There are no victims.

By the way even Jesus knew enough that no one can just give away the truth.
Because the Truth exists everywhere and is ignored he knew enough to tell anyone who wanted to know and hear of Truth that they would have to shed their attachments, to open themselves to something different.
In The day one would have to follow him to learn, which meant giving up their current way of life and go on the road. The most one could hope to learn in a few days while he was passing through was relative to a few questions and answers.
Anyone should be able to surmise that you don't learn about life in a few short sessions in conversation.
Most value their own beliefs and relative truths and are unwilling to make any great change to those values. Church goers have the option of attending church at their leisure and some go once a week, some every day others when it suits their need, possibly when stress arises and they seek some miracle outside of themselves in a trip to visit God once a year.

Any Good Teacher knows one does not commit to anything unless they give it value. Not everyone is ready to commit themselves to learning about God.
There doesn't seem to be any judgment about spending thousands of dollars to go to college for an education relative to a commitment in a field of endeavor, but there is alot of judgment about charging to know God.
Everything is relative. If you want to dedicate your life to God and become a Monk you can shave your head and go meditate in a cave. You can go to school for years to become a priest, you can become a nun. There are many ways people approach God.

Not all approaches to a field of endeavor produce happiness, but it is the process of choice and the understanding of what one does iwith choice relative to the corresponding experiences that one learns how they themselves create themselves in both experience and in life.

No one is ever forced to make a choice but one has to value something before commitment takes place and there are so few that are committed to anything.
Most people would rather whine about themselves and the world than make a change in their life.
Problems are always the result of something outside of ones control.

Yea, Trip! I thought you were brighter than that too! What's up with that? And your lack of response to this post is puzzling.

If there is no "God" (an omnipotent being which created and transcends the limitation of our multiverse), then there isn't a previous agent who has ultimate control over my *will*. The infinite number of causes which have come together to create *me*, a being that constitutes one unique possibility in the vastness of existence, do not constitute control, but only influence. To say that we are in some way determined by the universe is merely to say that we are a part of the universe, a tautology.

Welcome to the Brain Meta community~

Being a part of the universe really has little to do with determinism v. free will. It is understood that we are all a part of the universe in one way or another. The question is, are we free to interact and change the course of the universe, or does the universe controll us? I would say that the forces of the universe controll us.

Each "choice" a person makes is not so much a choice, but rather like adding vectors. When someone is in a possition to say steal medication, or die. The individual weighs his/her options:

Steal and live......Don't steal*sociallytaboo+Punishment+Only a temporary fix
-------------->......+.....<-----<----------<-- = <-----

I think there is no such thing as free will, but rather people will do their own cost analysis weighing their options, and ALWAYS pick the option with the greatest benifit. One may have the perception of free will, but when it all comes down to it our decisions are always selfish and predictable.

Free will is:

1. God-determined. God knows everything. So God knows the future and your future and thus everything you will do. By default, God has determined your future. Out of your hands.

or

2. Traditional physical law-determined. We are biology, chemistry, physics .... The same universal laws apply to everything, including us. Laws determine our path. Out of our hands.

or

3. Quantum law-determined. Plenty of variety here. Statistically wide spectrum of possibilities. So unpredictable that we have no choice and just go with the flow. Out of our hands.

So no free will.

Have a go at adding others or amending those above.

coud you explain a little bit more your reasons???????? it would be nice...

1. The future does not exist so nobody can know it. Free will.

2. We obey physical law, but physical law is limited in what it can determine (see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Undecidability). Free will.

3. Statistical sea of quantum state collapses: so what? Our will makes us free.

Proof: for every determined decision we could make, we can take a step back to reflect on it and make a new determination. This is an infinite regression that slams the door on slave will!

The future exists in potential, thus it could be calculated (granted the calculation would be infinitely complex). Physics is limited in what it can determine, due to the limitations of our knowledge of physics, that is not to say that in theory, one could predict future events, even if the means are not available now.

The future is not predictable, even in theory. See Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science and Rudy Rucker's The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul. The limits of computation are very clear from Turing's thesis.

Here's another argument from a completely different direction:

If you truly don't believe in free will, then when you are summoned for jury duty, you will have to tell the judge that you can't hold people responsible for their actions because we don't have free will. You will probably be excused from jury duty for that.

Now if you say that people can be punished for their actions even though they are not responsible for them, you have an ethical dilema.

Not exactly. I believe in hard determinism through causality, but I also believe in punishment. This may appear to be an ethical dilema; however, if you look a little closer it clearly is not. I am sure you have seen my vector diagram. Punishment is a factor in any individuals "decision" to commit a crime. If the benefit from commiting the crime outweighs the punishment then the individual will take that risk--that is not to say they should not be punished. It is just another force that is factored into a cost analysis of any given decision.

I would have to say that punishment is a biproduct of social evolution, and definitely something that is easily predicted. The development of all of societies functions (sociology) can be explained through determinism.

You are describing an algorithm for decision. By the Church-Turing thesis of undecidability, the result of any non-trivial computation can not be predicted (even in theory). Most deterministic natural process are unpredictable: turbulent flow, stock market fluctuations, shapes of clouds, human thought.

Coming at it from a completely different direction, if we are inherently un-free, as some suggest, then politics becomes meaningless: why should we work for human rights and freedoms if there can be no free decisions? To say that free will does not exist is to say that political striving is absurd.

There's an insidious aspect to the slave-will side of the argument too: it gives an excuse to the lazy to continue neglecting politics, resulting in the election of inferior leaders, as recent history is showing all too clearly.

Hey Flex,

If one operates from a logical framework, and subscribes to the concept of causality (an extensive line of philosophical inquiry in and of itself), then classical Free Will is an incoherent concept.

Taking on this perspective doesn't bother me much however, as I long ago lost the urge to idealize.

Without retreating into question begging mysticism (such as first causes), a volitional agent is exactly equal to its internal constituency. The only constraints placed on the exercising of its *Will* are external factors. And since causation doesn't exclude the possibility of cognitions with expansive trajectories there is nothing to prevent external constraints from being overridden, via either existing capabilities or future capabilities produced by Optimizer heuristics.

I just don't buy it...Call me stubborn. Just because it is unpredictable now, or the human capacity is incapable of comprehending all of the billions of factors that contribute to any given action, does not mean that it is impossible. There was a time where the world was flat, and the universe revolved around that planetary pancake. Newton's theories of gravity were "truth" up until Einstein found a greater "truth", and who knows what even greater "truths" are to come. Maybe we will never be able to predict the future, but maybe we will someday be able to analyze why certain things occured in the past, and in doing so find ways to manipulate the future.

We do manipulate the future. After all, doesn't my taking an umbrella with me prevent the rain? Just joking there. We work in the anticipation that our labor will bear fruit.

If you ever get a chance, you should study the theory of computation (Turing's thesis, in particular). You will be able to convince yourself that it's logically impossible to find algorithms to decide certain classes of problems (such as the so-called "halting problem").

My problem with Turing's thesis is that it is based around algorithms.
"In mathematics, computing, linguistics and related disciplines, an algorithm is a procedure (a finite set of well-defined instructions) for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state. The computational complexity and efficient implementation of the algorithm are important in computing, and this depends on suitable data structures.

If you try to use algorithms alone to describe the universe and causality, there is a conflict with the principles of conservation of energy, and matter. The idea of an algorithm to me appears to be that there is some "end-state" that will inevitably be attained, but while looking at the natural world, and the laws that apparently govern the natural world, there is no "end-state".

That definition of algorithm is somewhat old-fashioned, from when computer programs were much simpler. Today, almost all computers run continually, much like the real world. Rucy Rucker (see above reference) describes this fairly extensively in his book.

Regardless of the above, I don't intend to attempt to describe the real world by algorithms alone. The mathematics of computation, however, is useful for disproving certain assertions about decision making, such as the false assertion that we do not have free will.

When delving into these sociological consideration, utilizing the concept of free will in the formation of social policy has proven disasterous time and time again. Is this really even debatable?

A consequentialist ethic addresses social policy simply and elegantly. With it, there are no punishments, only consequences. Criminals are incarcerated for the good of society. If the incarceration is only temporary, then rehabilitation would also be in the best interest of society. Although, clearly, rehabilitation programs are the exception rather than the norm in the American criminal justice system. Further evidence that primitive moral codes continue to weigh down *progress*.

"The thesis claims that any calculation that is possible can be performed by an algorithm running on a computer, provided that sufficient time and storage space are available. The thesis cannot be mathematically proven; it is sometimes proposed as a physical law or as a definition."

The fact that the Church-Turing thesis cannot be proven indicated to me that it is just yet another greater "truth". Once again, just as Newtons theorie of gravity was helpful (and still used today) didn't make it right. Einstein improved on his theory and with his new theory of relativity, we now how atomic power. Everything that science provides is a theory, not a fact, and will inevitably have some practical purpose. With every new greater "truth" there should be some greater purpose. Until we find Joesus ultimate truth and everything in the universe will be explained

The thesis is generally regarded as sound:

http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/cont...bstract/8/3/244

More relevant to the discussion of decidability issues is the unsolvability of the halting problem, which has been proven. Mathematicians use the halting problem to prove other undecidability issues.

Maybe we can continue this discussion in a few months when I get some understanding of the mathematics One semester of self taught calculous isn't cutting it right now...

Incomplete knowledge (resulting from inadequate means of observation), is the standard hard determinist line to the question of probabilistic causality. My personal cosmology allows for both chaotic and orderly forces that, when melded together, produce complexity. This seems consistent with current empirical data and theory in all of the major fields of science (eg, biology and evoluton, physics and quantum mechanics).

Fortunately for you Flex, the existence of stochastic processes is not an argument for Free Will. Whether an event is caused by a random or determined occurrence, it is still caused.

Free Will requires that a volition is its own first cause. Now that's a tall order, and a position that I have never seen convincingly argued.*


* Although Hofstadter comes close

I have a feeling you are going to have many valueable contributions to the Brain Meta community~ Would you care to do an "introduce yourself" thread?

I am going to leave you all for the night with the most recent evidence of causality in my life. A tour was booked in the winter----> I have to manage the tour--->I am going to be sleeping in a van in IL where the high today was 15---> I am going to be pissed.

I predicted the future to a limited extent~

Thx Flex, I remember coming here once before and I enjoyed the interaction very much.



Rick, perhaps your comments were in jest, but you did give a perfectly valid example of a *tool* and external augmentation. Who's to say that the umbrella didn't give you the ability to go out for lunch instead of being stuck inside waiting for the rain to pass?

Here is another hypothetical to illustrate my point. (please don't draw any inferences regarding my stance on the right to bear arms)

One night walking home from work you are mugged at gun point by a man wearing a ski mask. For whatever reason, after the incident you decide that it is in your best interest to protect yourself. So you go out and buy a small hand gun. The gun, like the umbrella (and opposable thumbs) is a *tool* that serves a specific purpose (in this case, protection). However, if one has even a sliver of common sense, s/he would soon realize that the gun's ability to protect its owner is fairly limited without the owner also possessing a proficiency in firing it.

So you go to the firing range and hone your skills as a marksman. What you are actually doing is reinforcing various inter-neuronal connections that can then be used to reproduce a specific behavorial pattern; hand-eye coordination.

The internal-external dichotomy is a useful abstraction, especially when considering matters in a traditional genetic evolutionary context. In fact, a fair amount of Dennett's Freedom Evolves uses this 'intution pump' to make the case for compatibilism when he discusses the various levels of intelligence and the incremental process that allowed one level to boot strap off of another. Unfortunately, each level has its limitation, and we gregorian creatures are no exceptions to this rule.

All processes are predictable if you could time travel. Einstein showed that space is curved, time is relative, and time travel is theoretically possible. If there is time travel, there is simply no free will.

Not if God exists. This is what some people believe. I have no interest in pursuing their beliefs here, as there are better scientific possibilities to discuss.
Why do we have to determine the future pathway for the whole universe to understand the issue of free will? On a more local level there are possibilities. Consider the possible outcomes following an action. On a very local level (a human) we could map many of the possible outcomes easily and given time/computing power as near to an infinite number of outcomes as we want to explore. Quite far away from infinite outcomes would probably come the limited choices that we have as responses to our environment (not the grass out there, but our daily world or our internal world) and we would have mapped these. So, I put it to you, that on more local levels we will eventually be able to map all possible outcomes, given computing power (big in the future, I almost said unimaginably, but I am imagining it) and the limited responses that our brain can realistically achieve. If we can count to a big number (using a computer) then we can map to that number of possibilities. So we will be able to map our possible activity and hence no free will, just predictable output.
Here's one for you. We have a thought or a neuronal event and need to translate that into something, for example, move a finger. Machines can already detect brain activity and determine what the response will be. Future machines will be able to VERY rapidly detect brain activity and determine VERY rapidly the response. Due to the sluggish transmission system we have (biological) versus the machine's system (electronic and beyond) the machine will be able to state what the action will be before it occurs. Thus us will have predicted the outcome of a brain event before the brain event can turn into an action. The machine has seen our future before our future and there is no free will. If our neuronal and muscular systems were fast enough, we would be able to see what we were going to do before we did it .

OK, suppose I give up and concede that there is no free will: the slave hypothesis is correct. What are the implications?

Perhaps a slave will person should not try to quit smoking because he has no control over his future behavior: if he quits, he quits, and if he doesn't he doesn't.

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

Rick, you seem like a very rational guy, but I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from with this Free Will argument.

Are you contending that their are uncaused causes? Is volition like Athena, springing forth from the head of Jupiter?

Resorting to mysticism and the concept of *soul* is the only way to attain any consistency when arguing in support of free will.

Clearly, a great deal of what makes me "me" comes from factors external to myself. The language I speak, my taste in music, my physical capabilities and urges; all of these can be traced back causally to factors external to my person. Accordingly, most aspects of our consciousness are indisputably determined, however the argument put forward by dualism is that there is a higher "executive level" that can over ride lower level "determined" processes. Rene Descartes coined the pineal gland the "seat of the soul" because he believe that human Will was projected into it from.....another dimension?

I would assert that Free Will demands nothing less than the adoption of dualism if one is to maintain a respectable degree of intellectual consistency. Please however observe my use of a conditional proposition, as even logic suffers from the need to be justified. Similarly, declaring the objective validity of either side of the free will dichotomy also doesn't seem appropriate. We must be upfront about the fact that we are engaged in acts of intepretation - interpretations that are dictated by values. For example, my particular values lead me to reconcile the existence of the opposing viewpoint with the opinion that everyone needs their existential comforts.

Values that are relative to the choice one makes in solidifying reality into form is not entirely subject to the form. In order for the form to be supported it has to have a greater support system which is formless and allows it to be interpreted equally with as much delusion as there are people to interpret it. That thought process begins before the form

That's not right either, or a person would not have started smoking in the first place if he wanted to pursue his best interests. Starting smoking could be viewed as a mimicking activity (part of the reason for advertising) and trying to quit could be acting on information that, for example, suggests it will kill you - a psycho- reflex. Your "In your best interests" argument is redundant - consider sacrificing your life to save a drowning child - purely species orientated and nothing to do with your own best interests.
Thus your "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" statement did not impress.

Ergo, your will is free...

No, just reactive.

At lesser states of consciousness and without the ability to witness thoughts and feelings, life could appear to be reactive, but we all have a choice.

"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins

Well Said.
I 'believe' fully in the 'human-robot-deterministic' idea. However I do not think this explains what I would say are higher cortical functions such as artistic abilities, musical and such other similar creative systems, maybe some explaination for such phenomonae should be investigated.
I think that once understood fully these ideas would perphaps show evidence for some sort of human 'will'
whether free or not.