It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Psychological research on cognition and attribution has asked people to report on their mental processes, for instance to say why they made a particular choice or how they arrived at a judgment. In some situations, these reports are clearly confabulated. For example, people justify choices they have not in fact made. Such results undermine the idea that those verbal reports are based on direct introspective access to mental content. Instead, judgements about one's own mind seem to be inferences from overt behavior, similar to judgements made about another person. However, it is hard to assess whether these results only apply to unusual experimental situations, or if they reveal something about everyday introspection. The theory of the adaptive unconscious suggests that a very large proportion of mental processes, even "high-level" processes like goal-setting and decision-making, are inaccessible to introspection.
Even when their introspections are uninformative, people still give confident descriptions of their mental processes, being "unaware of their unawareness". This phenomenon has been termed the introspection illusion and has been used to explain some cognitive biases and belief in some paranormal phenomena. When making judgements about themselves, subjects treat their own introspections as reliable, whereas they judge other people based on their behavior. This can lead to illusions of superiority. For example, people generally see themselves as less conformist than others, and this seems to be because they do not introspect any urge to conform. Another reliable finding is that people generally see themselves as less biased than everyone else, because they are not likely to introspect any biased thought processes. These introspections are misleading, however, because biases work sub-consciously. One experiment tried to give their subjects access to others' introspections. They made audio recordings of subjects who had been told to say whatever came into their heads as they answered a question about their own bias.[11] Although subjects persuaded themselves they were unlikely to be biased, their introspective reports did not sway the assessments of observers. When subjects were explicitly told to avoid relying on introspection, their assessments of their own bias became more realistic.
Originally posted by SystemResistor
Free will is a complex issue, because ultimatley, you would have to be a God to totally control your environment, however, given ones physical and mental capacity, they are able to influence situations and circumstances around them to an according degree. I can decide to drink a glass of water, and I know that I can drink it, however, I am not sure that I can get a job, but I can increace my chances by preparing a superior resume. In that respect, we are not totally limited, and if you can see the universe as a complex realm of energies, then ones thoughts will carry onwards to the future, generating fortuitous circumstances.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by akushla99
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Quote from Schopenhauer.
Originally posted by akushla99
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by akushla99
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Quote from Schopenhauer.
The implication in the example of the horse and rider, is flawed to the extent that, a human has bridled the animal and uses the animal to ride on for thier own usage...the relationship, in this case, is clear...the horse will do what it is told...and has the cognitive faculties to realise this.
Petter Johansson and colleagues investigated subjects' insight into their own preferences using a new technique. Subjects saw two photographs of people and were asked which they found more attractive. They were given a closer look at their "chosen" photograph and asked to verbally explain their choice. However, using sleight of hand, the experimenter had slipped them the other photograph rather than the one they had chosen. A majority of subjects failed to notice that the picture they were looking at did not match the one they had chosen just seconds before. Many subjects confabulated explanations of their preference. For example, a man might say "I preferred this one because I prefer blondes" when he had in fact pointed to the dark-haired woman, but had been handed a blonde.These must have been confabulated because they explain a choice that was never made