Free Will And Free Choice

[untermensche]

What would you call a poor creature that did not think it came here and typed out it's words freely?

As barren and sterile as this place is.

They are trapped zombies.

Not making any decisions. Just being constantly tricked to think they are.

Would we even call these things without a free will alive?

Your comment shows that you haven't understood what is being said about the decision making process.

Untermensche 21^st century calling 19^th century, 21^st century calling 19^th century. Methods of evidence conversation have changed as has amount of information available.


As for the last of your screed please point out what in what DBT wrote signals he "doesn't understand what is being said about the decision making process." Doing so would help the rest of those participating in the decision making process on this thread understand about WTF you are talking.

You think EM energy has color information secretly stored in it.

You have religion, not science.

 

[fromderinside]

A particular EM frequency to sensors responsive to EM energy is particular/set of color and temperature just as a particular acoustic frequency to sensors of acoustic frequency is a particular tone/set of notes. You may not like it but you know it's true.

Your problem is with the nature of the world which you exist. Specific transducers report specific results from input of specific energy according to the physical nature of their filter.

Otherwise it would all be, as you insist, magic. Energy is just energy whether acoustic or Electro-magnetic.

Without reliable sensors/transducers to interpret classes and degrees of energy you wouldn't be able to distinguish electromagnetic from acoustic energy. Brains would be responsible for making up sound, color, temperature, future past, magically.

Nice world for a philosopher type who wants to pooh pooh science and elevate man to God. Not a very productive philosopher in a world where all these things exist without need of a brain or a God.

 

[untermensche]

There is no liking or disliking.

There is knowing.

Knowing EM has no information about color.

And knowing vibrating air has no information about sound.

And knowing a molecule has no information about smell or taste.

It is knowing the difference between a stimulus and a created experience.

But of course knowing things requires free will.

To know is an act of the will.

It is an active judgement.

 

[fromderinside]

More like points ignored from those you don't have the freedom to even see them.

Yours are not points Untemensche. Yours are unsupported declarations. A point has a referent. Provide referents (support) for your declarations.

I use your

4. To discern a truth from a lie requires the intellectual freedom to make valid judgments

as an example.

I'm not going to dispute your false claim that discerning truth requires intellectual freedom whatever that is to you. I'm saying you haven't even established what you mean by valid and judgment or why it is required.

No. Spouting a claim that I don't know anything doesn't accomplish anything re the argument for you.

Your criteria. Your burden to communicate.

Communicate.

Build an argument.

Do other than type whatever comes to your mind remembering we aren't in the room with you nor are we privy to your thinking.

 

[untermensche]

A declaration can be disputed.

If one has the freedom to do it.

Saying something is a declaration is a worthless meaningless criticism.

It is a cheap dodge.

I'm not going to dispute your false claim that discerning truth requires intellectual freedom whatever that is to you.

Try.

A person claiming they have truth is also claiming they have the freedom to separate truth from lies.

If you don't have the freedom to separate truth from lies you can't possibly claim you have a truth.

You somehow think you are not shouting "I AM FREE THEREFORE MY JUDGEMENTS ARE VALID" when you come here and try to promote a position.

 

[untermensche]

The problem with free will is we have it.

It is what creates many human difficulties.

People who have freedom and have freely chosen to believe nonsense.

You reach an age where you are responsible for what you believe.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no liking or disliking.

There is knowing.

Knowing EM has no information about color.

And knowing vibrating air has no information about sound.

And knowing a molecule has no information about smell or taste.

It is knowing the difference between a stimulus and a created experience.

But of course knowing things requires free will.

To know is an act of the will.

It is an active judgement.

Read before you waste time and space declaring.

Scientists have found mechanisms (transducers) sensitive to EM and Acoustic Energy that consistently interprets EM energy as color/temperature and Acoustic energy sound/vibration/pressure. These material devices operate IAC material law as do EM and mechanical energy The brain processes information from these transducers, organizes it, and uses them to provides the evolved being means to get along them in the material world.

Both of these sense modes are lawful and consistent IAC with natural material law which also governs EM and acoustic energy. We also know that mechanical, liquid, and vaporous matter vibration all adhere to natural material law. Also we know that all EM follow the same material laws as does photo sensitive EM energy.

Hundreds of years have be used to find and develop these facts and laws with outstanding impact on mankind and the world. Brain need not invent them nor provide lawfulness for them. After all it is just physical tissue with useful attributes.

The rest of your uninformed screed is based on false premises.

So much for magic and mind for that matter. After all if something can be explained by interacting with material transducers that work IAC natural law there is no need for inventing something other than material for understanding them.

Why do I put in the time to erase your mystical views? I do so in the belief that others who read our chat will come away with less of a sense that what humans do is magic or other than consequence of the material world.

 

[DBT]

The nature of cognition/decision making, brain agency, information exchange between cells and regions of the brain, has been explained and supported by research, case studies, evidence, etc, enough times.

You reject all research, evidence and expert analysis, and just repeat your mantra.

Your position is irrational.

Plain Language Summary

''Decision-making is a cognitive process of the human brain. The brain behaves as a complex system, and providing a model would be a convenient way to represent the complexity of the brain. Every decision includes some stages: each stage can be interpreted as a cognitive criterion. The brain controls the path by predicting the action’s result. The brain needs to know the criteria to perform its primary function as a predictor. It is known that the hippocampus stores the knowledge, and the prefrontal cortex approximates the goals; therefore, our study models the interactions between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex by providing an algorithmic view. In our model, the effects of the brain regions controlling the path are replaced by the model predictive control. Now the neurological mechanisms of the decision-making process in the brain can be simulated. This capability allows us to Work on some sort of neural networks diseases such as neurodegenerative disease or some rehabilitations, which needs memory consolidation.''

Decision making occurs in the mind. Not the brain, and you have no science that tells you anything else. That is a bunch of worthless speculation based on very bad premises. It is just a statement of prejudice. Worthless.

That is a story invented about activity that is not understood. Nowhere is there a mind in any of it.

That "study" you just posted is the kind of worthless shit Chomsky has shown has no value. Applying statistical models to any activity will give you a result. It will not tell you the first thing about how a decision is made.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I am asking you a question.

You have RUDELY ignored it 5 times.

You can't even comprehend the question, can you?

What the brain does is mind. The brain generates both unconscious mind and conscious mind. Conscious mind is based on information acquired from the senses, memory integration enabling recognition, feelings and thought.

Any of these attributes of mind, sight, hearing, smell, thought, etc, etc, can be disrupted by specific changes to neural structures or chemical balance.

Mind, according to the given evidence, is a physical electro-chemical activity of a brain.

Abstract

''The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.''

 

[untermensche]

Scientists have found mechanisms (transducers) sensitive to EM and Acoustic Energy that consistently interprets EM energy as color/temperature and Acoustic energy sound/vibration/pressure....

What does that salad even mean?

You may have ideas but you are a horrible communicator.

Sound is an experience.

If you don't have the experience you don't have sound.

Transducers don't have experiences.

The stimulus out in the world is not sound.

 

[untermensche]

The nature of cognition/decision making, brain agency, information exchange between cells and regions of the brain, has been explained and supported by research, case studies, evidence, etc, enough times.

You reject all research, evidence and expert analysis, and just repeat your mantra.

Your position is irrational.

Plain Language Summary

''Decision-making is a cognitive process of the human brain. The brain behaves as a complex system, and providing a model would be a convenient way to represent the complexity of the brain. Every decision includes some stages: each stage can be interpreted as a cognitive criterion. The brain controls the path by predicting the action’s result. The brain needs to know the criteria to perform its primary function as a predictor. It is known that the hippocampus stores the knowledge, and the prefrontal cortex approximates the goals; therefore, our study models the interactions between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex by providing an algorithmic view. In our model, the effects of the brain regions controlling the path are replaced by the model predictive control. Now the neurological mechanisms of the decision-making process in the brain can be simulated. This capability allows us to Work on some sort of neural networks diseases such as neurodegenerative disease or some rehabilitations, which needs memory consolidation.''

Decision making occurs in the mind. Not the brain, and you have no science that tells you anything else. That is a bunch of worthless speculation based on very bad premises. It is just a statement of prejudice. Worthless.

That is a story invented about activity that is not understood. Nowhere is there a mind in any of it.

That "study" you just posted is the kind of worthless shit Chomsky has shown has no value. Applying statistical models to any activity will give you a result. It will not tell you the first thing about how a decision is made.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

I am asking you a question.

You have RUDELY ignored it 5 times.

You can't even comprehend the question, can you?

What the brain does is mind. The brain generates both unconscious mind and conscious mind. Conscious mind is based on information acquired from the senses, memory integration enabling recognition, feelings and thought.

Any of these attributes of mind, sight, hearing, smell, thought, etc, etc, can be disrupted by specific changes to neural structures or chemical balance.

Mind, according to the given evidence, is a physical electro-chemical activity of a brain.

Abstract

''The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.''

Blah blah blah.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Answer the question.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Your walls of text don't help you establish the reality of free will. Your whole foundation rests on nothing more than asserting that the ability to make decisions - choose options based on sets of criteria - which any information processor with sufficient capability is able of doing regardless of it being a unconscious activity.

It's not "unconscious" if the human is conscious when making the decision and knows s/he's making a decision. Just because some unconscious elements may be happening does not negate the consciousness also happening. As long as you know you're making a decision it's not an "unconscious activity" but a conscious one.

If an entity is doing a selection process but is not conscious of it because it's automatic (no choice being made), like a muscle twitch etc., then it's not a free-will act. But in many cases there is consciousness happening at the time, just preceding the decision or selected act, and so it's not an "unconscious activity" but is a conscious one.

Even worse for your assertion, the brain itself processes information prior to conscious representation in the form of thought.

Yes, but also it does this AFTER conscious thought. It does BOTH. Some consciousness follows after the brain processing, but there's also some consciousness which PRECEDES it -- which you're ignoring. There is consciousness both BEFORE AND AFTER the brain processing. If the decision-making occurs on Friday, it was preceded by consciousness on Thursday; or if the decision happens at 3 o'clock, it was preceded by consciousness at 2:59. That earlier consciousness affects the later decision-making. Consciousness a few seconds before the final decision and action can be an influence on that decision and acting -- regardless that there was some other consciousness later, and also regardless that there was some UNconscious activity in addition to the conscious activity.

You are mentally deranged if you can't understand this. Didn't you decide to post your comment at a certain time? And yet a few minutes or seconds earlier you were conscious and thought about it, and that earlier thinking probably influenced your decision to do your post. And this is the case even if that earlier thinking itself was also influenced by something still earlier. It doesn't matter that everything was caused by something earlier (which itself was caused by something earlier, and earlier, etc.). The point is that the final decision made at a particular time happened AFTER there were some earlier conscious moments which influenced it -- whatever happened later was influenced (caused) by something earlier.

. . . the brain itself processes information prior to conscious representation in the form of thought. Thought being fed information by underlying processing milliseconds before being experienced in conscious form.

Yes, but that underlying processing itself still was preceded by earlier conscious thought. You can't insist that there was never any conscious thought prior to any decision anyone ever made. You are a nutcase to say such a thing. That earlier conscious thought also had its effect on the later decision-making.

You are somehow hallucinating that there can't ever be any consciousness prior to any decision-making, or that somehow any consciousness that happens is immediately snuffed out, leaving no trace, so it can't ever influence anything later, even that we can't remember having ever been conscious in the past. Snap out of it! You were conscious 5 minutes ago, yesterday, a week ago, etc., and those past conscious times left their trace and effect on later experience. Otherwise you'd have no memory. Everything you remember from the past is caused by past consciousness which left its impact on your later experience and decisions, and especially the experience happening very soon (seconds) after.

And as long as the act, or the decision, happens while (or after) one was conscious and thinking about it, then it's a free-will decision or act. In a case where the "decision" or selection happens totally without any consciousness of it, then it's not a free choice. Even if it's true that some "decision-making" (or selection) happens without any consciousness of it, many selections do happen with consciousness of it happening along with it, or prior to the decision or action selected.

Also, if the action or muscle motion happens automatically without any power by you to prevent it, even if you try not to do it, then when it happens anyway against your will it's obviously not a free-will act.

You don't negate this by just saying there are some unconscious acts also, or some unconscious activities going on, like brain or nerve impulses along with a decision. These may also happen, unconsciously, and earlier, but they don't negate the consciousness also happening during a decision (and before a decision). There can be both conscious and unconscious elements going on, and even if sometimes the unconscious elements are stronger than we realize, still they do not negate the conscious elements, not even if they happen earlier at some "time=0" point -- nothing about those unconscious elements can erase the conscious elements also happening and influencing a decision happening later.

Neither consciousness or conscious will being the driver of the brain, how . . .

But sometimes the conscious will is one "driver" or influence on a decision made. There's no such thing as "the driver of the brain" as though there is only one unique single cause and no other. There can be a million causal elements driving the brain.

As long as any consciousness happens prior to the final decision or action -- e.g., seconds before -- it probably has its influence on that decision/action, along with other influences. Obviously there are decisions, and acts chosen, which can be "vetoed" by us if we have time to think and "change our mind" about the action to be taken. So in those cases the consciousness of it, happening before the act is performed, can cause us to change the act about to happen, and whether we "veto" it or not, whatever happens becomes a "voluntary" act or free-will choice, because we were conscious of it early enough to make the change, and that consciousness of it could influence us to "veto" the act, depending upon our judgment in that time span. A longer time gap in which to think -> greater element of free will in whatever the final choice turns out to be.

Neither . . . being the driver of the brain, how it acquires or processes information or the thoughts and decisions that are brought to conscious attention.

You can't arbitrarily decree that no conscious thought can ever be a "driver" of later brain activity. Sometimes that earlier conscious moment, maybe a few seconds earlier, can influence the later brain activity processing the information. The consciousness itself provides information for the brain to process. Suppose you're about to decide to put on a coat, but then suddenly it gets hot unexpectedly, and so for that reason you change your mind. Your consciousness of the sudden heat caused new information to your brain to process, and so the decision was changed as a result, i.e., the brain WAS DRIVEN at least in part by that conscious input. Surely there are many such cases where awareness of something just prior to the decision can influence the brain to do the change, and so that awareness or consciousness is a "driver of the brain" in that case.

(How can you not figure this out?)

You are spruiking an idealistic belief, a term that has no real basis beyond common usage, meaning that someone is not forced to make a decision. Not being forced . . .

"idealistic"? "no real basis"? What are you trying to spruik? that "common usage" is not permitted?

Yes, that "someone is not forced" is part of what "free will" means. But also it means that one is conscious of the selection taking place. One must be both conscious and also not coerced = free will. So what's the "no real basis" and "idealistic" about this normal use of words? We're not supposed to use words normally? we're supposed to run out words incoherently like you're doing? and come up with hallucinations that no conscious activity can ever happen or have an influence on anything?

Not being forced doesn't take the nature of decision making in terms of brain function.

What not being forced does or doesn't "take the nature of" in terms of brain function is your specialty.

We'll assume it must be true because you spruiked it (whatever it means).

 

[untermensche]

There are impulses that bubble up from what people call the "unconscious".

They are not products of some underlying thinking deciding mind.

They are just impulses for action. Primitive non-verbal "messages" that are experienced.

Where the will is involved is in ignoring these impulses or acting on them.

"I would like to bash that guy's face in!!"

"But I will just be quiet about that."

The will in action.

What is called "domestication" is a training of the will.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientists have found mechanisms (transducers) sensitive to EM and Acoustic Energy that consistently interprets EM energy as color/temperature and Acoustic energy sound/vibration/pressure....

What does that salad even mean?

One can't have experience until one has sensed that to be experienced. The mind can't do that, nor can self, nor even awareness. All those are derivative of material stimulus. Sense can only be that which passes through transducers - devices that convert energy of some sort into human compatible form of information. We're pretty confident that not only do the interfaces between outside world and human brain produce bits of information, action potentials. but also bear codes embedded from transducers connected to the basis of their being along the entire pathway to sense, attentional, and awareness processors in the brain. That is both upward and downward directed action potentials transmit class codes appropriate for particular sense.

...

Sound is an experience.

Experience is nothing more than a place holder term for the mechanics of the translation of input into human processable information, a bit of language covering what we believe we are doing.

If you don't have the experience you don't have sound.

I explained that in the my previous response.

Transducers don't have experiences.

You know less than do I about what makes up experience. You don't seem able to operationally define your totems.. I at least provide a system of operations that are testable. You've thrown up your hands and seem to be praying people don't question your assertions. Or worse, you have thrown random shit against the wall and you are calling it art.

The stimulus out in the world is not sound.

I've acknowledged that. You haven't explained sense other than as some mysterious magic thing emanating from some mysterious place/thing which has no foundation for being. I've gone further. I've connected evolution with sense. It's a pretty simple model. humans are immersed in a world of energy. Anything that permits humans to navigate in that world is necessary, a evolutionary driver of survival. Going from energy to sense becomes a relatively simple process to understand. Any mutation providing improvement in performance in the world is likely to out perform competing entities that don't have that attribute. Almost all adaptation is molecular not molar.

Sense has been demonstrated as being critical to existing. Consequently it has continuously been evolving from early existence of life which is abundantly demonstrated in the both the evolutionary content, record, and performance of sense behavior. All I presume is that there is a connection between energy and sensation which preserves the nature of what is sensed within the brain. So I don't stop at action potential. I continue to look for connections between what makes EM sense and and sensation.

I find it necessary to presume that the nature of what is sensed is passed along with the fact that it is sensed. I choose to think that from receptor to cortex there are links between neural processing and the mode (transducer) that delivered the sensation. That is to say that auditory neurons are auditory neurons because they continue passing the evidence that vibration is sound ranging in frequency along with the information particular sounds being processed are communicating. That needn't require they continue to be identified after they are identified. they just becomes particular instance specific sense information. BTW even a transducer is subject to adjusting to the particular nature of the simulating input.

Finally:

Your model disconnects as soon as energy enters the brain and only gets defined later in the cortex with no visible connection with that which stimulates to the experience. Nice trick if you are magician. We're not doing magic here. It's pretty evident there is no God. We weren't spontaneously produced by the magic hand to perform as humans.

 

[untermensche]

One can't have experience until one has sensed that to be experienced.

Sensing amounts to a transition of a molecule.

Sensing is just millions of switches either being turned on or not being turned on.

The brain creates the experience based on this digital information from millions of cells.

The brain does not create the experience based on any feature of the stimulus.

Experience is nothing more than a place holder term for the mechanics of the translation of input into human processable information, a bit of language covering what we believe we are doing.

You pull "translation" from thin air.

There is no translation.

There is pure creation.

Experience is some final product that is created. A sound is a created entity that only a mind can experience. And a sound has nothing to do with the stimulus.

Sound is related to the evolved mechanisms within the brain that create experience.

You know less than do I about what makes up experience.

No.

0 = 0

 

[untermensche]

We have one fundamental difference.

You see the brain as able to translate information from the world into something the world is.

I see the brain as creating a representation of the world based on cellular information from sensory cells.

You see the world as being able to communicate with cells and pass information.

I see the world as being able to stimulate a reaction in cells.

There is no reconciliation of these positions.

 

[fromderinside]

Our positions are basically identical.

You misrepresent how I see brain function. I see brain function evolving to better represent the world for the being. 'Being able' is a nonstarter. The brain reacts to conditions, to genetic pressure from the outside in. So yes it is there to translate information into something the being uses to get along in the world.

Is that telling us what is the world? I think not. It is no more than evolution tuned neural tissue serving one's surviving the present. todo that the transducer needs to be responsive to particular aspects of energy arriving to it. Ascending cells need to evolve to faithfully transmit that information into other brain processes. associated with ones sensed data.

Dinner time I'll continue later.

 

[untermensche]

Very close.

The representations created are related to better fitness for the animal within the environment, not related to better representing that environment.

The color experienced is related to the fitness of the experience.

It is not related to the stimulus since many things could be created from the stimulus.

 

[fromderinside]

Why can't evolution extend to sensitivity to particular energy? Why must there be experience prior to their being color or sound. If a crystal resonates to a particular frequency why shouldn't that be a driver for the nature more central elements of the perceiving system.

I expect the first visual sensors just reported something in a direction relative to the being. From there more particular and specific capabilities were evolved permitting the classification of frequency and temperature and vibration and pressure at the receptor and at subsequent neural processes. That seems to be the evidence evolution of sight has provided for us.

Much of what we see is related to boundary light/dark transitions time transitions across segments of the visual field which are clearly evolved over very great periods of time.

On the other hand if only sensation of visible light - that band of EM frequencies with which materials can interact - is received there is no rationale for the development of an experience of color driving it's evolution. I find that a fatal flaw in your belief.

Much EM we only sense as heat relative to your body temperature. From those we get a sense of pain related to reaction of tissue damage signals within the nervous system and the sense of a general warmth or coolness sat the skin interface.

A final attempt to get your attention: The presence of sensors capable of responding to particular frequencies of light and their consistent perception by observers as akin to those frequencies leads one away from an experience based model.

Second fitness is not an a priori criterion. A system does not explore comparative fitness selecting one over another by lottery. There is no mechanism with which a central process evolves trying this then that variable then this then that particular variable. One chance. Fail. Die.

Fitness has a starting impetus from the nature of the conditions with which it is confronted. Mutations are more likely at the periphery. Fitness works from proximal to distal, from stimulus input to stimulus response from one minor mutation to the next at a particular locus then the next relevant locus.

If one looks at vision and audition one finds similar changes in extent and completeness of analysis and processing. One also finds blind person using visual cortex to perform auditory spatial and textural processing and deaf people using auditory cortex for interpreting facial attributes of speech.

 

[DBT]

It's not "unconscious" if the human is conscious when making the decision and knows s/he's making a decision. Just because some unconscious elements may be happening does not negate the consciousness also happening. As long as you know you're making a decision it's not an "unconscious activity" but a conscious one.

You still ignore the fact that conscious activity cannot take place without prior information input and processing, microseconds before some but not all of that information is made conscious.

Without prior input and processing, conscious experience is not possible.

And even while conscious activity is in progress, it is unconscious activity providing information feed.

What you think, feel, contemplate or decide is being fed information by underlying information processing.....all of which you as a conscious entity, constructed by the brain, remain blissfully unaware.

 

[DBT]

What the brain does is mind. The brain generates both unconscious mind and conscious mind. Conscious mind is based on information acquired from the senses, memory integration enabling recognition, feelings and thought.

Any of these attributes of mind, sight, hearing, smell, thought, etc, etc, can be disrupted by specific changes to neural structures or chemical balance.

Mind, according to the given evidence, is a physical electro-chemical activity of a brain.

Abstract

''The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.''

Blah blah blah.

Just tell me how you can know something is true without the freedom to make truth judgements?

Answer the question.

Your question has been explained too many times to count. You ignore or reject any and every explanation, just to repeat the question. A question that shows that you have not understood the research or its implications, or you are just not willing to accept it.

Another hint on the nature of decision making: think about the role played by neural architecture and information exchange between cells and structures.