Jokes aside, I watched a documentary yesterday about a study where they used sensors and electrodes on the motor cortex of a subject. They found it took 55microseconds between when he thought about moving his finger and when of actually moved.
They then interrupted his attempt to move his finger by using the electrode to move the finger instead. They then did series where he was told to move his finger and the computer either would or wouldn't randomly stimulate the movement first and he had to report whether he felt like it wad him or the computer doing it.
Subjects disproportionately attributed the motion to the computer even in events where the computer didn't cause any movement. Suggesting that the subjects had a dramatic reduction in feelings of agency when even the suggestion of outside control was present.
God let evil exist because he doesn't want to take away our free will, you say? So why is it I cannot hold my hand on a burning stove, but I can hold someone else's on it?
People who don't have that reflex are few enough that its absence can be considered an anomaly. If humans are God's design, the existence of a self-preservation reflex like this sets a precedent.
it's weird that God determined accidental burns are bad enough that it's worth taking away our free will to prevent them, but heinous crimes like paedophilia aren't.
This isn't a defense of your position, read: claim, which was about one man. To assume the royal we after the claim is fallacious and changing scope. You cannot claim one as all if I cannot claim one as one. Exception break rules. Besides, there is no god.
Jokes aside, I watched a documentary yesterday about a study where they used sensors and electrodes on the motor cortex of a subject. They found it took 55microseconds between when he thought about moving his finger and when of actually moved.
They then interrupted his attempt to move his finger by using the electrode to move the finger instead. They then did series where he was told to move his finger and the computer either would or wouldn't randomly stimulate the movement first and he had to report whether he felt like it wad him or the computer doing it.
Subjects disproportionately attributed the motion to the computer even in events where the computer didn't cause any movement. Suggesting that the subjects had a dramatic reduction in feelings of agency when even the suggestion of outside control was present.
It's a disruption of feedback.
Feedback is actually what causes the perception of ownership of action.
Artificially causing an action will make it feel like it wasn't initiated by self even if it sort of was.
Something similar happens with schizophrenia audio hallucinations and alien hand syndrome.
Even though the action is initiated by the person it feels foreign.
Every process in the brain is a loop. Input and output. Or output and input.
When the second one is impaired (whichever that would be given the situation) there is a loss of "ownership".
That’s interesting, thanks for sharing. I guess that kinda makes sense with religion and belief in a higher power.
can i watch this please? or get instructions on how to hook up some electrodes that sounds both fascinating to learn about and experience.
https://youtu.be/J9-Ov-_KcWk
I believe it was part of this.
Well shit, there goes my entire worldview. I guess this means the bible must be 100 percent accurate. I must accept Jesus and become a Republican.
God let evil exist because he doesn't want to take away our free will, you say? So why is it I cannot hold my hand on a burning stove, but I can hold someone else's on it?
Shut down by someone that can hold their hand to a burning stove. Next.
one exception does not remove the rule
Depends on the set.
People who don't have that reflex are few enough that its absence can be considered an anomaly. If humans are God's design, the existence of a self-preservation reflex like this sets a precedent.
it's weird that God determined accidental burns are bad enough that it's worth taking away our free will to prevent them, but heinous crimes like paedophilia aren't.
This isn't a defense of your position, read: claim, which was about one man. To assume the royal we after the claim is fallacious and changing scope. You cannot claim one as all if I cannot claim one as one. Exception break rules. Besides, there is no god.
'Free Thinker'
... test the Doctor's reflexes, first.
yeah. tell the doctor we're testing each others' reflexes. they mallet my knee, i punch their jibblies.
Hah, I'm imagining a good solid kangaroo punch: THWAP!
Hott