Where Did That Glass Come From?

It has come to me via suggestion that I would write this paper on my knowledge and understanding of free will. The motivation is, for the most part, to clarify confusion that has generally intoxicated my argument, typically from all of our fundamental bias of things. The first bias seems to come from our inability to see outside ourselves. I will further this argument later, but for the sake of now, we need to understand that there exists a corporeal world outside of our natural understanding. From mankind's dawn, the stars in the sky as well as the sun and moon were all thought to be angels, gods, or some other supernatural force at work. All works of nature were thought to be so. What we find is that as human understanding increases, so does the works of the supernatural diminish. Why can the same not be for the mind? As it is towards our current understanding our conscious is of supernatural origin. This concept that we are somehow in control of our actions and thoughts suggests an uncaused cause, something that no other tangible object possesses. This has been generated with the help of https://essayfreelancewriters.comversion.

This would only assume our conscious (including our wills, desires, and behaviors all within it) to be of supernatural origin because nature does not allow for uncaused causes. My main argument is that free will, in this sense of the term (uncaused cause) is impossible logically, philosophically, and scientifically. • Prove that mind and body are not separate, but rather the mind is a function of the brain. • Show that causality rules physical nature and our brains, thus our minds. • Discern the difference between causality's determinism and the controversial fatalism and show how the complexities of our mind- and of nature- rule out fatalism. • Show that free will is a necessary illusion that makes ethics, civilization, and day-to-day life possible. The main purpose of this essay is to make clearer the ambiguities that follow along with the claim that free will is an illusion. This is a theory of mine that is similar to many scientists' and philosophers', but my logical basis has been influenced by facts and theories alone, linked together by my own logical process.

An essential item to be fond of here is the computational theory of the mind, for that is where my first argument will spring. The computational theory of mind mixes our sensual gained information with the mind's ability to compute, much like a computer. However, many psychologists, like Steven Pinker, despise the metaphor comparing the mind to the computer simply because it is clearly a superfluous oversimplification. To fix this logical fallacy, I would like to present a metaphor of the brain as a computer rather an a metaphor. This works simply because with analogies are there proportions. We can then take the vast complexities of the mind, and compare them to the vast simplicities of the computer because we are not then concerned with the specific functions of each, but rather the general functions thereof, and how their situations (not functions) are similar. The computational theory of mind presents a very interesting solution for many problems, including will, desire, and perception. This data was done with Essay Freelance Writersversion.

The solution we will focus on here is the solution to perceptions. If the human mind was a blank slate, and our perceptions were what we received purely from our sensory organs, then we would be nearly incapable of determining between objects in certain situations. What the problem holds here is the discernment of inverse optics. We should all be familiar with optics, that's the study of how light comes together to make certain objects viewable. Well, our mind deals with just the opposite of that. Check it here sees the light, but must discern what the object it is seeing really is. This is a major problem in some instances. The difference in lighting could make some objects seem similar; even have a ball of snow seem as black as a lump of coal. How are we able to determine one object from another? The computational theory of mind states that the human brain fills in information that is missing when we perceive things.

Our brain literally assumes that an object has certain qualities because of the environment of which it's in. Clearly, this computational trait is evolutionary, for how else would our minds be able to fundamentally "know" what kind of world we live in? But notwithstanding, it is essential for us to even discern objects in day-to-day life. Before I go on to the implications of this, I would like to make a touch at perhaps clearing some minds that may doubt such a theory. If the theory is correct, then the mind could be fooled by a pre-lit background into thinking objects are there, but in reality they aren't. Well, this trickery occurs every day when we watch the television. All a television is, is a contrast of different colors that gives our mind the illusion that objects and people are there simply because our mind fills in the missing information on the assumption that they are there.