Sheria Kuu Kumi za Ulimwengu na Akili - Sheria ya Pili (Uhuru wa Fikra)

Sheria Kuu Kumi za Ulimwengu na Akili - Sheria ya Pili (Uhuru wa Fikra)

Nimeielewa hii sheria ya akili na ulimwengu ihusuyo uhuru wa kuchagua.
Nakubaliana na hoja hii kwa asilimia zote kwa mba mtu anao uwezo wakutumia akili yake kufanya chochote iwe chema ama la.
Lakini sijakubaliana na Kiranga kusema hakuna Mungu. Ingawa mada hii ameikubali lakini naamini hakumsoma vizuri mleta mada aliposema "haijalishi unahali gani unapaswa kushukuru" yaani kwa vyovyote ulivyo uielekeze akili yako kushukuru. Sasa hapa unamshukuru nani kama sio Mungu?
Ninakushukuru sana mleta mada Apollo japo ni ya muda lakini bado tunaendelea kujifunza.
 
Pendael24 said:
Nimeielewa hii sheria ya akili na ulimwengu ihusuyo uhuru wa kuchagua.
Nakubaliana na hoja hii kwa asilimia zote kwa mba mtu anao uwezo wakutumia akili yake kufanya chochote iwe chema ama la.
Lakini sijakubaliana na Kiranga kusema hakuna Mungu. Ingawa mada hii ameikubali lakini naamini hakumsoma vizuri mleta mada aliposema "haijalishi unahali gani unapaswa kushukuru" yaani kwa vyovyote ulivyo uielekeze akili yako kushukuru. Sasa hapa unamshukuru nani kama sio Mungu?
Ninakushukuru sana mleta mada Apollo japo ni ya muda lakini bado tunaendelea kujifunza.
Click to expand...
Uhuru wa kuchagua ni njozi ya uongo isiyo na uhalisia wa kina.

Wewe ulichagua uzaliwe wapi? Na wazazi gani? Wenye elimu gani? Wa kabila gani? Wenye utajiri gani? Wa dini gani? Wenye genes za aina gani? Zinazokupa tabia gani? Zinazokufanya uwe na afya gani?

Haya ni mambo ambayo yanaathiri maisha yako yote yanayofuata kwa kiasi kikubwa sana.
 
Kiranga said:
Uhuru wa kuchagua ni njozi ya uongo isiyo na uhalisia wa kina.

Wewe ulichagua uzaliwe wapi? Na wazazi gani? Wenye elimu gani? Wa kabila gani? Wenye utajiri gani? Wa dini gani? Wenye genes za aina gani? Zinazokupa tabia gani? Zinazokufanya uwe na afya gani?

Haya ni mambo ambayo yanaathiri maisha yako yote yanayofuata kwa kiasi kikubwa sana.
Click to expand...
Hapana sivyo unavyodhani mkuu. Kabla ya mtu kuzaliwa hana akili na pia hayupo ulimwenguni. Kumbuka mada unaelezea kuhusu kanuni ya akili na ulimwengu.
Huwezi kuwa na uchaguzi wowote kabla ya ukomavu wa akili na kabla haujafika ulimwenguni.
Hauna uhuru wowote kabla ya ukomavu wa akili. Ndipo inapokuja hatua za mtu kuwa ulimwenguni mimba utoto ujana uzee kwenye ujana ndipo palipo na uhuru na uweza wa kuchagua.nikama vile wewe ulivyo kua mdogo ulivyokua ukiamini Mungu lakini ulipokuwa kijana kwa sababu zako ukachagua kutokumwamini .
 
Kiranga said:
Uhuru wa kuchagua ni njozi ya uongo isiyo na uhalisia wa kina.

Wewe ulichagua uzaliwe wapi? Na wazazi gani? Wenye elimu gani? Wa kabila gani? Wenye utajiri gani? Wa dini gani? Wenye genes za aina gani? Zinazokupa tabia gani? Zinazokufanya uwe na afya gani?

Haya ni mambo ambayo yanaathiri maisha yako yote yanayofuata kwa kiasi kikubwa sana.
Click to expand...
Na kwa jinsi hii ndugu yangu unataka kusema kuna ambae anakuchagulia lipi liwe kwako na lipi lisiwe. Ninani huyo?
 
Pendael24 said:
Hapana sivyo unavyodhani mkuu. Kabla ya mtu kuzaliwa hana akili na pia hayupo ulimwenguni. Kumbuka mada unaelezea kuhusu kanuni ya akili na ulimwengu.
Huwezi kuwa na uchaguzi wowote kabla ya ukomavu wa akili na kabla haujafika ulimwenguni.
Hauna uhuru wowote kabla ya ukomavu wa akili. Ndipo inapokuja hatua za mtu kuwa ulimwenguni mimba utoto ujana uzee kwenye ujana ndipo palipo na uhuru na uweza wa kuchagua.nikama vile wewe ulivyo kua mdogo ulivyokua ukiamini Mungu lakini ulipokuwa kijana kwa sababu zako ukachagua kutokumwamini .
Click to expand...
Kama unajua Kiingereza, soma hii makala uone habari zenu za uhuru wa kuchagua zilivyojaa uongo.

What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

What Neuroscience Says about Free Will
We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself



4B831A31-DEA4-4D45-96C4F6F30777A4CF_source.jpg


It happens hundreds of times a day: We press snooze on the alarm clock, we pick a shirt out of the closet, we reach for a beer in the fridge. In each case, we conceive of ourselves as free agents, consciously guiding our bodies in purposeful ways. But what does science have to say about the true source of this experience?

In a classic paper published almost 20 years ago, the psychologists Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley made a revolutionary proposal: The experience of intentionally willing an action, they suggested, is often nothing more than a post hoc causal inference that our thoughts caused some behavior. The feeling itself, however, plays no causal role in producing that behavior. This could sometimes lead us to think we made a choice when we actually didn’t or think we made a different choice than we actually did.

But there’s a mystery here. Suppose, as Wegner and Wheatley propose, that we observe ourselves (unconsciously) perform some action, like picking out a box of cereal in the grocery store, and then only afterwards come to infer that we did this intentionally. If this is the true sequence of events, how could we be deceived into believing that we had intentionally made our choice before the consequences of this action were observed? This explanation for how we think of our agency would seem to require supernatural backwards causation, with our experience of conscious will being both a product and an apparent cause of behavior.

In a study just published in Psychological Science, Paul Bloom and I explore a radical—but non-magical—solution to this puzzle. Perhaps in the very moments that we experience a choice, our minds are rewriting history, fooling us into thinking that this choice—that was actually completed after its consequences were subconsciously perceived—was a choice that we had made all along.

Though the precise way in which the mind could do this is still not fully understood, similar phenomena have been documented elsewhere. For example, we see the apparent motion of a dot before seeing that dot reach its destination, and we feel phantom touches moving up our arm before feeling an actual touch further up our arm. “Postdictive” illusions of this sort are typically explained by noting that there’s a delay in the time it takes information out in the world to reach conscious awareness: Because it lags slightly behind reality, consciousness can “anticipate” future events that haven’t yet entered awareness, but have been encoded subconsciously, allowing for an illusion in which the experienced future alters the experienced past.

In one of our studies, participants were repeatedly presented with five white circles in random locations on a computer monitor and were asked to quickly choose one of the circles in their head before one lit up red. If a circle turned red so fast that they didn’t feel like they were able to complete their choice, participants could indicate that they ran out of time. Otherwise, they indicated whether they had chosen the red circle (before it turned red) or had chosen a different circle. We explored how likely people were to report a successful prediction among these instances in which they believed that they had time to make a choice.

Unbeknownst to participants, the circle that lit up red on each trial of the experiment was selected completely randomly by our computer script. Hence, if participants were truly completing their choices when they claimed to be completing them—before one of the circles turned red—they should have chosen the red circle on approximately 1 in 5 trials. Yet participants’ reported performance deviated unrealistically far from this 20% probability, exceeding 30% when a circle turned red especially quickly. This pattern of responding suggests that participants’ minds had sometimes swapped the order of events in conscious awareness, creating an illusion that a choice had preceded the color change when, in fact, it was biased by it.

Importantly, participants’ reported choice of the red circle dropped down near 20% when the delay for a circle to turn red was long enough that the subconscious mind could no longer play this trick in consciousness and get wind of the color change before a conscious choice was completed. This result ensured that participants weren’t simply trying to deceive us (or themselves) about their prediction abilities or just liked reporting that they were correct.


In fact, the people who showed our time-dependent illusion were often completely unaware of their above-chance performance when asked about it in debriefing after the experiment was over. Moreover, in a related experiment, we found that the bias to choose correctly was not driven by confusion or uncertainty about what was chosen: Even when participants were highly confident in their choice, they showed a tendency to “choose” correctly at an impossibly high rate.

Taken together, these findings suggest that we may be systematically misled about how we make choices, even when we have strong intuitions to the contrary. Why, though, would our minds fool us in such a seemingly silly way in the first place? Wouldn’t this illusion wreak havoc on our mental lives and behavior?

Maybe not. Perhaps the illusion can simply be explained by appeal to limits in the brain’s perceptual processing, which only messes up at the very short time scales measured in our (or similar) experiments and which are unlikely to affect us in the real world.

2B640CA5-9C17-4DAA-B7ADA90BA426F31E_source.png

Sign up for Scientific American’s newsletters.
Sign Up
A more speculative possibility is that our minds are designed to distort our perception of choice and that this distortion is an important feature (not simply a bug) of our cognitive machinery. For example, if the experience of choice is a kind of causal inference, as Wegner and Wheatley suggest, then swapping the order of choice and action in conscious awareness may aid in the understanding that we are physical beings who can produce effects out in the world. More broadly, this illusion may be central to developing a belief in free will and, in turn, motivating punishment.

Yet, whether or not there are advantages to believing we’re more in control of our lives than we actually are, it’s clear that the illusion can go too far. While a quarter-of-a-second distortion in time experience may be no big deal, distortions at longer delays—which might plague people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—could substantially and harmfully warp people’s fundamental views about the world. People with such illnesses may begin to believe that they can control the weather or that they have an uncanny ability to predict other people’s behavior. In extreme cases, they may even conclude that they have god-like powers.


It remains to be seen just how much the postdictive illusion of choice that we observe in our experiments connects to these weightier aspects of daily life and mental illness. The illusion may only apply to a small set of our choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. Or it may be pervasive and ubiquitous—governing all aspects of our behavior, from our most minute to our most important decisions. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in between these extremes. Whatever the case may be, our studies add to a growing body of work suggesting that even our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
 
Pendael24 said:
Na kwa jinsi hii ndugu yangu unataka kusema kuna ambae anakuchagulia lipi liwe kwako na lipi lisiwe. Ninani huyo?
Click to expand...
Wapi nimesema hilo? Unapataje wazo hilo? Una ushahidi gani uliokupelekea kupata msingi wa swali hilo? Umefikafikaje kwenye kufikiria kwamba naweza kuwa nafikiria hivyo?

Umesoma makala ya Scientific American niliyokuwekea hapo juu?

Mimi nakwenda kwa kuangalia peer reviewed research papers, si kujigongagonga gizani tu.
 
Kiranga said:
Wapi nimesema hilo? Unapataje wazo hilo? Una ushahidi gani uliokupelekea kupata msingi wa swali hilo? Umefikafikaje kwenye kufikiria kwamba naweza kuwa nafikiria hivyo?

Umesoma makala ya Scientific American niliyokuwekea hapo juu?

Mimi nakwenda kwa kuangalia peer reviewed research papers, si kujigongagonga gizani tu.
Click to expand...
mkala nimeisoma mkuu lakini ama haileweki au haiendani na tunachojadili hapa.
umesema uhuru wa kuchagua ni kama njozi isio na uhgakika na ukahoji kama mtu ana uhuru wa kuchagua angechagua kuzaliwa kwenye maisha ayatakayo,. sasa kwa vile hakuna uhuru wa kuchagu kwa mujibu wa maelezo yako ndio nami nikasema basi yupo atuchaguliaye ndio nikataka kujua ninani?
 
Pendael24 said:
mkala nimeisoma mkuu lakini ama haileweki au haiendani na tunachojadili hapa.
umesema uhuru wa kuchagua ni kama njozi isio na uhgakika na ukahoji kama mtu ana uhuru wa kuchagua angechagua kuzaliwa kwenye maisha ayatakayo,. sasa kwa vile hakuna uhuru wa kuchagu kwa mujibu wa maelezo yako ndio nami nikasema basi yupo atuchaguliaye ndio nikataka kujua ninani?
Click to expand...
Sawa.

Unalazimisha hoja kwamba kwa kuwa hatuna uhuru wa kuchagua, kuna anayetuchagulia.

Hii kwenye logic inaitwa "logical non sequitur".

Logical non sequitur ni kisa la kimantiki la kuunganisha mambo ambayo hayana uhusiano.

Mathalani.

Inawezekana nyumbani kwangu kuna muembe mkubwa. Muembe una majani mengi. Majira haya yana upepo mkali.

Nikuanka asu uhi na kukuta jani la muembe liko mlangoni kwangu, nikiuliza "nani kaweka jani hiki haoa mlangoni mwangu?", swali hilo litakuwa na kimosa la kinantiki.

Inawezekana jani halijawekwa na yeyote.

Limewekwa na upepo.

Sasa jwa nini unaukuza swaki la "nani" sehemu ya swali ka "nini"?

Huoni kuwa ukianza kuuliza swali kwa "nani" umeanza kujijibu kwa kutumia "logical non sequitur" ya kuunganisha "nani" sehemu ambayi "nini" ingeweza kuwa swali zuri zaidi?
 
Kiranga said:
Sawa.

Unalazimisha hoja kwamba kwa kuwa hatuna uhuru wa kuchagua, kuna anayetuchagulia.

Hii kwenye logic inaitwa "logical non sequitur".

Logical non sequitur ni kisa la kimantiki la kuunganisha mambo ambayo hayana uhusiano.

Mathalani.

Inawezekana nyumbani kwangu kuna muembe mkubwa. Muembe una majani mengi. Majira haya yana upepo mkali.

Nikuanka asu uhi na kukuta jani la muembe liko mlangoni kwangu, nikiuliza "nani kaweka jani hiki haoa mlangoni mwangu?", swali hilo litakuwa na kimosa la kinantiki.

Inawezekana jani halijawekwa na yeyote.

Limewekwa na upepo.

Sasa jwa nini unaukuza swaki la "nani" sehemu ya swali ka "nini"?

Huoni kuwa ukianza kuuliza swali kwa "nani" umeanza kujijibu kwa kutumia "logical non sequitur" ya kuunganisha "nani" sehemu ambayi "nini" ingeweza kuwa swali zuri zaidi?
Click to expand...
Kwa hio makosa ni kusema ninani anaetuchagulia aina na hatima ya maisha yetu. Badala ya kusema "ninani" ingesemejana " ninini"

Umesema pia jani la mwembe halijawekwa na "yoyote" kwenye mlango bali limewekwa na "chochote"

Kwa hio yoyote inasimama badala nani
Na chochote kinasimama badala ya nini
Upepo ndio umefanya jani la mwembe kuwa mlangoni.
Kwa hio upepo ndio sababu.

Matumizi ya akili yetu hayako huru ndio maana hatupo vile tungependa. Hakuna yoyote anaetufanya tuwe hivi
Bali kuna chochote ndio kisababishi.

Ndio nini hiko mkuu?
 
Pendael24 said:
Kwa hio makosa ni kusema ninani anaetuchagulia aina na hatima ya maisha yetu. Badala ya kusema "ninani" ingesemejana " ninini"

Umesema pia jani la mwembe halijawekwa na "yoyote" kwenye mlango bali limewekwa na "chochote"

Kwa hio yoyote inasimama badala nani
Na chochote kinasimama badala ya nini
Upepo ndio umefanya jani la mwembe kuwa mlangoni.
Kwa hio upepo ndio sababu.

Matumizi ya akili yetu hayako huru ndio maana hatupo vile tungependa. Hakuna yoyote anaetufanya tuwe hivi
Bali kuna chochote ndio kisababishi.

Ndio nini hiko mkuu?
Click to expand...

"Ndio nini hiko mkuu", maana yake nini?

Maana yake huelewi au umeelewa hivyo unataka nikuhakikishie kama ulivyoelewa ni sahihi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register