EVIDENCE OF FREE WILL

THE SOCALLED DEFEAT OF THE FREE WILL CONCEPT BY NEUROSCIENTISTS DOING fMRI, WHICH SHOWS THERE IS A SPIKE OF ACTIVITY IN YOUR BRAIN BEFORE YOU WIGGLE YOUR FINGER AND IT IS ONLY AFTER A DELAY THAT YOU ACTUALLY WIGGLE YOUR FINGER, AND THAT, FURTHER, YOU ARE ALSO NOT CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF THAT SPIKE, WHICH TO THEM REPRESENTS THE DECISIVE MOMENT, UNTIL AFTER IT HAS TAKEN PLACE,  SUGGESTS TO SOME SCIENTISTS THAT THERE IS NO FREE WILL.  BUT IT IS A RIDICULOUS AND ANNOYING ASSERTION.  YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A MECHANISM  - THE IDEA SPIKE THAT IS IN YOUR BRAIN IS CAUSED BY YOU, THE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE MOMENT THAT THE SPIKE WHICH IS GENERATED IN YOUR BRAIN FIRES OFF AND THE TIME IT ENTERS YOUR CONSCIOUS MIND IS ANOTHER INTERNAL DELAY, BUT IT IS ALL YOU - THE SPIKE IS YOU, IT IS CAUSED BY YOUR MIND, IT IS CAUSED BY YOUR WILL, AND THE CONSCIOUS RECOGNITION OF THAT DECISION TAKING PLACE AFTER  ANOTHER SMALL DELAY IS YOU, WHETHER OR NOT THE DELAY IS MORE THAN THE DELAY IN THE TIME IT TAKES FOR YOU TO PERFORM THE ACTION - BUT REALLY, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER FORCE CAUSING THE WIGGLING, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DECIDE TO WIGGLE YOUR FINGER AND THE TIME THAT THE THOUGHT  BECOMES CEMENTED IN YOUR MEMORY AND RECALLABLE  IN YOUR SUBSEQUENT MENTATION. THE DELAY IS IN FILING THE INFORMATION FOR RECALL, NOT IN INITIATING THE THOUGHT.  SO IT IS ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE TRY TO USE THAT AS  PROOF OF ANY SORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHILOSOPHY, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE WILL.  I THINK FREE WILL IS A DICY CONCEPT FOR MANY REASONS BUT THAT IS NOT ONE OF THEM, THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING EXCEPT THE MORE OR LESS MECHANICAL DELAY  IN THE PROCESSING AND STORING OF INTENTIONAL ACTIONS, IN THE TIME WE ARE MADE AWARE OF THEM IN THE FORM OF RECALLABLE RECOGNITION.  FOREGROUND OR BACKGROUND, IT IS ALL US, THERE IS NOTHING FROM OUTSIDE.  

WHERE FREE WILL REALLY RUNS INTO TROUBLE IS WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE INFLUENCE OF DNA MATERIAL ON ALL DECISONMAKING.  IT BLURS THE LINE MOST UNCOMFORTABLY BETWEEN INHERENT ACTIONS AND INTENTIONAL ACTIONS; ALSO, THE ABILITY TO CHANGE OUR BEHAVIOR OVER TIME, CONSCIOUSLY AND/OR EPIGENETICALLY, IS A CHARACTERISTIC INHERENT IN OUR GENES IN A VARIETY OF STRENGTHS FROM BIRTH.  

IT COULD BE ARGUED ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL THAT DNA DOES NOT REALLY BELONG TO US, WE DIDN'T INITIALLY, AND CAN NEVER DURING OUR LIFETIMES, CHOOSE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, IT COMES DOWN TO US AS THE COLLECTED SURVIVING STRATEGIES OF OUR SPECIES AND WHAT THAT REALLY LEADS TO IS NOT A DISCUSSIN OF FREE WILL AT ALL BUT A LARGER AND MORE RADICAL DISCUSSION OF WHAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES AN INDIVIDUAL.  THIS INDIVIDUAL, UPON WHICH THE MORAL AND GOVERNING PRINCIPLES OF OUR MODERN WESTERN STATES IS BASED, IS ITSELF A FICTION.  THERE REALLY IS NO SUCH THING - A PERSON EXISTING WITHOUT OTHER PEOPLE OR THE COLLECTED EXPERIENCE OF THE PAST BOTH EXTERNALLY BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY INTERNALLY.  THIS IS AN UNSTABLE CONCEPT.