This is an interesting offshoot from that wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification
Sorry I missed the edit window, this is from monstros link, (good reading btw)
last paragraph,
“Another neural model for voluntary action also involves what, when, and whether (WWW) based decisions.[71] The ‘what’ component of decisions is considered a function of the anterior cingulate cortex, which is involved in conflict monitoring.[72] The timing (‘when’) of the decisions are considered a function of the preSMA and SMA, which is involved in motor preparation.[73] Finally, the ‘whether’ component is considered a function of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex”
For what it’s worth (very little), Pjen has made the most persuasive argument I’ve ever read questioning the reality of free will. And I’ve pondered this question for several decades. I’m not saying his position is correct; merely that his point about atoms travelling along neural pathways, producing our sense of awareness and possibly our illusion of free will seems pretty solid. I don’t see how it can be dismissed by our senses, which include our brain functions. As Monstro stated yesterday, the notion of free will is suspect. It does seem too apparent. Nothing in nature is perfect. I’m not sure that fact is relevent to the topic, but some analogies come to mind: It seems apparent that the sun moves across the sky, for example, and humans believed so for nearly the entire journey of our evolution. Like she, I’m suspicious of things which seem self-evident. Sometimes a duck is a exactly what a duck looks like. Sometimes it’s an illusion. A hologram of a duck would be equally convincing. This may be an insoluable riddle. But the definitive answer is not so evident as our senses lead us to believe.
An embodied thought is what all thoughts are. They need a medium to exist within.
My “proof” is simple observation of reality. I have a thought, and act on it.
How do you “prove” such basics as “cause and effect?” No one can prove this; all apparent correlations could be mere coincidences. Again, you are asking me to “prove” that existence is real or that other humans have thoughts. Go ahead: prove objective reality to a solipsist.
I disagree. I am familiar with these experiments, and they only suggest to me that consciousness is a process that takes a little time (about half a second) to generate. It’s something we do, and doesn’t happen instantaneously. That some parts of the process happen before other parts of the process is not surprising: that’s the usual pattern in processes that take time.
Nerve impulses travel relatively slowly. Neuron waves take time to propagate across the brain. Neuron activity has a lot of feedback, so parts of the brain send data back and forth for checking and re-checking.
The process is messy and complex and sticky. I’ve said that from the beginning.
It still is a functioning process. The brain kicks data around, and eventually uses it to make a decision.
You seem to be trying to compel me to engage in the fallacy of the homunculus, and I’m not going there. That is not my model of human volition.
I just don’t hold it to be relevant. If you’re going to rebut what I say, rebut what I actually do say. It isn’t fair to hold up someone else who seems to agree with only part of what I say, and make me responsible for their views.
This discussion does not need to take extraneous views into consideration at all.
Okay; I’ll accept that. What you did say made me very uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s fair to hold me responsible for what other people believe.
But if I’m in full support of space exploration, and don’t teach my kids geocentrism, and someone else says, “Great! Space exploration will prove my geocentrist theories!” how am I responsible?
Your example depends on my promoting an incorrect view. And that’s what we’re debating here. Just because some other jerk extrapolates that view into places I never took it, isn’t my problem.
I believe that most European languages derive from Indo-European root languages. The Nazis believed the same thing…and took it much farther. Does that mean my belief, without any of the additional Nazi claptrap, “encourages” Nazism? Must I recant my believe in the migration and origin of European languages?
I don’t agree. The parts that you agree with…you agree with. The parts you don’t agree with…you don’t agree with. This is tautological. If others think, wrongly, that you’re on their side, you can specify the points of your disagreement.
He shouldn’t. You’re exactly right. Lots of ideas are problematic in this way. (That’s a much nicer word than the one I was taught in my old Astronomy class, which was “Nonsense.” Another phrase we enjoy today is “Not even wrong.”)
Free Will in the theological sense is all of these.
Human volition, human choice, and human decision-making are all open to factual observation. That there are some illusions and self-deceptions involved in the process, I have said from my first post in this thread. (Candy is stocked near check-out aisles in supermarkets because our volition is susceptible to being undermined by temptation.)
I’m only here to argue against the claim that there is no such thing as human volition at all, or that it is entirely illusory.
To be really fair, I’m not sure anyone here is actually holding that position! That’s why so much of this thread seems to be us (all) talking past each other.
In my opinion, it is worth much, and in two ways. First, your opinion is valued here! Second, Pjen’s argument is supported by your agreement, and that makes it a stronger argument, at least here in this debate thread.
My opinion is that the time-delay effect of decision-making is not fatal to the notion of human volition. It certainly complicates the problem, but I don’t see it closing the door on it.
Perhaps a jigsaw puzzle analogy could be helpful: the pieces don’t all fall into place at once. It takes time. A piece here, a piece there. Maybe a bunch of pieces are easy to place, because they have a recognizable pattern, while other pieces (say, blue sky) are harder to place because they look the same. But over time, the picture comes together.
I believe that enough of the picture can be seen to be recognized – “Oh, look, the Mona Lisa!” – long before the picture is 100% complete. Large muscle groups don’t need 100% completion of the image to be ordered into action.
The full state of consciousness is the completed picture. But the “self” is a broader structure, perhaps requiring only 75% of the picture. The “human person” might require only 50%. And for your arm to reach out toward your coffee cup might require as little as 25% of the completed picture.
Many times, my arm has reached out “all on its own” for my cup of coffee. It’s almost like watching someone else’s arm in motion!
(What made me consciously aware of this fact is that my conscious mind knew that the coffee cup was empty at the time! But my arm – and the parts of the brain that control it – and the parts of my brain that desired a sip of coffee – hadn’t gotten that far in developing the overall picture.)
A co-worker of mine once changed his workstation to the left side of his desk from the right. For weeks he would face the wrong way, frown, and swivel over to the new position. His conscious self knew, but his “muscle memory” pushed him to reach in the wrong direction.
All of these things make the idea of human volition more complex. (And fascinating!) But I don’t see them demolishing the idea.
I think the “free will is only an illusion” idea takes a valid implication of neuroscience just a little too far.
(But…as I said just above, I’m not sure anyone is actually arguing for that proposition!)
What evidence Free Willers would need to see to change their minds?
I’ve already stated what evidence I would need to change my mind. If there are multiple studies showing the absence of correlations between early life experiences and behavior, early life experiences and brain structure, brain structure and behavior, environmental stressors and genes, genes and behavior, and pharmaceuticals and behavior, then I’d be shaken from my position. Hell, if someone could point to me to at least ONE study disproving a relationship in any of the above, it would at least give me something to think about it.
Is it that Free Willers are perfectly willing to concede that other people may not possess free will, whether due to illness or life circumstance, but they find it difficult to give themselves a similar variance? Kind of like how I assume my cats don’t have free will because I don’t know anything about how they think and I don’t want to presume anything that isn’t evident. But because I *think *I know how I think, I presume I have free will? Free will exists because I exist and I have free will?
I’m just trying to figure out the “other side” better so that perhaps I’ll stop thinking it is full of faith-based wackiness.
Thanks, Trinopus. You’re too kind. I’m way out of my league but I like your reasoning as well.
Monstro and I have spoken about our pets and I do think there may be something relevant about the question of the mental states they appear to possess. If we did not possess free will, would we be able to discern this ? I cannot say. I do find myself wondering, more than I should admit, what my dog is thinking. He dreams; this seems beyond question. Does he possess imagination ? Again, I cannot say. His dreams appear quite vivid, from my poor perspective of it, and “runs” in his sleep, moving slightly in imitation of that act. He also seems to, well, fight or experience some sort of altercations with something (other dogs, I assume). People don’t ascribe consciousness to animals, but I suspect the do have a conscious (and subconscious) state. I’m not prepared to say my dog has free will. I can’t even bring myself to assert that I have one. I “seem” to. Beyond that, I can only guess. Dolphins have language, I’m informed. Why can humans have free will, but not animals ? Confusing.
** raises hand **
I believe that volition exists. That somewhere in this universe something or someone does something on purpose. That is how I experience life, and in fact I cannot separate that sense of volition from the notion of consciousness itself: if there is no volition, then I’m not really conscious, I’m not really “here”.
Yes, it is possible to me that you do not possess will (let’s not bother with the meaningless adjective “free”; what the hell would “unfree will” be???). And one could claim (as some in this thread have) that from the outside I can’t distinguish between a hypothetical you that acts volitionally and one that is controlled, like a preprogrammed robot, by something else. But that’s not true for my own evaluation of ME.
My consciousness can’t be an illusion.
In order for it to be an illusion it would have to be an illusion to someone or something. A conscious someone or something.
And what I’m conscious of is the act of making choices, selecting options.
From there, from that point, we can go in different directions: you can say that who I think I am as I experience that act of making choices isn’t just the “me” that I think of as me, but is instead some kind of amalgam of individual person, context, genetics, culture and shared cultural notions, biochemical processes taking place in my brain, micro-interactive processes taking place on a subatomic level, or what have you. I don’t have any issue with those observations. I consider them all to be true. But there’s still a self, even if not the one I think I am.
But to day no such act of choice-making actually exists? You’re saying I AM NOT. i beg to differ.
What evidence could you give to change my mind about the existence of objective reality? What experiment could you perform to convince me of Last Thursdayism?
If you won’t accept my word for my own views, then what can I possibly say?
Please stop using language like “wackiness.” You’ve already disclaimed “insane” and apologized for it. This doesn’t help us to find mutual understanding.
If it helps any, I think that dogs, cats, horses, and other mammals do have consciousness and volition.
(I have participated in the ugly business of breaking a horse to saddle. This, in essence, entails crushing the animal’s will by force. Training a dog is less destructive, and more consensual and cooperative. It is closer to human education than to horse-breaking.)
I’m with you here. I’m quite convinced that dogs are conscious and aware. I think they also have a moral sense, and know right from wrong. You can see the guilt on a dog’s expression when he steals food, or chews on one of your shoes. (Dogs also have a sense of humor!)
It is a premise of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology that animals don’t have souls. But this is a religious doctrine, not a scientific fact. In my opinion, based on observation, dogs have a fairly similar mental life to humans. If dogs could talk, I am certain we would hold fascinating conversations with them.
Cats…maybe. Mice, I dunno. Cockroaches, no way.
monstro and I seem to agree on one thing: we aren’t interested in the religious aspect of free will. I don’t have any way of knowing if I have a “soul.” The very term is not defined meaningfully.
Im a gray area Free Willer I guess, meaning as Pjen, Monstro and most of todays research suggest, Absolute free will is an illusion.
However, my personal model of this is that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, and the “will” or what the “command” center is, is an emergent property of the mind.
All the influences mentioned, such as genes, life history, trauma etc. ALL come into play I feel. I’m still working through the wiki page, and not doing chores like I should. Executive decision making and planning modules obviously not working today… but that is a GREAT summary of the subject, )
thanx for your statement AHunter3, its what I have been thinking as well.
I think something for everyone to consider also, is that we ALL have these instruments (brains, minds) and that all contributions are valid.
I get bugged when folks reference the thousands of years of discussions by philosophers…as if that settles it…:smack: Not that I am going to…HA!! but somewhere, some monk meditating on “thoughtlessness”…maybe has it figured out!!! Probably not publishing it either…
ok, I do enjoy this.
Jupe
ps yes keep the religious aspect of this at bay. I agree.
re animals? maybe not “wills” but certainly some some sort of consciousness, different than ours…(I have many animals to deal with)
Why shouldn’t one allow themselves to conclude there is no “objective reality” when he or she is presented with multiple, contradictory presentations of that reality? Why shouldn’t this person think someone who proclaims there is objective reality is making a grandious, unsubstantiated claim? Especially when their argument boils down to “I see it this way and that’s just the way it is.”
I’m not going to pretend that I don’t make assumptions and presumptions about the world without evidence. But if someone presents me with opposing evidence, I hope that I might become a little less confident about all those assumptions and presumptions, at the very least. Especially if those assumptions and presumptions really aren’t serving any practical importance to my life. If knowing the sun doesn’t really revolve around the earth isn’t THAT big of a deal to a person, then why would they continue to pay lip service to the idea long after it’s been debunked?
:shrug:
Nope, I’m not going to retract “wacky” or “insane”. Because we’re debating, not having tea and crumpets. In a debate I’m allowed to insult any idea or opinion that I want to, for the emphasis that I intend. IMHO, a belief that is based on faith, that refuses to be swayed by evidence, is either wacky and/or insane. Whether it be philosophical or theological. You are perfectly free (heh) to define wacky or insane in a different way. But I’m not going to be polite about opinions and ideas that I personally find contemptible. And I’ve explained over and over why I think a belief in free will is full of contemptible implications.
Have we been debating volition or “free will”, AHunter? Because I have no problem with the concept of “volition”. That is, doing something through intention and purpose, however much it is perceived. As someone who routinely experiences voluntary and involuntary movements, I know about this pretty dang well. I don’t go around calling my purposeful movements “tics”. They are different things, in my book.
The difference between volition and free will is simple for me, but important. I can attach a purpose to volition–a purpose that I’m fully conscious of. If you ask me why I’m doing something, I’ll tell you something that makes sense (to the both of us), and it will give you the same answer regardless of my state of mind. I am typing this message to you under my own volition. Not because I’m having a complex tic. Not because I’m under the influence of drugs. Not because someone hypnotized me. But because I’m carrying out my intent to communicate with you.
A person who is talking to someone is committing a voluntary action. There is no part of their conscious mind that is saying, “WHAT AM I DOING? I’M POSSESSED BY AN OUTSIDE ENTITY!!” Because it is their intention to talk. It makes sense for them to talk. There is nothing ego-dystonic about what they are doing.
But I don’t consider this evidence of “free will”.
I guess I see volition as me committing to an action that’s already been decided. If someone puts a plate of yummy food in front of me and my stomach is growling and everyone in the room is urging me to eat, I’m committing a voluntary act by picking up the fork. But in this situation, my ability to move in an opposing direction is very limited. I would need to have a very compelling reason NOT to eat. A gun to my head would do it. Someone threatening to fire me from my job if I did would do it. A promise of a million dollars would do it. A philosophical or political aversion would do it. If I find none of these compelling reasons, I’m likely going to pick up the fork.
And since no one consciously chooses what they find compelling, then how can we say they acted freely? If someone holds a gun to your head and makes you pull out all the money in your bank account, should you be held accountable? Or should people understand that you were forced to act in that manner, even though your actions were carried out under your own volition?
“Free” may not matter to you. But IMHO, this is trimming the unfavorable parts of the argument away so that you can make your opponent look like they’ve been arguing a strawman the whole time. That is disingenuous. Whenever certain Judge Judies say stuff like “we all make choices”, they aren’t implying that we act purposefully in accordance to what feels natural and sensical to us. The so-called insane person who talks to the screaming voices in their head does so completely voluntarily. But most people on the street would say this person has impaired free will. Why, though? Doesn’t it make sense to talk back to a voice screaming in your head? Isn’t it just as hard to avoid talking to a disembodied voice as it is an embodied one? Of course it is.
And yet we seem to think it makes sense to view the insane person’s ability to make choices as impaired, even when their choices are perfectly logical and sensical. Even when we understand that their actions are carried out voluntarily.
What this tells me is that most people don’t equate free will with volition. Everyone knows kids act through their own volition. But people in general exempt them from free will.
The moon definitely exists. We not only see it hanging up there in the sky, but we’ve seen humans land on it. So we know it exists. We would know this if we didn’t know about the gravitational hold it has over the oceans or what it’s composition is. Yet it is an illusion that the moon follows us when we’re speeding down the highway. It is an illusion that it grows in size when it’s closer to us than it is up at the top of the sky. It is even an illusion that the moon is white. It’s appears white because of the sun’s light reflecting on it. If we actually knew Mr. Moon personally, rather than from how he appears from our vantage point, we’d see he is a satellite of color. A dark grayish dude, in fact.
So just because consciousness absolutely exists, doesn’t mean that we have to form a belief about it based on what is immediately apparent. Illusion doesn’t mean “doesn’t exist” (though I personally think this about free will). It just means we need to stop making so many assumptions about it because it’s clear our vantage point isn’t optimal for seeing it how it really is.
I guess I’m different from you. I’m not conscious of making most of my choices. Ninety-nine percent of time, I just do stuff. I don’t think about it. I’m not really thinking about the words I’m writing…which is probably why I sound so incoherent and why I make so many typos. Most of the time, my decisions are so basic that I don’t need to be conscious of them. For instance, prior to my bout with catatonia, I never realized how many tiny decisions I make when I go for a walk. Should the word “choice” be reserved for weightier matters, like whether to jaywalk or spit in someone’s yard (neither of which I would ever do, no way). Or can a choice be as simple as whether to put your left or right foot forward first when you step off the curb, or to shield or not shield your eyes whenever you look at the stoplight? I would say all of these are choices. And it is possible to find yourself in a real dilemma for all of them. It’s just that some choices are so complex that they require some awareness to be carried out. Ninety-nine percent of the other choices are so simple that they are delegated to the subconscious, and the decision is made without “our” input.
(If I ever have the urge to spit in someone’s yard, I’d probably do it without thinking. It would only be after the fact when I’d feel remorseful and feel like I should have “considered my choices” before I did that. I say this because most times, I don’t think before I act. I act and then I think. But I don’t presume to know how other people make decisions. I don’t think I’m that much of a weirdo, but it is possible that I am.)
I don’t think a belief in self requires a belief in free will. I believe in myself 100%. And yet I don’t believe in free will.
I disagree, and I think you’ve hit upon why this topic is so touchy. There’s seems to be a steep slippery slope in your argument. The OP slipped down it too and has now disappeared. Just because a person doesn’t believe that individuals are free agents doesn’t mean they believe individuals can never be idiosyncratic, that they can’t be outliers…that they believe individuals are just a bunch of atoms and strings, indistinguishable from any other bunch of atoms and strings. I personally don’t believe this. I know that I can build a model containing a million different variables designed to predict how any given individual will fare when presented with a series of tests. The model may predict what 10% of individuals do 100% of the time. For 90% of individuals, it may only predict accurately 90% of the time. The model is still good enough to brag about. And yet there’s enough of a discrepancy to conclude that not EVERYTHING is perfectly determinate. There are some things that just can’t be explained, due to stochastic unknowables. Perhaps the model can be refined when additional information comes in. But a perfect model would be impossible. No model can predict everything. So there’s plenty of room in a deterministic world for the individual’s distinctness and specialness to remain intact.
Now I’m curious to understand better what you mean when you say “free will”. I do believe we’re arguing past each other. To me, to possess volition is to possess free will.
I don’t know what you mean by “unimpeded” and I’d like to understand that more clearly.
Free will: the ability of an individual to make decisions independent of external factors, including factors intrinsic to the individual.
Volition: acting purposefully in accordance to what feels natural and sensical.
Typically when people talk of free will, they talk about morally-relevant decisions rather than mundane value-neutral ones. Maybe they concede that mundane actions can be carried out unconsciously. But the really important decisions are where people supposedly have freedom. People know what’s right and wrong. So they are able to use this “calculus” (as Pjen coined) to determine what they should and shouldn’t do, like the free agents they are.
Children and the mentally impaired don’t have free will, the conventional argument goes, because these people don’t have a good sense of right and wrong. They can’t see the consequences of their actions. They may act under their own volition. But because their moral compasses are either undeveloped or broken, they can’t be held accountable for their choices. Unlike the rest of us. We have free will. We have the power to execute the “right” decision no matter what the external variables are. No matter what seems natural and sensical to us. We can choose to act against these forces, if we really want to.
One obvious flaw to this argument (one that I haven’t mentioned yet) is that we usually determine who does and doesn’t have free will based on what choices people make. So-called crazy people are called that when it becomes difficult to predict what they are going to do. (I know that I personally use “crazy” and “random” interchangeably"). And people who do something horrific (like shoot up a streetful of people) often have their free will questioned since their choices are so abnormal, defying all “external” reasoning. So, it’s like once people start behaving in a free manner, this is when we try to pull their “free will” cards away from them. This is wackiness, IMHO. Trinopus doesn’t like me saying this, but I don’t know how else to describe it!
I think that volition is also a matter of perception. Just because I’m carrying out an action that feels purposeful doesn’t mean that I’m still not compelled by hidden forces to carry it out. We can do things without knowing why exactly we do them. And yet, even recognizing that volition may be an illusion, I am still able to think of myself as having it. I experience the opposite of volition on a regular enough basis to know that it is distinctive experience. And that’s enough to make me consider it a “thing”, even if it’s not quite the thing that I’d like to think it is.
But you will not define what is meant by Free Will which is why you are able to engage in such misunderstandings as you insist on posting as arguments. If you were willing to learn from the experts in the field (who are almost as certain about determinism being true as climate change scientists and Evolutionists are about theirs.
This was in reply to my question:
“But what is an embodied thought and where is your proof that this embodied thought caused the action and that it was not cause by another part of the brain without consciousness.”
In philosophy one needs to be very careful about the language used and that that language does not lead one astray.
You aver “My “proof” is simple observation of reality. I have a thought, and act on it.”
Do you not see that your statement in English begs the Philosophical question twice by assuming 1/ that there is an “I” in the real world to have the experience, and 2/ that this “I” acts on it.
I might rephrase your statement more openly as
" There is awareness of a desire to change the world. This preceded the action that implemented it."
That does not assume a personhood separate from the brain matter and the rest of a body and does not assume causation rather than correleation between the desire and the action."
Your suggestion that cause and effect are too difficult to investigate throws the whole scientific project out the window. We manage to discuss cause and effect in every other area of Science by using the simple definition above. Admittedly these all reduce to an undefined cause eventually (the concept of force for instance) but we understand the mechanics- the mathematics- of the interaction and note that cause always precedes effect, effect never occurs without cause, and we have an understanding of why the cause IS necessary for the effect.
For instance it was held that the heavens were held together by the will of God- setting the system up and then causing all the astronomical bodies to move. This was the belief for many millennia but begin to break down 500 years ago and was gradually replaced by Newtonian Mechanics which explained how “Gravity” maintained toe systems. Similarly with Magnetism and every other piece of scientific explanation.
There is no way that a modern Libertarian can refuse to answer the question- “If this “Free Will” causes action, please elucidate why it is necessary and how it acts.” There is no adequate answer to this question which means that our understanding of it is still in the paradigm of the middle ages- pre-scientific and unexplained. This does not mean that the question is unanswerable, just that it is so far unanswered, and it does not give a free pass to Libertarians to refuse to answer such a basic question.
Have you read the seminal paper by Hallett that I offered above, or at least the Wikipedia article.
I can do no better than quote Hallett’s conclusions which are supported by the great majority of the thinkers in the field:
9.0 Conclusions
There is no evidence yet identified for free will as a force in the generation of movement, and the neurophysiology of movement is fairly advanced. Decisions must be made by the brain and these mechanisms are being understood also. Hence, it is much more likely that free will is entirely an introspection. It is a strong and virtually universal perception, but, as been illustrated here, this perception is subject to manipulation and illusion. Most evidence indicates that the neural signals that produce the perception of free will are processed in parallel with
the signals that produce the movement, since the two events are subject to independent manipulation, and generally the sense of willing does precede the movement (Fig. 7). The judgment of agency has to be after the movement since it depends on the matching of intention and movement feedback. Consciousness tries to make logical sense of all the brain events in terms that it understands such as causality and the unidirectional nature of time. What is actually happening in the brain must also have its logic, but the rules may be different. Mapping the
model onto brain structures, movement is likely initiated in mesial motor areas which are in turn influenced by prefrontal and limbic areas. The movement command goes to primary motor cortex with a corollary discharge to parietal area. Parietal and frontal areas maintain a relatively constant bidirectional communication. It is likely that this network of structures includes the
insula. Within this network, with activation as well of the global neuronal workspace, the perception of volition is generated. The sense of agency comes from the appropriate match of volition and movement feedback, likely centered on the parietal area."
So (as I suggested earlier) it sort of comes down to what is and what is not “external” to the individual, yes?
I think you are misreading what I said. I believe that you cannot understand the debate if ou do not gain some idea of how the subject has been inculcated religiously and philosophically, legally and socially over the centuries. When I referred to it being necessary to understand the thousands of years of philosophy I was not suggesting that they had the answers, just that the scope of the problem could not be appreciated without understanding the history.
I do suggest, however, that the scientific project of the past half millennium has been more successful at solving previous philosophical conundrums than any other method. Mysterious event after event has been concisely explained by non-mysterian forces and myths have been defenestrated regularly by the appliance of science- the aether, phlogiston, Vital Essence, Motive Force- and there is a pattern to each of these eye-openings. Neuroscience is beginning to offer a way to dispel the myth of Free Will and that is what is causing the same level of discomfort as all previous debunkings have done.
A very wise scientist once remarked that Philosophy was useful because although every conclusion it reached was incorrect, it was the only source of the correct question to ask!