• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Your brain tricks you into believing... What?!

Speakpigeon

Contributor
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
6,317
Location
Paris, France, EU
Basic Beliefs
Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
One example, and perhaps the most convincing example, of psychologists, including neuroscientists, actually concluding from their research that a standard mental event is best understood as, literally, an illusion that people have is the frequent scientific conclusion that our belief that we have free will is an illusion.

Here is one good example of how the term "free will" itself is usually defined in this context:

"Free will may be defined as an agent's ability to act on the world by its own volition, independently of purely physical (as opposed to metaphysical) causes and prior states of the world"

(definition used in the context of a debate specifically on free will organised by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology).

I don't think this definition makes any sense, but it seems clear that we nonetheless standardly have something like a very strong belief that we can very often, indeed routinely, do exactly what we wanted to do.

As an example, suppose you are asked to take part in a poll where the question is whether you think you have free will or you think you don't (plus options such as "Don't know" etc.).

I would certainly expect most people to choose to vote that they think they have free will. However, this is not the point. The point is that you are presented with a choice and that whatever your vote will be you do something which will be deemed to be the expression of your choice.

There seems to be little point in denying that you would indeed express your choice and do what you actually wanted to do in selecting whatever option you would.

It also seems beyond controversy that most people in that sort of situation don't spend a long time considering and deliberating with themselves, i.e. consciously, their possible answer. Thus, I think we can assume that, very often, people make their choice without consciously deliberating what choice to make. Thus, we can take what they come to want to do in this context to be essentially the result of an unconscious process.

Obviously, there are many situations where we do deliberate with ourselves hard and long before electing to perform a particular action. However, this is irrelevant here. The fact seems to be that most of the things we do in life, including voting, something which is taken to be the means to express the will of the people, are done without any rational, and therefore conscious, deliberation.

Yet, in many such situations, we will indeed believe that we will have done what we wanted to do, which I think is really the point of free will.

In this example, we have on one side a strong belief, that we can often, routinely, do what we want, and on the other the scientific contention, by psychologists, that free will is best understood, literally, as an illusion.

This, however, clearly does not amount to anything like our brain tricking us into having the illusion that we are acting according to our free will.

What we routinely believe is, literally, that we are doing what we want at the moment. Scientific studies don't deny that we do want something on these occasions. They also don't deny that we end up actually doing what we so wanted to do.

What scientific studies seem to be concluding is that free will as defined above, what I call a metaphysical definition of free will, is an illusion. However, they don't actually prove, they don't even try to prove, that we really have this metaphysical belief to begin with, as opposed to just believing, however strongly, that you can often, routinely, do what you want.

Thus, I don't think there is any substance to the notion that the brain is literally tricking us into thinking anything. Clearly, our brain makes us for example want to do things and that this somehow seems to make us do or try to do it. This, however, doesn't amount to anything like a "trick".

Otherwise, you might just as well take our perception of the world around us to be a trick of the brain to make us believe that there is a particular kind of material world out there even though there isn't in fact such a world.

More likely, we should take any suggestion that our brain tricks us as literary licence. In other words, the only trick here is other people trying to trick you into believing meaningless headlines.

Here is an example of such a headline:

Brain Tricks Us Into Thinking We Are In Control

(From PsyBlog, a website founded and authored by Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD in psychology from University College London, MSc in Research Methods in Psychology and a Post Graduate Diploma in Psychology. https://www.spring.org.uk/2016/05/free-will-is-an-illusion.php)

And here is one claim fleshing out the headline:

"While it may feel like we are in control of our actions, this is just a fantasy our brain creates so we don’t feel left out."

So, there is undoubtedly a cottage industry of psychologists making the brain-tricks-us claim again and again, both literally, in their "headlines", and in the substance of what they say in support of the headline.

When it comes to actual scientific papers, however, it seems very hard to find any example of the claim itself. The word "trick" is indeed very often used in the context of the neurosciences but, as far as I can tell, it is essentially either to express the idea that the brain performs very remarkable cognitive feats, or used as shorthand for new abilities that the brain can be taught to develop.

So, maybe, don't let the cottage industry of psychologists trick you into believing real science makes any claim that your brain tricks you in any way.
EB
 
Most people cognize the world through their own experience.
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.
Isn’t this a fallacy of composition or some such? My brain is a necessary condition for being me, but I am more than merely my brain. That it is vitally necessary doesn’t change that. It’s ludacrous to think my brain drives me to the store, even when it’s evident that I cannot drive to the store without it.
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.
Isn’t this a fallacy of composition or some such? My brain is a necessary condition for being me, but I am more than merely my brain. That it is vitally necessary doesn’t change that. It’s ludacrous to think my brain drives me to the store, even when it’s evident that I cannot drive to the store without it.


How are you 'more than merely your brain' if it's the brain that is generating conscious experience?
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.
Isn’t this a fallacy of composition or some such? My brain is a necessary condition for being me, but I am more than merely my brain. That it is vitally necessary doesn’t change that. It’s ludacrous to think my brain drives me to the store, even when it’s evident that I cannot drive to the store without it.


How are you 'more than merely your brain' if it's the brain that is generating conscious experience?
The term, “I” is a first person singular pronoun, and when I use the term, it refers to its referent, namely me, fast, the person using the term. I am a person, and if you consider the complete makeup of a person, it includes more than the organ largely responsible for “generating conscious experience.”
 
Squirts and twitches here. What about us? I'm sure my associates testosterone and estrogen are just as disturbed by comments that brain is this or that as am I.

And what do you mean by brain anyway?

Signed Serotonin, ATP, Ketamine, sense receptors, muscles and the rest of the being crew.
 
Squirts and twitches here. What about us? I'm sure my associates testosterone and estrogen are just as disturbed by comments that brain is this or that as am I.

And what do you mean by brain anyway?

Signed Serotonin, ATP, Ketamine, sense receptors, muscles and the rest of the being crew.
And that too.

Except maybe estrogen. Sounds like a Venus parasite.
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.
Isn’t this a fallacy of composition or some such? My brain is a necessary condition for being me, but I am more than merely my brain. That it is vitally necessary doesn’t change that. It’s ludacrous to think my brain drives me to the store, even when it’s evident that I cannot drive to the store without it.

I didn't say that you were your brain. I said that you are the tricks your brain is playing. And of course, the endocrine system is in on it too.
 
How are you 'more than merely your brain' if it's the brain that is generating conscious experience?
The term, “I” is a first person singular pronoun, and when I use the term, it refers to its referent, namely me, fast, the person using the term. I am a person, and if you consider the complete makeup of a person, it includes more than the organ largely responsible for “generating conscious experience.”

The term "I" as a first person singular pronoun, when said or written, is inseparable from the conscious brain activity that is producing the expression.
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.
Isn’t this a fallacy of composition or some such? My brain is a necessary condition for being me, but I am more than merely my brain. That it is vitally necessary doesn’t change that. It’s ludacrous to think my brain drives me to the store, even when it’s evident that I cannot drive to the store without it.

I didn't say that you were your brain. I said that you are the tricks your brain is playing. And of course, the endocrine system is in on it too.
I am not a trick.
 
How are you 'more than merely your brain' if it's the brain that is generating conscious experience?
The term, “I” is a first person singular pronoun, and when I use the term, it refers to its referent, namely me, fast, the person using the term. I am a person, and if you consider the complete makeup of a person, it includes more than the organ largely responsible for “generating conscious experience.”

The term "I" as a first person singular pronoun, when said or written, is inseparable from the conscious brain activity that is producing the expression.
I presume you don’t mean the term (despite your explicitly saying as such). Rather, I suppose you are referring to exactly what the word refers to—which is the referent of the term. My issue is that the referent of term is broader in scope than you accept. You seem to limit the scope to a very specific part of the body. I think it’s a mistake to do that.
 
The term "I" as a first person singular pronoun, when said or written, is inseparable from the conscious brain activity that is producing the expression.
I presume you don’t mean the term (despite your explicitly saying as such). Rather, I suppose you are referring to exactly what the word refers to—which is the referent of the term. My issue is that the referent of term is broader in scope than you accept. You seem to limit the scope to a very specific part of the body. I think it’s a mistake to do that.

I don't think that it is a mistake, not if you consider the source of all experience, the brain and its information processing activity, consequently, the nature of the experience of self awareness and thought that enables the capacity and means to say "I" in first person singular pronoun.
 
The term "I" as a first person singular pronoun, when said or written, is inseparable from the conscious brain activity that is producing the expression.
I presume you don’t mean the term (despite your explicitly saying as such). Rather, I suppose you are referring to exactly what the word refers to—which is the referent of the term. My issue is that the referent of term is broader in scope than you accept. You seem to limit the scope to a very specific part of the body. I think it’s a mistake to do that.

I don't think that it is a mistake, not if you consider the source of all experience, the brain and its information processing activity, consequently, the nature of the experience of self awareness and thought that enables the capacity and means to say "I" in first person singular pronoun.
A person can walk. A brain cannot.

I can see people walk. I cannot see their brains.

What do you see?

Yes, they have brains, and no, they couldn’t walk without one. I acknowledge they each have a brain (well, maybe not that cashier I saw the other day (OMG!) <but that’s another story>. Are you saying you cannot see the person?
 
I don't think that it is a mistake, not if you consider the source of all experience, the brain and its information processing activity, consequently, the nature of the experience of self awareness and thought that enables the capacity and means to say "I" in first person singular pronoun.
A person can walk. A brain cannot.

I can see people walk. I cannot see their brains.

What do you see?

Yes, they have brains, and no, they couldn’t walk without one. I acknowledge they each have a brain (well, maybe not that cashier I saw the other day (OMG!) <but that’s another story>. Are you saying you cannot see the person?

I'm saying that a person is what a Brain is doing, every thought and every action is an instance of the brain at work. That without the underlying neuronal production at work, there is no person, only an inanimate/inert body, head, torso, limbs, flesh and bone without the ability to think, feel or act.
 
I don't think that it is a mistake, not if you consider the source of all experience, the brain and its information processing activity, consequently, the nature of the experience of self awareness and thought that enables the capacity and means to say "I" in first person singular pronoun.
A person can walk. A brain cannot.

I can see people walk. I cannot see their brains.

What do you see?

Yes, they have brains, and no, they couldn’t walk without one. I acknowledge they each have a brain (well, maybe not that cashier I saw the other day (OMG!) <but that’s another story>. Are you saying you cannot see the person?

I'm saying that a person is what a Brain is doing, every thought and every action is an instance of the brain at work. That without the underlying neuronal production at work, there is no person, only an inanimate/inert body, head, torso, limbs, flesh and bone without the ability to think, feel or act.

Yes. The difference between, say, an intact frog with a brain, and a pithed frog, still alive but with its brain destroyed.
 
The tricks of the brain are you.

The brain can't 'trick you', because the 'you' is the trick.

Sure but then it's not really the brain tricking you in the sense suggested here. The way some psychologists use the term is to suggest deception. For example, you brain is supposed to trick you into believing you are more attractive than you really are, that sort of thing. I would agree with you that we are essentially a sort of subjective avatar inhabiting a fictional world all made up by our brain, but that's not really deception. It's just a fact. It's a property of all cognitive systems to work out a model of the world, a model which is by nature a fiction. Having a self is probably a direct consequence of our social nature and our self-centredness probably grew with the complexity of of our social organisation and therefore our social lives. We even organise a collective viewing of a mock sample of social life complete with fictional but realistic characters, i.e. theatre. I don't feel tricked into believing I'm a human being, because, in fact, this is exactly what I am, at least this is how i see it. Hard-core materialists will tend to think differently about that, seeing the Cartesian Theatre as essentially, in their own terms, an illusion, and therefore a "trick". However, all each of us knows is only their own self and the Cartesian Theatre it is inhabiting, like a doll house. But there is no trick in that. We are our own self and our world is really the Cartesian Theatre we inhabit, even if, presumably, there is an "analogous" world out there. If there is a trick, it's not our brain playing it, it's nature. But, surely, nature doesn't play tricks.
EB
 
The term "I" as a first person singular pronoun, when said or written, is inseparable from the conscious brain activity that is producing the expression.
I presume you don’t mean the term (despite your explicitly saying as such). Rather, I suppose you are referring to exactly what the word refers to—which is the referent of the term. My issue is that the referent of term is broader in scope than you accept. You seem to limit the scope to a very specific part of the body. I think it’s a mistake to do that.

The absurdity is flagrant. If we deny the "I" as an illusion, we have similarly to deny the brain as an illusion, the whole of reality as an illusion. This is typical confusion of the dogmatic ideologue failing to see the absurdity of the perspective.

The logical way to reconcile the subjective I with the material world is to recognise that we know ourselves as the I and therefore we exist as such. The material world is in fact our perception of what is not us. It is a necessary fiction and all it needs to be is an analogue of the real world outside. Even our idea of the material is a fiction. As fiction, it represents. It is our brain representing the world outside to itself and we are the other part of the representation. Thus, there is something ironic about materialists damn sure they have pinned down the correct way of thinking reality when in fact they have it backward, naively taking the representational Cartesian Theatre for the real thing and chastising idealists for believing in the reality of imaginary beings. An illusion is an illusion of something that doesn't really exist as represented by the illusion. However, the illusion itself exists. If it didn't, there would be no illusion to talk about.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom