Humans really don't know what they're doing?

[Speakpigeon]

Here is one typical argument of the kind some people like to make now and then based on "Libet-type experiments":

Here's where science can come in. We, ourselves, can't accurately measure tiny time periods as well as science can, and (as seems to be the case) especially when we are dealing in microseconds. So, whilst it might feel like I move an arm after I have the conscious thought, science can, to some extent, have a go at checking if I have that temporal order of events right. And that is roughly speaking what investigations into readiness potentials try to do. Were it to be the case that for example RP's which are closely correlated to action consistently preceded conscious awareness of an intent to move (an arm), and I fully appreciate that what I will call Libet-type experiments are far from being conclusive, then we would have a basis for at least doubting that the causal process is actually B to A, even though it feels like it, and that B to A is merely an illusion brought about by the close association between B and A, and because we can't tell, subjectively, that A is in fact happening (possibly always) microseconds before we are aware of B.

Broadly, it's the idea that science seems to have shown conclusively, although possibly with lots of caveats for now, that human beings cannot possibly be consciously deciding of their actions. Essentially, we only become conscious of our decision to do something once it's already decided, and that this decision is in fact made by some unconscious part of our brain.

This raises all sorts of very interesting questions, but I will focus here on just one aspect.

So, as I see it, it seems to be science here saying that human beings in effect don't know what they're doing. People do things, but only become aware of what they're doing once it's been decided, and by some unconscious part of their brain. This I interpret as suggesting that we don't know what we're doing at the moment we're doing it, and so, we can't possibly know whatever we're deciding to do. You could say that there's still a part of our brain that knows what we're doing but it's an unconscious part.

Given that many people here will be more familiar with those no doubt very interesting "Libet-type experiments", I'd like them to express succinctly and in good English their own interpretation of this kind of experiments. I've given what I understand of what some people seemed to have said, but maybe I'm just wrong or just too biased, who knows.

So, please feel free to express your views on this difficult question.

Thank you to try and keep close to the issue, i.e. what you think these experiments really show, if anything at all.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The Libet study is looking at the timing of subjective guesses.

Not the timing of objective decision making.

What makes the decision about when the decision to move the arm was made?

There is also the idea that there is a subconscious decision making mechanism that brings potential decisions to the attention of consciousness. Then the consciousness makes the final call.

In these Libet experiments if the subject randomly chooses to not move at the last instant that decision cannot be predicted.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The Libet study is looking at the timing of subjective guesses.

Not the timing of objective decision making.

What makes the decision about when the decision to move the arm was made?

There is also the idea that there is a subconscious decision making mechanism that brings potential decisions to the attention of consciousness. Then the consciousness makes the final call.

In these Libet experiments if the subject randomly chooses to not move at the last instant that decision cannot be predicted.

THere are lots of Libet studies and the one that is arguably most famous is the one that involves freely initiated finger flicks. Frankly, even without doing the timing you can see that there is a problem, because of issues with how long processing and information transmission take. The fact is, that it seems to the subject, who can be you, that the decision to flick and the flick occur at the same time. Try it, make a free choice to flick your finger ... now! You'll notice that the decision to flick your finger and the action of flicking your finger appear to occur at the same time. Of course, even if your own special Cartesian captain of the ship were making that decision, the decision passes to the brain, presumably via the pineal gland because you are a traditionalist, and thence down through the base of the brain and on down the CNS to the fingers where the muscles are activated, moving your finger. This journey takes 200 to 400 ms. Then you have a whole barrage of signals returning at speeds that vary enormously - the non conscious information about your finger position is bloody fast 100ms or slow, vision is much slower, say 400ms and the feel of the movement is more like 400ms.

In short, a window opens at 'T' when you decide to move your finger. The ballistic action this initiates will begin to occur around 300ms later and take around 50ms to occur. The very first inkling that anything has happened will arrive back in the brain 100ms or so later. Visual and phenomenal information will then trickle in over the next 300ms. In short the gap between initiating the action at T and receiving all the information about it back in the brain between T+450MS and T+750ms. In short, this gap between initiation and seeing and feeling yourself act is between half and three quarters of a second. Yet your Cartesian Captain perceives it all at once.

Now, of course you could claim that your conscious awareness isn't reliant on anything as mundane as neural signals which we can time rather precisely, but that would be a religious claim. If you are not going to argue that, you can disagree with my figures, but the speed of transmission along various nerves with various levels of myelination is well known and we can dicker over the odd 100ms between friends but even the most conservative models of how fast information travels in the body will leave you with a lapse of over half a second between the signal to act and the signals from that action returning.

In fact there is an experiment that very nearly became my doctorate. Libet has a problem that finding the precursors of action requires one to work backwards, thus not in real time. Back in the late eighties, in response to the Phi experiments, ii proposed a different experiment: First identify the area that lights up when an individual decides to flick their finger - get the earliest indications of this precursor to action. That gives you around 400ms before the flick that can be spotted reliably with few false positives. Wire this up to a simple red light. The subject is told to flick their finger, at any point that they choose but not to flick their finger when the red light comes on. As a result, the red light would come on at around the same time that the finger flicked. This is midway between initiation and fully bound (I'm referring to the binding problem here) conscious awareness that it happened. Can you guess how this series of events seemed to the subject.

I'm assuming here that you are all completely familiar with the Phi phenomena and Goodman and Dennett's response to them...

Here's a really too simple intro:

https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/310-Dennett-MultiDrafts.htm

Here's the real thing:

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/ccs/DennettKinsbourne1992TimeObserver.htm

 

[untermensche]

The term "inkling" has no objective definition. You can't make any objective comments about when people have inklings. That is just the average of a bunch of subjective guesses. No matter how many subjective guesses you have you never have objective data about anything but subjective guessing.

Asking subjects when they think things are happening is not objective science. You just average a bunch of subjective guesses and call it data. Some people actually guess that they have initiated things much earlier.

This is confounded by the fact that there may be subconscious systems that prepare for potential decisions in which the consciousness makes the final say.

The subjects fully know what decisions they are soon expected to make. Nothing is being initiated in the absence of awareness. Nothing.

Finding out what the consciousness is objectively is science.

But right now that seems impossible.

So these marking time studies that don't provide any objective data about conscious decision making are all we have.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's been a while since I last looked closely at Libet's experiments (including the one in question) so I'd have to remind myself of exactly how he attempted to address the various timing issues and how they might tot up.

For now, I will just,

(a) point out just for clarity that I said, 'far from conclusive' which is, um, quite a way from, "the idea that science seems to have shown conclusively, although possibly with lots of caveats for now, that human beings cannot possibly be consciously deciding of their actions", which is not quite the way I would put it and which Libet never went near either, as far as I know,

(b) restate that I think which 'comes first or causes' in this scenario is currently an open question, imo, and

(c) leave this on the thread, it at least being more recent than Libet:

https://vimeo.com/90101368

And back to work at this end......

laters...

 

[ruby sparks]

I will say one thing though......

If thoughts emerge from brain activity (which is my preferred view) then it is harder to see thoughts preceding activity than the reverse, in general terms.

As such, consider me provisionally leaning in the same general direction as Benjamin Libet, John-Dylan Haynes, Sam Harris, Mark Hallett, Daniel Wegner, Itzhak Fried, Gabriel Krieman, et al.

 

[DBT]

If thoughts do emerge from brain activity, as the evidence supports, it is physically impossible for thoughts to emerge before sensory input, before propagation, before processing, before memory integration enabling recognition, etc, this being a necessary order of cognitive events, which is brain activity, prior to conscious perception and response. After all, it is a physical process.

 

[ruby sparks]

If thoughts do emerge from brain activity, as the evidence supports, it is physically impossible for thoughts to emerge before sensory input, before propagation, before processing, before memory integration enabling recognition, etc, this being a necessary order of cognitive events, which is brain activity, prior to conscious perception and response. After all, it is a physical process.

As far as I am aware, there is a lot of processing done without sensory input. I read, for example, that most of the processing that accompanies vision is internally generated, and furthermore is predictive rather than reactive.

Then, there is me thinking I am going to go to the beach tomorrow. That definitely occurs before I go to the beach.

The other one that makes me ponder is when it suddenly occurs to me (consciously), halfway down the driveway out of my house, that I may not have locked the front door. For all the world, it feels like I would not have gone back and checked had that thought not entered consciousness, had it stayed nonconscious I mean. That said, it's nowhere near conclusive, if, for example my conscious thoughts are uncausal epiphenomena. Sometimes it's hard to think that they are. I do admit to not being sure one way or the other.

 

[ruby sparks]

If thoughts do emerge from brain activity, as the evidence supports, it is physically impossible for thoughts to emerge before sensory input, before propagation, before processing, before memory integration enabling recognition, etc, this being a necessary order of cognitive events, which is brain activity, prior to conscious perception and response. After all, it is a physical process.

As far as I am aware, there is a lot of processing done without sensory input. I read, for example, that most of the processing that accompanies vision is internally generated, and furthermore is predictive rather than reactive.

I should point out that I do agree that thoughts seem to need sensory input, just not on any particular occasion. Dreaming while asleep might be another good example, in which case prior processing derived from sensory inputs are regurgitated (from memories). Whether a hypothetical brain deprived of all sensory input for all of its life could have thoughts I don't know, but it seems intuitively unlikely.

Just on the topic of the role of memory, I have a sneaking suspicion (brainfarting again) that a thought needs to go into (and be consciously retrieved from) memory, otherwise it wouldn't ever be conscious. I have no idea what that actually means. Lol. Put it this way, if I consciously experienced something (eg pain) but the experience instantaneously disappeared, I wonder if I'd know I had it.

 

[DBT]

Not just sensory input but internal activity, body function, memory, etc, can be inputs that stimulate conscious brain activity. In cases of extended sensory deprivation, hallucinations emerge...the brain is generating conscious activity purely on memory and whatever body function state input there may be, stomach ache, hunger, etc.


Quote;
''Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations,[2] bizarre thoughts, temporarily senseless, and depression.[3]''

"Total Isolation"

In January 2008, the BBC aired a Horizon special entitled "Total Isolation". The premise of the show centered on six individuals, four men and two women, agreeing to be shut in a cell inside a nuclear bunker, alone and in complete darkness for 48 hours. Prior to isolation, the volunteers underwent tests of visual memory, information processing, verbal fluency and suggestibility.

After the two days and two nights, the subjects noted that their inability to sense time, as well as hallucinations, made the experience difficult. Of the six volunteers, three experienced auditory and visual hallucinations—snakes, oysters, tiny cars and zebras. One was convinced their sheets were wet. Two seemed to cope well.

When complete, the tests that the subjects took before the experiment were conducted a second time to test its effects. The results indicated all volunteers' ability to complete the simplest tasks had deteriorated. One subject's memory capacity fell 36% and all the subjects had trouble thinking of words beginning with a nominated letter; in this case, the letter "F". All four of the men had markedly increased suggestibility, although this was not the case with the women.[22]

"It's really hard to stimulate your brain with no light. It's blanking me. I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

 

[Speakpigeon]

"I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

Ah, excellent! UM's vindicated at last! Who's laughing now!

And the BBC sure is a very serious and respected organisation.

This is the literalistic proof that the mind and the brain are two very different things!



Then again, this Adam Bloom character seems fishy to me. What he says here sounds quite like wining him the Punters Award...
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Just like a Frog to smear Brits and the like for their soccer-beer habits. "Sir? May I have more?"

 

[untermensche]

Not just sensory input but internal activity, body function, memory, etc, can be inputs that stimulate conscious brain activity. In cases of extended sensory deprivation, hallucinations emerge...the brain is generating conscious activity purely on memory and whatever body function state input there may be, stomach ache, hunger, etc.


Quote;
''Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations,[2] bizarre thoughts, temporarily senseless, and depression.[3]''

"Total Isolation"

In January 2008, the BBC aired a Horizon special entitled "Total Isolation". The premise of the show centered on six individuals, four men and two women, agreeing to be shut in a cell inside a nuclear bunker, alone and in complete darkness for 48 hours. Prior to isolation, the volunteers underwent tests of visual memory, information processing, verbal fluency and suggestibility.

After the two days and two nights, the subjects noted that their inability to sense time, as well as hallucinations, made the experience difficult. Of the six volunteers, three experienced auditory and visual hallucinations—snakes, oysters, tiny cars and zebras. One was convinced their sheets were wet. Two seemed to cope well.

When complete, the tests that the subjects took before the experiment were conducted a second time to test its effects. The results indicated all volunteers' ability to complete the simplest tasks had deteriorated. One subject's memory capacity fell 36% and all the subjects had trouble thinking of words beginning with a nominated letter; in this case, the letter "F". All four of the men had markedly increased suggestibility, although this was not the case with the women.[22]

"It's really hard to stimulate your brain with no light. It's blanking me. I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

This is nothing more than another way to make the brain function abnormally.

No different from giving a subject alcohol or LSD. Or putting somebody in a freezer for a while.

Or cutting away parts of the brain at random.

It tells you nothing about how a brain functions normally. It tells you a little about what a brain needs to function normally. External stimulation.

It tells you the consciousness needs a normally functioning brain to carry out it's tasks. It tells you the work consciousness does is tenuous and delicate. To move the arm is the slightest activity by the consciousness and it must be done under the right conditions.

When you understand what consciousness is you can make claims about what it can do.

Not before.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just like a Frog to smear Brits and the like for their soccer-beer habits.

Oops, sorry! I'm really sorry if I inadvertently quicked into some balls of yours!

You need to understand I really don't know what I'm doing here!

"Sir? May I have more?"

Yeah, sure, I know, Brits "and the like" can be polite.

Every leap-frog year.
EB


EDIT
And the "punters award" I was mentioning was really the Polygram Video Punters Comedy Award, which he won in 1998.

Not in the same ballpark...

 

[DBT]

"I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

Ah, excellent! UM's vindicated at last! Who's laughing now!

And the BBC sure is a very serious and respected organisation.

This is the literalistic proof that the mind and the brain are two very different things!



Then again, this Adam Bloom character seems fishy to me. What he says here sounds quite like wining him the Punters Award...
EB

That the BBC was used is irrelevant. There are many links to experiments and studies on the effects of extended sensory deprivation.

 

[DBT]

Not just sensory input but internal activity, body function, memory, etc, can be inputs that stimulate conscious brain activity. In cases of extended sensory deprivation, hallucinations emerge...the brain is generating conscious activity purely on memory and whatever body function state input there may be, stomach ache, hunger, etc.


Quote;
''Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations,[2] bizarre thoughts, temporarily senseless, and depression.[3]''

"Total Isolation"

In January 2008, the BBC aired a Horizon special entitled "Total Isolation". The premise of the show centered on six individuals, four men and two women, agreeing to be shut in a cell inside a nuclear bunker, alone and in complete darkness for 48 hours. Prior to isolation, the volunteers underwent tests of visual memory, information processing, verbal fluency and suggestibility.

After the two days and two nights, the subjects noted that their inability to sense time, as well as hallucinations, made the experience difficult. Of the six volunteers, three experienced auditory and visual hallucinations—snakes, oysters, tiny cars and zebras. One was convinced their sheets were wet. Two seemed to cope well.

When complete, the tests that the subjects took before the experiment were conducted a second time to test its effects. The results indicated all volunteers' ability to complete the simplest tasks had deteriorated. One subject's memory capacity fell 36% and all the subjects had trouble thinking of words beginning with a nominated letter; in this case, the letter "F". All four of the men had markedly increased suggestibility, although this was not the case with the women.[22]

"It's really hard to stimulate your brain with no light. It's blanking me. I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

This is nothing more than another way to make the brain function abnormally.

No different from giving a subject alcohol or LSD. Or putting somebody in a freezer for a while.

Or cutting away parts of the brain at random.

It tells you nothing about how a brain functions normally. It tells you a little about what a brain needs to function normally. External stimulation.

It tells you the consciousness needs a normally functioning brain to carry out it's tasks. It tells you the work consciousness does is tenuous and delicate. To move the arm is the slightest activity by the consciousness and it must be done under the right conditions.

When you understand what consciousness is you can make claims about what it can do.

Not before.

If it is the brain that generates conscious activity, as the evidence supports, anything that effects the brain alters conscious activity in related ways.

 

[fromderinside]

Not in the same ballpark...

OK. But it is in the same arena, performance-audience.

 

[untermensche]

Not just sensory input but internal activity, body function, memory, etc, can be inputs that stimulate conscious brain activity. In cases of extended sensory deprivation, hallucinations emerge...the brain is generating conscious activity purely on memory and whatever body function state input there may be, stomach ache, hunger, etc.


Quote;
''Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to meditation; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations,[2] bizarre thoughts, temporarily senseless, and depression.[3]''

"Total Isolation"

In January 2008, the BBC aired a Horizon special entitled "Total Isolation". The premise of the show centered on six individuals, four men and two women, agreeing to be shut in a cell inside a nuclear bunker, alone and in complete darkness for 48 hours. Prior to isolation, the volunteers underwent tests of visual memory, information processing, verbal fluency and suggestibility.

After the two days and two nights, the subjects noted that their inability to sense time, as well as hallucinations, made the experience difficult. Of the six volunteers, three experienced auditory and visual hallucinations—snakes, oysters, tiny cars and zebras. One was convinced their sheets were wet. Two seemed to cope well.

When complete, the tests that the subjects took before the experiment were conducted a second time to test its effects. The results indicated all volunteers' ability to complete the simplest tasks had deteriorated. One subject's memory capacity fell 36% and all the subjects had trouble thinking of words beginning with a nominated letter; in this case, the letter "F". All four of the men had markedly increased suggestibility, although this was not the case with the women.[22]

"It's really hard to stimulate your brain with no light. It's blanking me. I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

This is nothing more than another way to make the brain function abnormally.

No different from giving a subject alcohol or LSD. Or putting somebody in a freezer for a while.

Or cutting away parts of the brain at random.

It tells you nothing about how a brain functions normally. It tells you a little about what a brain needs to function normally. External stimulation.

It tells you the consciousness needs a normally functioning brain to carry out it's tasks. It tells you the work consciousness does is tenuous and delicate. To move the arm is the slightest activity by the consciousness and it must be done under the right conditions.

When you understand what consciousness is you can make claims about what it can do.

Not before.

If it is the brain that generates conscious activity, as the evidence supports, anything that effects the brain alters conscious activity in related ways.

That is a given. And has been a given for a long time.

You are babbling into the darkness.

Yes, some kind of activity is creating consciousness. And that activity has to be within certain parameters for consciousness to effectively operate. If the activity is altered in some way the abilities of consciousness are altered.

But the abilities of consciousness are there when the brain is functioning "normally".

Like the ability to understand and express ideas.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"I can feel my brain just not wanting to do anything."

— Adam Bloom (volunteer subject) — "Total Isolation"

Ah, excellent! UM's vindicated at last! Who's laughing now!

And the BBC sure is a very serious and respected organisation.

This is the literalistic proof that the mind and the brain are two very different things!



Then again, this Adam Bloom character seems fishy to me. What he says here sounds quite like wining him the Punters Award...
EB

That the BBC was used is irrelevant. There are many links to experiments and studies on the effects of extended sensory deprivation.

I suspect you're unwilling to understand frog humour. Or is it just you being difficult?

Nah, don't answer that one!
EB

 

[DBT]

That the BBC was used is irrelevant. There are many links to experiments and studies on the effects of extended sensory deprivation.

I suspect you're unwilling to understand frog humour. Or is it just you being difficult?

Nah, don't answer that one!
EB

When it comes to frogs, it's hard to tell.