The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Juma]

What I am trying to say is that the interaction might be the plan. The plan/interaction might be all there is. An outside observer will experience a false representation of the plan in the form of radiation. It would be like if an observer on a shore experiences only the waves of a boat. He would have no idea about the true nature of what is causing the waves.

Do you know what a plan is?

Is it an anticipation of the future and a deliberate manipulation of the world to create a desired outcome in that future.

Mere reaction would be the only case where that is all there is. Like the atom. All reaction. No planning.

Planning is not merely reacting.

Planning is just complex reacting.

 

[untermensche]

Do you know what a plan is?

Is it an anticipation of the future and a deliberate manipulation of the world to create a desired outcome in that future.

Mere reaction would be the only case where that is all there is. Like the atom. All reaction. No planning.

Planning is not merely reacting.

Planning is just complex reacting.

That is the whole "free will" debate.

Is planning just reacting or is it making unforced choices?

But unless we know what a mind is we can't say if choices are "free" or "forced".

 

[DBT]

So you have humans with epilepsy pushing a button when they like and remember something.

That's not it. Not at all.

Prediction of choices made before conscious awareness has been tested on a wide range of subjects, and holds true for all participants.

More recently, neuroscientists have used more advanced technologies to study this phenomenon, namely fMRIs and implanted electrodes. But if anything, these new experiments show the BP effect is even more pronounced than previously thought.

For example, a study by John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 showed a similar effect to the one revealed by Libet. After putting participants into an fMRI scanner, he told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers at their leisure, but that they had to remember the letter that was showing on the screen at the precise moment they were committed to their movement.

The results were shocking. Haynes's data showed that the BP occurred one entire second prior to conscious awareness — and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of his paper, he told Nature News:

The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real.' We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before.

The cognitive delay, he argued, was likely due to the operation of a network of high-level control areas that were preparing for an upcoming decision long before it entered into conscious awareness. Basically, the brain starts to unconsciously churn in preparation of a decision, and once a set of conditions are met, awareness kicks in, and the movement is made.

In another study, neuroscientist Itzhak Fried put aside the fMRI scanner in favor of digging directly into the brain (so to speak). To that end, he implanted electrodes into the brains of participants in order to record the status of individual neurons — a procedure that gave him an incredibly precise sense of what was going on inside the brain as decisions were being made.

His experiment showed that the neurons lit up with activity as much as 1.5 seconds before the participant made a conscious decision to press a button. And with about 700 milliseconds to go, Fried and his team could predict the timing of decisions with nearly 80% accuracy. In some scenarios, he had as much as 90% predictive accuracy.

Different experiment, similar result.

Fried surmised that volition arises after a change in internally generated fire rates of neuronal assemblies cross a threshold — and that the medial frontal cortex can signal these decisions before a person is aware of them.''

Yes some area of the brain was active when a person was anticipating making a decision very soon.

It does not show the brain making a decision.

Unless you propose instantaneous magical decision making, the information from inputs to decision made cannot become instantly conscious. Consciousness must necessarily come after inputs, propagation, integration with memory function to enable recognition and thought. The latter just cannot physically occur prior to the former. We don't see with our eyes, the brain interprets information from the eyes, etc.

That is just an interpretation that is highly doubtful.

It's not only not highly doubtful, that there is a sequence of cognitive events before conscious awareness is based on physics and the most likely explanation we have.

Again:

Even if it is granted that the brain is a receiver of non definable 'mind' - something that can never be understood through physical means - the fact still remains that it is the condition of the receiver, the brain, that determines behavioural output.

Regardless of being a receiver, when connections fail, memory is disabled, the subject cannot recognize common objects or their relationships. So its the same either way, be the brain the generator or a receiver of mind, it still remains that it is the state of the brain and the brain alone that determines how mind is experienced (as a receiver) or how mind is formed (as a generator).

There is no way around this barrier for your argument.

 

[Juma]

Planning is just complex reacting.

That is the whole "free will" debate.

Is planning just reacting or is it making unforced choices?

Planning is simply reacting to goals and wants. Anyone that has opened a book on theory underlying AI knows that.

 

[untermensche]

That is the whole "free will" debate.

Is planning just reacting or is it making unforced choices?

Planning is simply reacting to goals and wants. Anyone that has opened a book on theory underlying AI knows that.

No it is not.

It is using knowledge and experience and even intuition to make decisions, not immediate stimulation.

No wonder AI has explained so little.

 

[untermensche]

The results were shocking. Haynes's data showed that the BP occurred one entire second prior to conscious awareness — and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of his paper, he told Nature News:

The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real.' We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before.

The results are not shocking to anyone who has ever made a decision.

There is a preparation that occurs as the mind focuses even before the decision is made.

That is all these shocked scientists are seeing.

The subjects know they are going to make a decision soon and prepare for it. This preparation has a corresponding brain activity.

It is only a very bad conclusion that claims it is the brain doing something on it's own.

 

[Juma]

Planning is simply reacting to goals and wants. Anyone that has opened a book on theory underlying AI knows that.

No it is not.

It is using knowledge and experience and even intuition to make decisions, not immediate stimulation.

No wonder AI has explained so little.

Who are talking about "immidiate stimulation"(however you define that?)

Using knowledge and experince (and intuition) is just part of complex reponses.

 

[untermensche]

No it is not.

It is using knowledge and experience and even intuition to make decisions, not immediate stimulation.

No wonder AI has explained so little.

Who are talking about "immidiate stimulation"(however you define that?)

Using knowledge and experince (and intuition) is just part of complex reponses.

You can pretend that all is a response if you just claim it is a "complex" response and offer no explanation or argument.

Things are easy in the phony world of AI.

Claims amount to knowledge.

 

[fromderinside]

A pox on both your houses. Something that passes one way is not an interaction nor an awareness. It is something that passes one way. The best description of something passing one way, implying from something/somewhere to something/somewhere, is a transfer. Since it is passing energy is implied so some of that energy is lost. Such are called processes. Something that passes one way is a transfer process.

To transfer implies three things. That which transfers to. That which receives. And that which is transferred.

If that which receives is the mind then there is still that which receives and that which is received.

Gave you a chance. You blew it. Neuro-electro-chemical transmission involves proper substrate for such transmission such as macro-molecules and receptor sites for the chemicals which are released as a result of neural electro-chemical activity at appropriate neural synapse which are primarily determined during expression of phenotype. Consequent electrical and mechanically induced chemical activity produces activity that engages gross motor activity and excites speech centers whilst the cerebellum controls both. So we have choices as to what is mind. Is it the detailed and changeable directing activity, the more determined and longer lasting global physical activity or the language activity that is the mind, or, is it something else not physically represented in your view? Or are you going to swish and say its all that which is actually saying nothing since all that can go wherever whenever however.

I told you. I gave you a chance.

 

[untermensche]

To transfer implies three things. That which transfers to. That which receives. And that which is transferred.

If that which receives is the mind then there is still that which receives and that which is received.

Gave you a chance. You blew it. Neuro-electro-chemical transmission involves proper substrate for such transmission such as macro-molecules and receptor sites for the chemicals which are released as a result of neural electro-chemical activity at appropriate neural synapse which are primarily determined during expression of phenotype. Consequent electrical and mechanically induced chemical activity produces activity that engages gross motor activity and excites speech centers whilst the cerebellum controls both. So we have choices as to what is mind. Is it the detailed and changeable directing activity, the more determined and longer lasting global physical activity or the language activity that is the mind, or, is it something else not physically represented in your view? Or are you going to swish and say its all that which is actually saying nothing since all that can go wherever whenever however.

I told you. I gave you a chance.

No I gave you a chance. To try to relate what you say to logic.

To transfer requires 3 things. That which gives. That which receives. That which is transferred.

This is simple logic and is insurmountable.

 

[DBT]

The results were shocking. Haynes's data showed that the BP occurred one entire second prior to conscious awareness — and at other times as much as ten seconds. Following the publication of his paper, he told Nature News:

The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real.' We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before.

The results are not shocking to anyone who has ever made a decision.

There is a preparation that occurs as the mind focuses even before the decision is made.

That is all these shocked scientists are seeing.

The subjects know they are going to make a decision soon and prepare for it. This preparation has a corresponding brain activity.

It is only a very bad conclusion that claims it is the brain doing something on it's own.

It's not the subjects as conscious entities that 'prepare' to make decisions, but the brain itself prior to conscious report. We are not aware of the underlying preparation, only the thought that enter our awareness in response to the events in our environment.

We are what the brain is doing, both in preparing consciousness and generating us as self aware entities with names, family, friends, culture, language and so on....which all disintegrates with memory function loss. None of these attributes and features of conscious self being experienced. No recognition, no deliberation, no decision making. Alive, but cognitive function all gone. The death of mind self even while the body lives.

As I've said several times:

Even if it is granted that the brain is a receiver of non definable 'mind' - something that can never be understood through physical means - the fact still remains that it is the condition of the receiver, the brain, that determines behavioural output.

Regardless of being a receiver, when connections fail, memory is disabled, the subject cannot recognize common objects or their relationships. So its the same either way, be the brain the generator or a receiver of mind, it still remains that it is the state of the brain and the brain alone that determines how mind is experienced (as a receiver) or how mind is formed (as a generator).

There is no way around this barrier for your argument.

 

[Juma]

The results are not shocking to anyone who has ever made a decision.

There is a preparation that occurs as the mind focuses even before the decision is made.

That is all these shocked scientists are seeing.

The subjects know they are going to make a decision soon and prepare for it. This preparation has a corresponding brain activity.

It is only a very bad conclusion that claims it is the brain doing something on it's own.

It's not the subjects as conscious entities that 'prepare' to make decisions, but the brain itself prior to conscious report. We are not aware of the underlying preparation, only the thought that enter our awareness in response to the events in our environment.

We are what the brain is doing, both in preparing consciousness and generating us as self aware entities with names, family, friends, culture, language and so on....which all disintegrates with memory function loss. None of these attributes and features of conscious self being experienced. No recognition, no deliberation, no decision making. Alive, but cognitive function all gone. The death of mind self even while the body lives.

As I've said several times:

Even if it is granted that the brain is a receiver of non definable 'mind' - something that can never be understood through physical means - the fact still remains that it is the condition of the receiver, the brain, that determines behavioural output.

Regardless of being a receiver, when connections fail, memory is disabled, the subject cannot recognize common objects or their relationships. So its the same either way, be the brain the generator or a receiver of mind, it still remains that it is the state of the brain and the brain alone that determines how mind is experienced (as a receiver) or how mind is formed (as a generator).

There is no way around this barrier for your argument.

You can lead a horse to the water but you cant force it to drink....

I give up on untermensche...

 

[beero1000]

 

[untermensche]

The results are not shocking to anyone who has ever made a decision.

There is a preparation that occurs as the mind focuses even before the decision is made.

That is all these shocked scientists are seeing.

The subjects know they are going to make a decision soon and prepare for it. This preparation has a corresponding brain activity.

It is only a very bad conclusion that claims it is the brain doing something on it's own.

It's not the subjects as conscious entities that 'prepare' to make decisions, but the brain itself prior to conscious report. We are not aware of the underlying preparation, only the thought that enter our awareness in response to the events in our environment.

We are what the brain is doing, both in preparing consciousness and generating us as self aware entities with names, family, friends, culture, language and so on....which all disintegrates with memory function loss. None of these attributes and features of conscious self being experienced. No recognition, no deliberation, no decision making. Alive, but cognitive function all gone. The death of mind self even while the body lives.

As I've said several times:

Even if it is granted that the brain is a receiver of non definable 'mind' - something that can never be understood through physical means - the fact still remains that it is the condition of the receiver, the brain, that determines behavioural output.

Regardless of being a receiver, when connections fail, memory is disabled, the subject cannot recognize common objects or their relationships. So its the same either way, be the brain the generator or a receiver of mind, it still remains that it is the state of the brain and the brain alone that determines how mind is experienced (as a receiver) or how mind is formed (as a generator).

There is no way around this barrier for your argument.

Have you ever read any of the many criticism of the Libet experiment?

In a variation of this task, Haggard and Eimer asked subjects to decide not only when to move their hands, but also to decide which hand to move. In this case, the felt intention correlated much more closely with the "lateralized readiness potential" (LRP), an ERP component which measures the difference between left and right hemisphere brain activity. Haggard and Eimer argue that the feeling of conscious will must therefore follow the decision of which hand to move, since the LRP reflects the decision to lift a particular hand.[33]

A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential.[38]

A study conducted by Jeff Miller and Judy Trevena (2009) suggests that the readiness potential (RP) signal in Libet's experiments doesn't represent a decision to move, but that it's merely a sign that the brain is paying attention.[39] In this experiment the classical Libet experiment was modified by playing an audio tone indicating to volunteers to decide whether to tap a key or not. The researchers found that there was the same RP signal in both cases, regardless of whether or not volunteers actually elected to tap, which suggests that the RP signal doesn't indicate that a decision has been made.[40][41]

In a second experiment, researchers asked volunteers to decide on the spot whether to use left hand or right to tap the key while monitoring their brain signals, and they found no correlation among the signals and the chosen hand. This criticism has itself been criticized by free-will researcher Patrick Haggard, who mentions literature that distinguishes two different circuits in the brain that lead to action: a "stimulus-response" circuit and a "voluntary" circuit. According to Haggard, researchers applying external stimuli may not be testing the proposed voluntary circuit, nor Libet's hypothesis about internally triggered actions.[42]

Libet's interpretation of the ramping up of brain activity prior to the report of conscious "will" continues to draw heavy criticism. Studies have questioned participants' ability to report the timing of their "will". Authors have found that preSMA activity is modulated by attention (attention precedes the movement signal by 100ms), and the prior activity reported could therefore have been product of paying attention to the movement.[43] They also found that the perceived onset of intention depends on neural activity that takes place after the execution of action. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied over the preSMA after a participant performed an action shifted the perceived onset of the motor intention backward in time, and the perceived time of action execution forward in time.[44]

Others have speculated that the preceding neural activity reported by Libet may be an artefact of averaging the time of "will", wherein neural activity does not always precede reported "will".[34] In a similar replication they also reported no difference in electrophysiological signs before a decision not to move, and before a decision to move.[39]

Despite his findings, Libet himself did not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto any action at the last moment.[45] According to this model, unconscious impulses to perform a volitional act are open to suppression by the conscious efforts of the subject (sometimes referred to as "free won't"). A comparison is made with a golfer, who may swing a club several times before striking the ball. The action simply gets a rubber stamp of approval at the last millisecond. Max Velmans argues however that "free won't" may turn out to need as much neural preparation as "free will" (see below).[46]

Some studies have however replicated Libet's findings, whilst addressing some of the original criticisms.[47] A recent study has found that individual neurons were found to fire 2 seconds before a reported "will" to act (long before EEG activity predicted such a response).[14] Itzhak Fried replicated Libet's findings in 2011 at the scale of the single neuron. This was accomplished with the help of volunteer epilepsy patients, who needed electrodes implanted deep in their brain for evaluation and treatment anyway. Now able to monitor awake and moving patients, the researchers replicated the timing anomalies that were discovered by Libet and are discussed in the following study.[14] Similarly to these tests, Chun Siong Soon, Anna Hanxi He, Stefan Bode and John-Dylan Haynes have conducted a study in 2013 claiming to be able to predict the choice to sum or subtract before the subject reports it.[48]

William R. Klemm pointed out the inconclusiveness of these tests due to design limitations and data interpretations and proposed less ambiguous experiments,[15] while affirming a stand on the existence of free will.[49] like Roy F. Baumeister[50] or catholic neuroscientists such as Tadeusz Pacholczyk. Adrian G. Guggisberg and Annaïs Mottaz have also challenged Itzhak Fried's findings.[51]

A study by Aaron Schurger and colleagues published in PNAS [52] challenged assumptions about the causal nature of the readiness potential itself (and the "pre-movement buildup" of neural activity in general), casting doubt on conclusions drawn from studies such as Libet's [29] and Fried's.[14] See The Information Philosopher and New Scientist for commentary on this study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Libet is miles away from accepted science, at least the conclusions are, there is nothing wrong with the study per se.

Of course there are instances where the brain does things below the surface that we are unaware of.

We have a universal grammar that allows us to acquire and use language. If we did not have this "programming" we could not acquire or use language.

But there are no known mechanisms where the brain makes real life choices on it's own. The mind makes real world choices, not the brain.

 

[untermensche]

You can lead a horse to the water but you cant force it to drink....

I give up on untermensche...

You have nothing to offer here.

Neuroscience has been trying to understand how the brain creates the mind for a long time.

It is no closer to understanding it than when it began.

Some have concluded with their minds that this means the mind does not exist.

They are laughable.

 

[DBT]

It's not the subjects as conscious entities that 'prepare' to make decisions, but the brain itself prior to conscious report. We are not aware of the underlying preparation, only the thought that enter our awareness in response to the events in our environment.

We are what the brain is doing, both in preparing consciousness and generating us as self aware entities with names, family, friends, culture, language and so on....which all disintegrates with memory function loss. None of these attributes and features of conscious self being experienced. No recognition, no deliberation, no decision making. Alive, but cognitive function all gone. The death of mind self even while the body lives.

As I've said several times:

Even if it is granted that the brain is a receiver of non definable 'mind' - something that can never be understood through physical means - the fact still remains that it is the condition of the receiver, the brain, that determines behavioural output.

Regardless of being a receiver, when connections fail, memory is disabled, the subject cannot recognize common objects or their relationships. So its the same either way, be the brain the generator or a receiver of mind, it still remains that it is the state of the brain and the brain alone that determines how mind is experienced (as a receiver) or how mind is formed (as a generator).

There is no way around this barrier for your argument.

Have you ever read any of the many criticism of the Libet experiment?



But there are no known mechanisms where the brain makes real life choices on it's own. The mind makes real world choices, not the brain.

Practically everything in science is open to criticism. Libet's experiments have been confirmed over and over....while the significance is being questioned and argued.

Be that as it may, that a time lag between input and representation cannot be avoided on the basis of physics - unless you are proposing magic. The neural mechanism is such that it is not the eyes that see or the ears that hear or the fingers that feel but that information must necessarily be conveyed to the brain, processed and represented in conscious form (not all, only the relevant parts; this being sifted by the brain).

All of this supports a delay between input and conscious experience and the significance of the experiments still being carried out.

Also confirmed by case studies such as patients who have been blind from a very early age due to eye damage, but as technology has improved, the damage to the eyes repaired, the problem became the brain, which had not developed the connections to process information from the eyes.

So the eyes are fully functional but the brain has trouble making sense of the information from its eyes.

Countless examples that show that it is indeed the state of the brain that determines the shape and form of conscious experience/mind.

Something that your claim does not address. Nor can it.

But there are no known mechanisms where the brain makes real life choices on it's own. The mind makes real world choices, not the brain.

There is no known mechanism for animal/human decision making other than the central information processor of the nervous system: the brain.

 

[untermensche]

Practically everything in science is open to criticism. Libet's experiments have been confirmed over and over....while the significance is being questioned and argued.

Nobody questions that as the mind prepares for a decision there will be brain activity.

But nobody thinks that preparatory activity is the decision.

It can be shut down. And that has been confirmed many times as well.

 

[DBT]

Practically everything in science is open to criticism. Libet's experiments have been confirmed over and over....while the significance is being questioned and argued.

Nobody questions that as the mind prepares for a decision there will be brain activity.

The consensus in neuroscience is that the brain is the processor and therefore the decision maker....that there is no mind separate from the architecture and activity of a brain. Hence the decisions/behaviour of animals, cats, dogs, sheep, people, is specific to the species and the individuals of that species.

But nobody thinks that preparatory activity is the decision.

The preparatory activity is the information processing that leads to the decision that is made. There is no separate magical element that overrides the process.

It can be shut down. And that has been confirmed many times as well.

What exactly can be shut down? Shut down by what, precisely? What exactly has been 'confirmed many times?'

 

[untermensche]

Nobody questions that as the mind prepares for a decision there will be brain activity.

The consensus in neuroscience is that the brain is the processor and therefore the decision maker....that there is no mind separate from the architecture and activity of a brain. Hence the decisions/behaviour of animals, cats, dogs, sheep, people, is specific to the species and the individuals of that species.

I'm not that impressed by what you claim is some consensus. They are desperate to understand one thing about the mind but must settle with vague generalities about the brain.

But nobody thinks that preparatory activity is the decision.

The preparatory activity is the information processing that leads to the decision that is made. There is no separate magical element that overrides the process.

You can call the mind readying for a decision "information processing" if you like but it doesn't change how the mind works. First it focuses then it acts. First it prepares then it moves.

It can be shut down. And that has been confirmed many times as well.

What exactly can be shut down? Shut down by what, precisely? What exactly has been 'confirmed many times?'

Why should I post things if you don't read them?

This is right from above:

Despite his findings, Libet himself did not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto any action at the last moment.

 

[DBT]

Why should I post things if you don't read them?

This is right from above:

Despite his findings, Libet himself did not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto any action at the last moment.

Libet's proposal of veto function is not a solution. I've addressed veto several times in this thread in response to Ryan.

Conscious veto implies duality where duality does not exist. Decisions may be vetoed if there is sufficient time between the point of a decision being carried out, motor actions, words spoken, etc, but conscious veto is subject to precisely the same build up of underlying activity to the point of readiness potential....the brain being a parallel processor.

Conscious veto is produced in the same way as all conscious experience/mind and provides no solution in terms of an independent agent as the orchestrator of the brain.

On the contrary, veto function, like all cognitive abilities in either conscious or unconscious form disintegrates with the failure of connectivity and memory function.

There is no opening. The state of the brain determines how conscious mind is experienced by that brain and not some external agent being received by the brain.

And as I've pointed out, even if the brain happened to be a receiver, it is still the state of the receiver that determines the experience of conscious mind.

There lies the failure of your proposition.