I was surprised; but not because of what the experiment showed, which I already suspected for years. It was because I was only looking for proof that our subconscious was aware of our decisions before our conscious -which I had read elsewhere-; so I was surprised to find everything I was trying to prove in one single source.

I don't see that it proves anything like that at all. Being able to detect that the mind has come to a decision before there is any physical expression of it says nothing about whether that decision was pre-ordained before the big bang or even whether it was arrived at based solely on the sum of the history of all external stimuli.

I see a huge problem with the conclusion that they can tell that a decision was made seven seconds before the person was aware of the decision -- and I didn't see any claim that they could tell what that decision was.

Consider a button sitting in front of you and you are told to press it with your right hand or your left hand and then to repeat that at a steady pace, each time picking which hand you are going to use. In seven seconds, at even a modest past, you can press the button thirty or more times. Are they really going to claim that the decision on which button I am going to press thirty times from now was made before I pressed the first button?

Or imagine that you are presented with between two and ten buttons, say on a touch screen display, and you have to decide which button to press based on which one you think is "prettiest". The buttons appear in all kinds of random patterns and positions. Some times they are all just different colored circles. Sometimes they are various shapes. Sometimes they are images of buildings, animals, people, landscapes. These might all be mixed up in a single iteration of the test. Is it safe to say that you can't make a decision about which one to press until they appear on the screen? Is it safe to say that you make a decision before you press a button? Now, is it safe to say that it is seldom going to take you much more than one or two seconds to press a button after they appear on the screen?

 

Consider a button sitting in front of you and you are told to press it with your right hand or your left hand and then to repeat that at a steady pace, each time picking which hand you are going to use. In seven seconds, at even a modest past, you can press the button thirty or more times. Are they really going to claim that the decision on which button I am going to press thirty times from now was made before I pressed the first button?

I didn't think of speed, or if I said I want to do the opposite of my first pre-cognition.

I would like to see the difference of the 2 thought processes?

Your idea speeds the decision beyond 7 seconds which any normal person could do and what does that render. (Yes, I said render)

imagine that you are presented with between two and ten buttons, say on a touch screen display, and you have to decide which button to press based on which one you think is "prettiest". The buttons appear in all kinds of random patterns and positions. Some times they are all just different colored circles. Sometimes they are various shapes. Sometimes they are images of buildings, animals, people, landscapes. These might all be mixed up in a single iteration of the test. Is it safe to say that you can't make a decision about which one to press until they appear on the screen? Is it safe to say that you make a decision before you press a button? Now, is it safe to say that it is seldom going to take you much more than one or two seconds to press a button after they appear on the screen?

This one well, it's a perfect storm of "Who's on Base" a simple test wouldn't be able to follow it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJwwJ33TEI

 

We perceive it as limited, in our transition through 'time' as we understand it.
As Bill points out in his post, at the speed of light there is no limitation of rate of change. Everything is now 'present'.

Everything is now 'present' and frozen in time for a photon from it's time of creation going back to the 'big band' if it never hit anything so there is no change if a photon could have an inertial frame of reference but for a small creature riding the photon for him time would be normal but could it communicate with another creature on another photon and coordinated behaviour?

I think that independence of thought and action are innate properties that evolved with self-awareness as a survival trait because instinctual and learned behaviors are dead-ends in evolution that generate massive quantities of specialized objects but not massive changes on small time scales like we see with humans enabling them to survive with little variation planet wide.

 

I don't see that it proves anything like that at all. Being able to detect that the mind has come to a decision before there is any physical expression of it says nothing about whether that decision was pre-ordained before the big bang or even whether it was arrived at based solely on the sum of the history of all external stimuli.

I see a huge problem with the conclusion that they can tell that a decision was made seven seconds before the person was aware of the decision -- and I didn't see any claim that they could tell what that decision was.

Consider a button sitting in front of you and you are told to press it with your right hand or your left hand and then to repeat that at a steady pace, each time picking which hand you are going to use. In seven seconds, at even a modest past, you can press the button thirty or more times. Are they really going to claim that the decision on which button I am going to press thirty times from now was made before I pressed the first button?

Or imagine that you are presented with between two and ten buttons, say on a touch screen display, and you have to decide which button to press based on which one you think is "prettiest". The buttons appear in all kinds of random patterns and positions. Some times they are all just different colored circles. Sometimes they are various shapes. Sometimes they are images of buildings, animals, people, landscapes. These might all be mixed up in a single iteration of the test. Is it safe to say that you can't make a decision about which one to press until they appear on the screen? Is it safe to say that you make a decision before you press a button? Now, is it safe to say that it is seldom going to take you much more than one or two seconds to press a button after they appear on the screen?

What I was trying to prove is that our subconscious reaches a decision before our conscious based on the information it already has (as a computer program does); therefore, if we don't consciously make the choices, as it is the subconscious that ultimately decides before we know it, then the is no free will.

It might not prove that human history was meant to be from the beginning of time, but since our subconscious is the one making the decision, instead of our conscious, and since the conditions and the information would have always been the same for it to make those decision, it is sensible to assume that the results would have always been the same nomatter how many times you went back to the beginning of time.

I think you are slightly misinterpreting what they are saying. They are not saying that every decision would take 6 seconds; they are saying the for that particular sample of data 6 seconds was the earliest they could predict the decision. Think about a tennis player: if it took his subconscious 6 seconds to send the conscious the direction where he should run, we would never return the ball; so it must do it in milliseconds. But the time it takes is really unimportant; what's important is that our subconscious makes the decision before we even know it.

 

I think that independence of thought and action are innate properties that evolved with self-awareness as a survival trait because instinctual and learned behaviors are dead-ends in evolution that generate massive quantities of specialized objects but not massive changes on small time scales like we see with humans enabling them to survive with little variation planet wide.

All that pre-supposes that the human concept of time being linear is correct: That past and present already exist, but the future doesn't yet, and is thus in some way 'up for grabs', change wise.
I think that maybe a limitation of human intelligence. This is difficult stuff.

The very brightest minds on the planet are still doing a lot of head scratching, when it comes to trying to sort out the holy grail of a 'unified field' theory for example.
Many new reports of advances in the understanding of particle theory usually include the phrase 'we just don't know yet' somewhere in the announcement.

All over the world there are many, many intelligent and educated folk who are absolutely convinced that their particular religious explanation of the universe is 'the truth'......

All these things tend to indicate just how little we really understand of our universe. We're just not intelligent enough to grasp some of the very, very difficult concepts.

The poll attached to this thread suggests that more people believe your interpretation, than they do mine.

In truth, we are all guessing.....

 

All that pre-supposes that the human concept of time being linear is correct: That past and present already exist, but the future doesn't yet, and is thus in some way 'up for grabs', change wise.
I think that maybe a limitation of human intelligence. This is difficult stuff.

In truth, we are all guessing.....

Yes, we are guessing but it's an educated guess using the limits of our intelligence. Some characteristics of the universe have IMHO no 'why' answer that we can see in this universe, we can only see the effects and define the rules to match an experiment to 'what' is happening. The LHC is a good example of limits but not of intelligence, it shows the limits of our knowledge of 'what' and the lack of limits to human creativity. We built a massive machine to recreate the time and conditions in the universe where particles predicted by our rules (the standard model,supersymmetry) should be detected. That all worked and we could add another x on the chart of known standard particles but that does little to unify things like gravity. But in the process of checking several other unification theories of the universe like Supersymmetry we so far have found nothing that matches this elegant theory with zero success experimentally.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...etry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea
http://scitechdaily.com/as-supersymmetry-fails-physicists-looking-for-new-models/

What's good about it (imaginary reality).
http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/1...ring-theory-and-predictions-part-7/#more-6913
So after years of effort in esoteric math and science by the best people in the field we basically find nothing that helps us with a 'why' question of the universe. This is good and helps us move on to the next theory of 'what' is happening.

 

What I was trying to prove is that our subconscious reaches a decision before our conscious based on the information it already has (as a computer program does); therefore, if we don't consciously make the choices, as it is the subconscious that ultimately decides before we know it, then the is no free will.

1) Saying that some decisions are made in the subconscience is a long way from being able to say that all decisions are made in the subconscience.

2) Even if all decisions are "made" in the subconscience, that does not preclude the involvement of the conscience in the process.

3) Saying that a decision is made in the subconscience says nothing about what those decisions are based on. This is the key point where I see your reasoning being circular. You assume that all decisions are made like a computer program, and therefore conclude that all decisions are made like a computer program.

 

1) Saying that some decisions are made in the subconscience is a long way from being able to say that all decisions are made in the subconscience.

True...

2) Even if all decisions are "made" in the subconscience, that does not preclude the involvement of the conscience in the process.

Not sure about this one; though I'll accept that the experiment in the video does not prove it with absolute certainty.

3) Saying that a decision is made in the subconscience says nothing about what those decisions are based on. This is the key point where I see your reasoning being circular. You assume that all decisions are made like a computer program, and therefore conclude that all decisions are made like a computer program.

On this one: I agree that it doesn't say anything about what the decisions are based on; but I disagree because it doesn't really matter -in both places it must be based on the same information.

So, if I'm wrong in assuming that we make decisions like a computer program -which processes all the information available to reach a solution- how do you believe we make decisions? I mean, how can you be so sure that I'm wrong unless you know the right answer?

 

That's excellent ....De Sautoy (who appears quite a lot on UK tv) seems genuinally shocked.

Of course I'm not... it's really like just saying 'told you so!'

Thought you'd be interested in watching the full documentary.

It fits quite well this thread, as it's about consciousness.

BBC Horizon - The Secret You

 

There is a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the subconscience process in decision making but most people can and do use the brains (computer analogy) background thread to solve problems. The job queue is bidirectional, we submit patterns for the brain to search at a level below the sense of perception so we can maintain concentration on real-time tasks, when matching patterns are found they queue back up to be used, disposed or saved for later actions. I don't see how it makes much difference for 'free will' as it's just a optimization in human multi-tasking.

 

True...



Not sure about this one; though I'll accept that the experiment in the video does not prove it with absolute certainty.



On this one: I agree that it doesn't say anything about what the decisions are based on; but I disagree because it doesn't really matter -in both places it must be based on the same information.

So, if I'm wrong in assuming that we make decisions like a computer program -which processes all the information available to reach a solution- how do you believe we make decisions? I mean, how can you be so sure that I'm wrong unless you know the right answer?

Ah, but notice that several times I have pointed out that I DON'T know the right answer, nor do I KNOW that you are wrong.

What is "conscience" in the first place?

Consider this: Someone sitting in a chair can change the chemical reactions taking place in their body based upon what they are thinking. If they think of something nice and calm the reactions that take place are different than if they think of something scary and those are different (well, most of the time ) than if they are thinking of something sexy. This argues that the body is NOT just something sitting there reacting in rigid response to the accumulated external stimuli it has been presented with.

Isn't it possible that what we call "conscience" (and subconscience and anything similar) represents a transcendent process that, while tied to physical manifestations at many levels, is also outside of them at other levels? I don't KNOW that this is the case, but to my mind it fits the overall situation better than the notion that we are mindless computer programs, albeit complex ones (and note that there was a time when I tried to adopt this philosophy and I just couldn't make it seem coherent at all levels).

 

Ah, but notice that several times I have pointed out that I DON'T know the right answer, nor do I KNOW that you are wrong.

What is "conscience" in the first place?

Consider this: Someone sitting in a chair can change the chemical reactions taking place in their body based upon what they are thinking. If they think of something nice and calm the reactions that take place are different than if they think of something scary and those are different (well, most of the time ) than if they are thinking of something sexy. This argues that the body is NOT just something sitting there reacting in rigid response to the accumulated external stimuli it has been presented with.

Well, I never meant to imply that external stimuli is all that's processed by the brain; remember the 3 main factors that I think influence all our behavior: nature, experience, and environment -only the last one being the one providing the external stimuli-.

Isn't it possible that what we call "conscience" (and subconscience and anything similar) represents a transcendent process that, while tied to physical manifestations at many levels, is also outside of them at other levels? I don't KNOW that this is the case, but to my mind it fits the overall situation better than the notion that we are mindless computer programs, albeit complex ones (and note that there was a time when I tried to adopt this philosophy and I just couldn't make it seem coherent at all levels).

I don't discard that possibility, and there was a time when I believed that was the case. However, the more science deepens in this area, the more it points towards the other direction.

To tell you the truth, if I was asked to choose I would personally prefer our consciousness to be completely independent from the bio-chemical processes that take place inside our brain and that we really had free will. But if believed that I would be deceiving myself -and I know many people who do it in relation to these subjects (they simply choose to believe whatever it sounds better to them)- but I just can't do that.

 

Well, I never meant to imply that external stimuli is all that's processed by the brain; remember the 3 main factors that I think influence all our behavior: nature, experience, and environment -only the last one being the one providing the external stimuli-.

But what is "nature"? And what is "experience" if not for the "memory" of the history of external stimuli experienced to date? If you want to claim that the brain is nothing but a very sophisticated state machine, then that means that it's current outputs are a function of current and prior inputs only.

To tell you the truth, if I was asked to choose I would personally prefer our consciousness to be completely independent from the bio-chemical processes that take place inside our brain and that we really had free will. But if believed that I would be deceiving myself -and I know many people who do it in relation to these subjects (they simply choose to believe whatever it sounds better to them)- but I just can't do that.

I don't think it's an either-or situation, but rather a blend of the two. Clearly drugs have major impacts on a person's decision making process, so there is obviously a physical component involved. But I don't think we are anywhere near proving that there is no transcendent component involved. I think both operate within the constraints imposed by the other.

 

I also believe that we can achieve complete Free Will, as long as you cut off all forms of outside influences.

Some people have an inate need, to listen to another man for guidance, and moral support/spiritual support; such as a politician, preacher, cops, or other forms of authority.

Perceived authority, that is.

Personally, I've made all my own decisions by myself, from the age of 12 or so. (After leaving the churches).

I do not put any other human on a pedestal, because they are not smarter than me. Therefore, I don't need anyone's guidance. (Except for electronics, of course).

To this day, I still have a good friend who believes that another man, is more intelligent than he is, and worthy enough to 'put on the Pedestal'. (Gradually, he is getting better).

Such as a politician, preacher, Pope, cops, etc.
He and I have had years of discussions over the exact same form as this thread.
Sometimes, having intelligent arguments.

Until a few years ago, he believed his religion/belief system, was correct.

At least I saved him from that Fantasy driven, Horseshit.

He is much happier now that he knows, it was just another way to control him through imaginary guilt, imaginary sin, and a great scam to get his money.

Amazing to see his change, now that he has discovered True, Free Will.

 

But what is "nature"? And what is "experience" if not for the "memory" of the history of external stimuli experienced to date? If you want to claim that the brain is nothing but a very sophisticated state machine, then that means that it's current outputs are a function of current and prior inputs only.

Oh no, I'm not saying that our brain is nothing more than a sophisticated machine; it's obviously much more than that. I'm using the computer program analogy only to explain the way I think we make decisions: we analyze all the information available using logic and reach a conclusion based on it; as a computer would do.

I agree that we can consider our experiences as external stimuli. But the difference between the experiences and the current external stimuli is that the first has been already processed, and we would be using those conclusions in addition to the current stimuli to reach the new conclusions.

Our nature would include our capacity for creativity, for understanding and for processing information, our instincts, and everything else that is "hardwired" into us and cannot be changed or learned; in essence, our inherited genetic traits that influence our behavior and decision making. None of those are external stimuli, and most of it is what sets us way apart from a mare machine.

I don't think it's an either-or situation, but rather a blend of the two. Clearly drugs have major impacts on a person's decision making process, so there is obviously a physical component involved. But I don't think we are anywhere near proving that there is no transcendent component involved. I think both operate within the constraints imposed by the other.

If I may ask; what makes you believe that's the case? Is there anything in particular that leads you to that conclusion, or is it just a hunch?

 

Out of the video I did notice the region from which they base the reaction could be predicted was in or around the Medulla and Thalamus. Both would need to respond and are hard wired into our brain for quick reaction, Fight or Flight survival instincts.

The thalamus is another collection of nuclei with diverse functions. Some are involved in relaying information to and from the cerebral hemispheres.

Muscle movement involves both (Thalamus and Medulla) to accomplish it. The Medulla is connected to the spinal cord and the Thalamus is required and acts as a central bus. So, maybe another region of the brain is telling the Thalamus to send the signal down to hand a or b. The subconscious is interesting, as a child I was a sleep walker and I sometimes would wake up speaking out loud. My subconscious had control of a region of my brain that should only be allowable for my prefrontal cortex to operate. I could actually remember a short portion of the conversation as I was speaking. ( I wish I could have studied all night that way)

Maybe, it's just not being picked up in the scan because this is not a really difficult thing to process for the brain, my hands already can move out of my own preprogramed movements since birth.

If I train myself as a child until an adult twisting a doorknob is something I don't really need to think about. It's an autonomy hardwired by my constant repetition reinforcing the overlay of my purpose driven thoughts at first then after that it's no longer required.

Some say there are different types of memory one of which is muscle. Our hands do things every day that not much thought processing goes into it. Typing for instance while learning to type, I had to think that my left index finger was "t" and now I just think what I want to say and all the letters seemingly appear on screen, just as I'm processing my thoughts.

But it was "I" who programmed that function into muscle movement, not some other entity. A lot can happen between regions of the brain that cannot be seen on a CT Scan or other hard wired devices. To much is still mis-understood by modern science and misinterpreted.

 

Oh no, I'm not saying that our brain is nothing more than a sophisticated machine; it's obviously much more than that. I'm using the computer program analogy only to explain the way I think we make decisions: we analyze all the information available using logic and reach a conclusion based on it; as a computer would do.

I would question if there is a Newtonian physics logic set for the decisions that seem to involve free will.

Science has moved on from deterministic Newtonian physics because it didn't explain the scientific reality that we as humans can agree on. Random variation is at the heart of biological evolution, chaos is at the heart of the natural environment and quantum randomness is at the heart of physics so to me it would be logical that indeterministic factors are also involved in the fantastic complexity of human thought. I can't be sure but there seems to be a pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pKrKdNclYs
Becomes quite political about climate change at the end.

 

I would question if there is a Newtonian physics logic set for the decisions that seem to involve free will.

I don't understand what you mean by "decisions that seem to involve free will"; what's the difference? I mean, in my opinion all decisions either involve free will (if it exists), or no decisions involve it (if it doesn't exist).

Science has moved on from deterministic Newtonian physics because it didn't explain the scientific reality that we as humans can agree on. Random variation is at the heart of biological evolution, chaos is at the heart of the natural environment and quantum randomness is at the heart of physics so to me it would be logical that indeterministic factors are also involved in the fantastic complexity of human thought. I can't be sure but there seems to be a pattern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pKrKdNclYs
Becomes quite political about climate change at the end.

I understand and agree that there would be no way for us or for a super computer to fine tune the initial conditions for all variables necessary to make complex predictions. But we are not talking about predicting human behavior, quantum randomness, complex systems, or the future.

What I'm saying is that given the exact same conditions -the exact same circumstances- when someone makes a decision, then the decision would have always been the same; therefore, we don't have free will.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "decisions that seem to involve free will"; what's the difference? I mean, in my opinion all decisions either involve free will (if it exists), or no decisions involve it (if it doesn't exist).


What I'm saying is that given the exact same conditions -the exact same circumstances- when someone makes a decision, then the decision would have always been the same; therefore, we don't have free will.

I think the most we can say with our current state of knowledge of how the universe works is that a range of decisions could be made, not exactly the same one. That range represents the degrees of 'freedom' before action or 'slop' as it might be called in mechanical terms. Absolute precision (like in a classical system) is not a natural feature of the universe in modern science or mechanics (with no slop nothing would move) . So even it you could magically have the exact same circumstances and the exact same universe the 'slop' over time would cause divergence.

I don't think 'exactness' is possible (without super-natural powers or a computer outside our universe) even with infinite resources because time only moves forward and all matter energy interactions are wave functions with probabilities . It's just impossible to replay the past forward again with exactitude to check conditions that change maybe because of a mis-recalled event because of a small imbalance in brain function due to a electrical or chemical reaction caused by a random thermal event from a quantum event and that's the reason I said 'seem' because we don't have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
​

 

I think the most we can say with our current state of knowledge of how the universe works is that a range of decisions could be made, not exactly the same one. That range represents the degrees of 'freedom' before action or 'slop' as it might be called in mechanical terms. Absolute precision (like in a classical system) is not a natural feature of the universe in modern science or mechanics (with no slop nothing would move) . So even it you could magically have the exact same circumstances and the exact same universe the 'slop' over time would cause divergence.

I don't think 'exactness' is possible (without super-natural powers or a computer outside our universe) even with infinite resources because time only moves forward and all matter energy interactions are wave functions with probabilities . It's just impossible to replay the past forward again with exactitude to check conditions that change maybe because of a mis-recalled event because of a small imbalance in brain function due to a electrical or chemical reaction caused by a random thermal event from a quantum event and that's the reason I said 'seem' because we don't have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

I'm talking about hypothetical case scenarios; I'm not implying that there would ever be two exact situations in real life. So, if there's a divergence, then you haven't used your magic right to set the exactly same circumstances.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that divergence would only occur in unstable systems; not in stable ones. But we haven't established that the nature of decision making is unstable. We also haven't established if quantum randomness influences our decisions making or to what extent; but I'm pretty sure you would agree that the "variables" provided by our nature, experience and circumstances certainly are mayor contributors.

There is no way to ever agree on whether or not we have free will if we first don't define what influences our decisions.