Brain makes decisions before you even know it
John Hasenkam
simple decision making process(left or right button). I don't think that is
representative of most decision making processes.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it,
according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a
decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before
they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.
...
forbi...@msn.com
Yeah, 10 seconds is surpizing. The interesting part is that if
consciousness plays a part in certain decision making it isn't
direct.
Wolf K.
> On Apr 13, 6:19 pm, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease.com> wrote:
>> In a way not surprising but I find the 10 sec delay suspicious. It is also a
>> simple decision making process(left or right button). I don't think that is
>> representative of most decision making processes.
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
>>
>> Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it,
>> according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a
>> decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before
>> they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.
>
> consciousness plays a part in certain decision making it isn't
> direct.
What's interesting is the concept of "priming" used to maintain a belief
in free will. IOW, "free will" still somehow intervenes in the decision.
This seems to me to imply that the operation of "free will" is
undetectable. A Ghost in the Machine....
Hah!
--
wolf k.
feedbackdroid
The real question is .... what is this "you" that you are referring
to? A disembodied entity in space hovering over the body? A spiritual
force field that can animate matter? A magical QM formation? A chaotic
state of neuronal activity?
Answer this question, first, and maybe the experimental results cited
will make some sense.
z
i recall something similar from a couple of years ago; in a similar
setup, eegs or similar showed activity in the motor areas before it
began in the decision making areas.
i'm back, did you miss me? anyway here's a similar article ...
Motor activity in the brain precedes our awareness of the intention to
move, so how is it that we perceive control?
http://skeptically.org/spiritualism/id11.html
Entertained by my own EIMC
Given the presumption that our sensations [both those we are able to
report and/or introspectively note (or not - N.B.!], our feelings [that
we find ourselves having (or "being in") or that we are "disconnected
from" and hence not at all or only partly aware of, and anything from
our total ignorance to acute awareness about what we do and think [e.g.
the odd occasion when we gain an insight (or understanding) or a new
skill] can be correlated to corresponding patterns in *brainspacetime*
-- which, BTW , is the only rational and realistic philosophical
position available to be taken -- _then_ the only thing that remains for
brain science minded individuals to do is to no longer waste time with
discussions like this one but instead to as far as they are capable
systematically seek to detect and in a much detail as realistically
possible describe the "neurophysiological side" of all these
(respective) correspondences.
To intellectually do or presume anything else would be, with only one
general type of exception, to be "'inEPTly' intellectually preoccupied". %}
The only exception being: to be (AEVASIVEly) preoccupied with
"erruditely pushing/teaching (or trying to teach) "the EPT" take on
truth. %}
EPT or EPT-aligned preoccupations, perceptions and positions of opinion
are essentially primal theory aligned (if relevant) and/or they are in
general science-aligned ways of explaining, perceiving, or thinking
(along effectively philosophy terminating tracks of thought) about things.
Properly (or most characteristically) EPT ponderings involve the use of
an elevated platform-terminology (or a kit of conceptual tools/lenses)
on (by) which to understand (grasp/see) things as if by FOOT (a Foremost
Overview Of Truth). This FOOT may, as far as one is capable, be
peripherally string theoretically tied to (made to peripherally
incorporate) a "TOE" of fundamental physics.
EPT (and a corresponding FOOT-hold on reality) is, as a matter of a
facetiously formulated pseudo-principle', a fairly philanthopically
oriented overviewing, and a mainly (but not only) "Evolutionary
Psychophysiology Type" outlook, on (approximately) our cultures, our
personalities, and our brain functions.
And, of course, EPT may also be characterized as an extended primal
theoretical and empirical (including: by "primal therapy" corroborated)
effectively philosophy terminating (or finishing) take and perversely
omniscientific outlook on ourselves and "What Is" - that is, "what is
most generally (including most ultimately) going on". %}
Pranav Peshwe
Ten seconds seems a bit too much. What about split second decisions
like the ones we have to take while driving or playing ? Also, it is
the brain which takes the decision and it is the brain itself which
gives the feeling to the individual that 'he' has taken a decision, so
the delay between taking the decision and feeling the decision might
very well be a property of our brain.
Kindly CMIIW.
Best regards,
Pranav
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. - Don Knuth
Curt Welch
> On Apr 14, 6:19 am, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease.com> wrote:
> > In a way not surprising but I find the 10 sec delay suspicious. It is
> > also a simple decision making process(left or right button). I don't
> > think that is representative of most decision making processes.
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
> >
> > Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it,
> > according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a
> > decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make
> > before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.
> >
> > ...
>
> Ten seconds seems a bit too much. What about split second decisions
> like the ones we have to take while driving or playing ?
They are no trying to claim that _all_ behavior can be predicted 10 seconds
before it happens or before we can report being aware of our decision, just
this one very specific type of test which had no time limit on the
decision.
> Also, it is
> the brain which takes the decision and it is the brain itself which
> gives the feeling to the individual that 'he' has taken a decision, so
> the delay between taking the decision and feeling the decision might
> very well be a property of our brain.
:)
The brain _is_ the "he". It's one and the same. It's not "might very will
be", it's "obviously is".
All this experiment shows is that behavior in one part of the brain can
predict behavior in another part of the brain 10 seconds before it happens
in this one very specific and very unusual type of experiment.
It's not valid to claim that "the brain made the decision was made 10
seconds before the person was aware of it". The behavior which happened 10
seconds _before_ the decision was simply a precursor which was highly
predictive of what the decision would turn out to be.
Think for example what would happen if we took this experiment out of the
brain, and simply asked people to make a simple binary decision but to talk
about what they were thinking leading up to the decision and the hitting of
one of the buttons. Ask them to repeat this many times, then analyze
everything they said and did leading up to the hitting the button and see
if you can find any "tells" in their words or their patterns of behavior
that were predictive of which button they were going to hit. Maybe, every
time they hit the black button, they scratched their nose 10 seconds before
picking the black button.
If you carefully carefully analyzed everything they did, it's _highly_
likely you could isolate some behavior which was predictive of the decision
they would make that could show up 10 seconds before they hit one of the
buttons.
Just because they scratched their nose, and the nose scratch was predictive
of them picking one button over the other, is that justification to say the
brain made the decision 10 seconds before the person was aware of the
decision? I don't think so.
The fact is, we are machines which do what we do for very deterministic
reasons. Whether we can understand what those reasons are is not
important. Things that happen in our past tend to be predictive of what we
will do in the future because we are deterministic machines. Not just 10
seconds in the future, but 10 years in the future. The fact there there is
some brain behavior (probably no more relevant than a nose scratch) which
turns out to be predictive of a behavior 10 seconds into the future should
not be a big surprise to anyone.
It's an interesting data point but that's the end of what I see is special
about it.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
JHas...@gmail.com
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
insufficient evidence to make the claim.
JHas...@gmail.com
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
Curt Welch
In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly deterministic. I'm
not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm just say
that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is highly
predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain scan
is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as all
that surprising.
On the issue of needing randomness, I do agree that human behavior has some
element of that idea built until what the brain does. But as I've worked
on trying to build neural networks to duplicate human behavior, I've found
I didn't need to build that sort of randomness into my design, simply
because when the system is driven by complex high dimension real world
sensory data, there is so much information content data to work with (some
call it noise) that it naturally creates that sort of random search
behavior which is needed without having to build a noise source into the
hardware design. The purpose of the hardware (and what I believe is a
prime function of the brain) is just the opposite. Instead of "acting
randomly", the prime purpose of the brain is to counteract that and to "act
with purpose". As such, one way to look at how this happens, is by
thinking of the brain as a sensory data filter who's prime purpose is to
filter out enough of the noise and randomness to allow for the output of
behavior which is very non random. The end result however is still one of
complex random data in, and complex random-looking behavior out.
feedbackdroid
>
> Think for example what would happen if we took this experiment out of the
> brain, and simply asked people to make a simple binary decision but to talk
> about what they were thinking leading up to the decision and the hitting of
> one of the buttons. Ask them to repeat this many times, then analyze
> everything they said and did leading up to the hitting the button and see
> if you can find any "tells" in their words or their patterns of behavior
> that were predictive of which button they were going to hit. Maybe, every
> time they hit the black button, they scratched their nose 10 seconds before
> picking the black button.
>
JH never answered my question about who this "you" [a remarkable
unitary entity ???] is that knows about things.
However, in the above paragraph, I think you're really spot on to what
is important, as regards "tells" and thinking "leading UP TO" the
decision. Most actions and decisions involve many aspects of brain
processing coming together to make a decision, and this doesn't occur
instantaneously, but rather different regions may be working on
different time scales all in parallel. Certain brain regions may not
join into the current object of attention until triggered by the
output of some other area. Eg, if you're just preparing to hit a
tennis ball, your entire brain and body are in action in anticiption
of this, seconds ahead of time, and even before the other person hits
the ball.
When we are involved in some ongoing activity, there is a continual
rollover of effects, one leading to the next. When we are "waiting" to
make a response, as in the infamous Libet experiments, the brain isn't
passive, instead many pertinent areas are primed and sitting near the
treshold of response in "anticipation" of acting.
Just because we may not be "conscious" of all this underlying
activity, does not mean it's not part of our personal decision-making
processes, and reliant upon both our underlying genetics and also what
has been learned during our previous lifetime. Most sensory filtering,
and probably 95% [whatever] of brain processing takes place below the
level on consciousness. It's still our own brains doing the
processing, not somebody else's brain.
>
> If you carefully carefully analyzed everything they did, it's _highly_
> likely you could isolate some behavior which was predictive of the decision
> they would make that could show up 10 seconds before they hit one of the
> buttons.
>
> Just because they scratched their nose, and the nose scratch was predictive
> of them picking one button over the other, is that justification to say the
> brain made the decision 10 seconds before the person was aware of the
> decision? I don't think so.
>
> The fact is, we are machines which do what we do for very deterministic
> reasons. Whether we can understand what those reasons are is not
> important. Things that happen in our past tend to be predictive of what we
> will do in the future because we are deterministic machines. Not just 10
> seconds in the future, but 10 years in the future. The fact there there is
> some brain behavior (probably no more relevant than a nose scratch) which
> turns out to be predictive of a behavior 10 seconds into the future should
> not be a big surprise to anyone.
>
> It's an interesting data point but that's the end of what I see is special
> about it.
>
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
> c...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alpha
Did you build one with and one without and found that the non-random
design produced a human-level intellignece?
> simply
> because when the system is driven by complex high dimension real world
> sensory data, there is so much information content data to work with (some
> call it noise) that it naturally creates that sort of random search
> behavior which is needed without having to build a noise source into the
> hardware design. The purpose of the hardware (and what I believe is a
> prime function of the brain) is just the opposite. Instead of "acting
> randomly", the prime purpose of the brain is to counteract that and to "act
> with purpose". As such, one way to look at how this happens, is by
> thinking of the brain as a sensory data filter
As it turns out, from an energy-consumption standpoint (which may or
can be correlated with "processing" - broadly speaking) brain is
mostly talkin to itself, not dealing with sensory data. It is about 99-
to-one or more usage toward manipulating internal, intrinsic reflexive
and feedback/feedforward signals that have nothing to do with motor
control or sensory cortex-based processing. See Raichle, Science Nov.
24 2006, "The Brain's Dark Energy" for example.
>who's prime purpose is to
> filter out enough of the noise and randomness to allow for the output of
> behavior which is very non random.
> The end result however is still one of
> complex random data in, and complex random-looking behavior out.
Most behavior that brain directs does not seem to be random, but
purposive in terms of the goals and attitudes and moods and knowledge
of the mind, which thence directs the salience factors of incoming
information.
>
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
feedbackdroid
What you say? 99% of brain activity represents "internal behavior"!
Gosh, the behaviorists had it right all along, they were just looking
in the wrong place.
Wolf K.
> JHas...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
>> Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
>> to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
>> moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
>> behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
>> insufficient evidence to make the claim.
>
> In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly deterministic. I'm
> not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm just say
> that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
> great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is highly
> predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain scan
> is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
> predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as all
> that surprising.
"Determined" does equal "predictable."
--
wolf k.
Entertained by my own EIMC
us (even just by belonging to the same species as us) the same such as
her behavior is largely predictable.
John Hasenkam
"Curt Welch" <cu...@kcwc.com> wrote in message
news:20080416122109.799$i...@newsreader.com...
No, you are confusing matters. There is no you to answer your question.
It may also be possible to argue that all behavior constitutes learning,
hence in all behavior there exists a degree of randomness.
Wolf K.
Sorry, I meant to type "determined'" does NOT equal "predictable."
Clumsy fingers... ;-)
--
wolf k.
Pranav Peshwe
Hi,
I personally believe that, it obviously is that way ( brain
creates the 'i'), but i cannot cite reference to any recognised and
accepted paper/theory which clearly establishes the above. That is why
i prefer to put the 'might very well be'. Can anyone post any link/
pointer to one ?
Pardon the ignorance :)
Agreed.
Best regards,
Pranav
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we didn't have C, we would have had BASI, OBOL and PASAL.
Lester Zick
wrote:
Curious, then, that the behavior of most seems quite predictable.
~v~~
Alpha
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:19:30 -0400, "Wolf K." <wolf...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
> >> Wolf K. wrote:
> >>> Curt Welch wrote:
That may not be because determined though. Patterns can develop out of
the chaos and we assimilate those patterns and learn how to respond,
the bevy of responses (even if chaotic seeming) in turn create more
patterns etc.
>
> ~v~~- Hide quoted text -
zzbu...@netscape.net
But that deception is also why high speed computers were invented.
Since humans only make decisions in advance because it takes
them months and years to realize that decisions even need to be
made.
>
> ...
Lester Zick
Personally I can't imagine an indeterminate predictable response,
Alpha.
> Patterns can develop out of
>the chaos and we assimilate those patterns and learn how to respond,
>the bevy of responses (even if chaotic seeming) in turn create more
>patterns etc.
The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
old party line.
~v~~
Curt Welch
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Alpha
> The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
> ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
> old party line.
I've seen change in myself and others. It's just very very slow.
casti...@gmail.com
> Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Alpha
> > The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
> > ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
> > old party line.
>
> I've seen change in myself and others. It's just very very slow.
>
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
A frictionless billiards table B1 starts at time T1. B1, a replicate
to precision P, starts at time T2 > T1, with momentum ball_b2_i = 2*
momentum ball_b1_i. To what precision does B1 at T1+ t equal B2 at T2
+ ( T2- T1 )/ 2?
Also, the weight of the brain divided by the molecular weight of water
is in the billions+ (or was that cells). Even if particles are lined
up like billiard balls, what Earthly system, including other brains,
can replicate it?
Or, if you are merely interested in the state of a single neuron, less
numerous and scales larger than particles (DNA fits in every cell),
you can infer propogation-cone boundaries on what state it's in. So
long as you take over the world in realtime, brains shouldn't pose
resistance.
neo
Interesting. Since last few days, I am thinking over 'free will'.
Although my conclusion is not scientific, still it agrees with
abovementioned research. Decision about every letter I am typing is
taken befor 'I' know it.
Scientists say decision is taken 10 seconds before I realize it.
Whether rocket launch will take place or not, decision is already
taken by people in NASA control room and they don't even know it!
Am I going to post this message?
Countdown...
10,
9,
8,
7,
6,
5,
4,
3,
2,
1
Mike
Time, traveling backward in its inevitable march
toward tomorrow, allows us to forget that which
has not yet been remembered.
What'd I say?
Oh now I remember I forgot.
And that's right.
Once while winding my way through the earth
toward the molten center, I ate a forbidden
mushroom. I spend the next million years in
a frozen wasteland with no protection from
the cold. And when my knee touched the
ground I remembered that those million years
lasted only as long as it took for me to go
from a standing position to resting on one knee.
Afterward, we smoked cigarettes which I had
forgotten and walked backwards for days which
saved a lot of time and fooled the enemy.
You should try it some time as soon as you reach
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
Here
neo
Tactonic plates under my building collided. Seismic waves reached to
my building in 5 seconds. It took 2 seconds for me to decide. It is
earthquake! But my brain
had taken that decision 10 seconds before, 3 seconds before collision
of tactonic plates. But my brain told me after 10 seconds. Now
building is crashed and I am dead.
My stupid brain is also dead.
Mike
Welcome to my world.