Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen P. King
Nov 5, 2012, 12:57:23 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may have linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO. Attention John Clark!
"Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements
Undermining a person's belief in free will alters the way their brain prepares for a voluntary movement. Davide Rigoni and his colleagues, who made the finding, aren't sure what the precise mechanism for this effect is, but they speculated that bursting the free will bubble somehow causes people to put less intentional effort into their movements.
Rigoni's team tested thirty participants on a version of Benjamin Libet's classic task from the 1980s. This requires that participants watch a dot proceed round a clock face, that they make a voluntary finger movement at a time of their choosing (the current study had participants press a button), and then make a mental note of the position of the clock at the time they made their decision to move. Libet's controversial discovery, replicated here, was that the brain begins preparing for the finger movement several hundred milliseconds prior to the conscious decision to move, as revealed by electrical activity recorded via electrodes on the scalp. The finding implies that free will is illusory.
For Rigoni's task, an additional detail was that half the participants read a passage debunking our sense of free will (see comments for the text) before they completed the Libet task. The other half acted as controls and read a passage about consciousness that didn't mention free will."
read more at http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2011/05/debunking-peoples-belief-in-free-will.html
These findings seem to me to be consistent with placebo and nocebo effects. The point here is that "belief" is not just a belief! It is a difference that makes a difference.
Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may have linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO. Attention John Clark!
"Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements
Undermining a person's belief in free will alters the way their brain prepares for a voluntary movement. Davide Rigoni and his colleagues, who made the finding, aren't sure what the precise mechanism for this effect is, but they speculated that bursting the free will bubble somehow causes people to put less intentional effort into their movements.
Rigoni's team tested thirty participants on a version of Benjamin Libet's classic task from the 1980s. This requires that participants watch a dot proceed round a clock face, that they make a voluntary finger movement at a time of their choosing (the current study had participants press a button), and then make a mental note of the position of the clock at the time they made their decision to move. Libet's controversial discovery, replicated here, was that the brain begins preparing for the finger movement several hundred milliseconds prior to the conscious decision to move, as revealed by electrical activity recorded via electrodes on the scalp. The finding implies that free will is illusory.
For Rigoni's task, an additional detail was that half the participants read a passage debunking our sense of free will (see comments for the text) before they completed the Libet task. The other half acted as controls and read a passage about consciousness that didn't mention free will."
read more at http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2011/05/debunking-peoples-belief-in-free-will.html
These findings seem to me to be consistent with placebo and nocebo effects. The point here is that "belief" is not just a belief! It is a difference that makes a difference.
-- Onward! Stephen
John Clark
Nov 5, 2012, 1:56:52 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
> The finding implies that free will is illusory.
Free will is not illusionary. A illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomena, but free will is not respectable, free will is just gibberish.
John K Clark
John K Clark
Craig Weinberg
Nov 5, 2012, 4:18:20 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
A gibberish which has been clinically proven to become less gibberish if you believe it.
Craig
John K Clark
Hal Ruhl
Nov 5, 2012, 5:22:16 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi John:
See my 11/4/12 @ 4:43PM post on life re proposal “ii” – freewill precluded.
Hal Ruhl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Russell Standish
Nov 5, 2012, 4:50:36 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
So what? If you convinced someone that life is not worth living, then
they would be more likely to commit suicide.
I don't think this result really adds anything too profound...
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:57:23PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may have
> linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO.
> Attention John Clark!
>
> "Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of
> their movements
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
they would be more likely to commit suicide.
I don't think this result really adds anything too profound...
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:57:23PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may have
> linked this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO.
> Attention John Clark!
>
> "Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of
> their movements
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Clough
Nov 6, 2012, 4:51:10 AM11/6/12
to everything-list
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
self-determination is possible. By self I include everything inside
the entities' skin or shell.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 16:50:36
Subject: Re: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out oftheir movements
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
self-determination is possible. By self I include everything inside
the entities' skin or shell.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-05, 16:50:36
Subject: Re: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out oftheir movements
Alberto G. Corona
Nov 6, 2012, 5:21:48 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Roger:
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that´s why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could´n be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
Alberto.
Alberto G. Corona
Nov 6, 2012, 6:02:52 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
This is the same with some corrections of my bad dyslexic English
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when it ever was a realist question of whether I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.
Of course, in the modern, secularized version of Nominalism, called Positivism, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that´s why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms. The problem is that these redefinitions, like the one of free will, in terms of physical laws are almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could not be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. Because these irreducible concepts were involved in the most fundamental questions for practical life, and these concepts were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated t demagogues, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
Alberto.
Roger Clough
Nov 6, 2012, 7:29:42 AM11/6/12
to everything-list
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I'm much indebted to you for bringing this
very important observation to my attention.
I need very badly to study the issue and
am starting right now.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 05:21:48
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE
Roger:
That? right
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether
I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like ?ood, evil, morals etc, that could? be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false?ichotomy?etween is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges,
revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. ?he results are the never ending waves of?otalitarianisms?ithin Modernity.
2012/11/6 Roger Clough
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
self-determination is possible. ?y self I include everything inside
I'm much indebted to you for bringing this
very important observation to my attention.
I need very badly to study the issue and
am starting right now.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 05:21:48
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE
Roger:
That? right
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like ?ood, evil, morals etc, that could? be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false?ichotomy?etween is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges,
revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. ?he results are the never ending waves of?otalitarianisms?ithin Modernity.
2012/11/6 Roger Clough
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
Roger Clough
Nov 6, 2012, 8:30:30 AM11/6/12
to everything-list
Hi Alberto G. Corona
If there are physical laws in the universe, such as
gravity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism,
as well as dark energy, these laws must be universal or
else there would be chaos. There could be no science.
That fact refutes the nominalist position that universals
do not exist.
These laws are truths, so truths are universal.
Being so, they exist apart from human minds.
Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make
a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event.
Because existence then is independent of mind
(the realist position), This also refutes Berkeley's
position that things exist because we perceive them.
And the Ten Commandments, if they exist, exist
independent of us. If evil is the diminishment of life
and good the enhancement of it, evil and good have real effects
and so are real, whether you believe in them or not.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
?f course, in the modern, secularized version of Nominalism, called?Positivism, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to?physicalist?terms. The problem is that these redefinitions, like the one of free will, in terms of physical laws are almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.?
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could not be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. Because these?rreducible?oncepts were involved in the most fundamental questions for practical life, and these concepts were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated t?emagogues, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
2012/11/6 Alberto G. Corona
Roger:
That? right
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like ?ood, evil, morals etc, that could? be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false?ichotomy?etween is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. ?he results are the never ending waves of?otalitarianisms?ithin Modernity.
2012/11/6 Roger Clough
If there are physical laws in the universe, such as
gravity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism,
as well as dark energy, these laws must be universal or
else there would be chaos. There could be no science.
That fact refutes the nominalist position that universals
do not exist.
These laws are truths, so truths are universal.
Being so, they exist apart from human minds.
Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make
a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event.
Because existence then is independent of mind
(the realist position), This also refutes Berkeley's
position that things exist because we perceive them.
And the Ten Commandments, if they exist, exist
independent of us. If evil is the diminishment of life
and good the enhancement of it, evil and good have real effects
and so are real, whether you believe in them or not.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 06:02:52
Receiver: everything-list
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE
This is the same with some corrections of my bad dyslexic English
The modern notion of free will is a?nominalist?one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when it ever was a?realist?question of whether I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
?f course, in the modern, secularized version of Nominalism, called?Positivism, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to?physicalist?terms. The problem is that these redefinitions, like the one of free will, in terms of physical laws are almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.?
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could not be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. Because these?rreducible?oncepts were involved in the most fundamental questions for practical life, and these concepts were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated t?emagogues, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
2012/11/6 Alberto G. Corona
Roger:
That? right
The modern notion of free will is a nominalist one. It redefine free will in physicalist terms, when in reality it was a realist question of whether I have moral judgement between good and evil and either if I can choose between them.?
Of course, in nominalist terms, good, evil morals etc have no meaning. So that? why concepts like free will were reduced to physicalist terms- But these redefintions, like the one of free will are in terms of physical laws is almost meaningless and no doubt, self contradictory.
Other concepts, like ?ood, evil, morals etc, that could? be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false?ichotomy?etween is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. ?he results are the never ending waves of?otalitarianisms?ithin Modernity.
2012/11/6 Roger Clough
Free will is a bogus issue, something akin to asking
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
self-determination is possible. ?y self I include everything inside
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Why ? Because in biology at least, the will of any entity
only needs to carry out what the entity desires, to survive.
If it can't, the entity will die and not be tend to be reproduced.
Case closed.
If you accordingly include desire with will, then you have the
the more meaningful issue of self-determination,
meaning that the entity can determine and achieve
what it needs to survive. In philosophy, since ancient
times, this force to survive and actualize the entity's
possibilities (another term for evolution) is called
entelechy. So what I am saying is nothing new.
So it's of no consequence IMHO to question whether we have
free will or not. The proper issue to debate is whether
Alberto G. Corona
Nov 6, 2012, 8:33:38 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Roger,
--
Alberto.
It is.
We don´t know how our views are a derivatives of the metaphysical conceptions of medieval thinkers, and how the world today is a consequence of philosophical debates hundreds of years ago. Since the abandonment of the humanities, we are not conscious of that.
Alberto.
meekerdb
Nov 10, 2012, 6:36:27 PM11/10/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 11/6/2012 2:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Other concepts, like good, evil, morals etc, that could´n be reduced, were relegated to a individual irrational sphere. This is the era of the false dichotomy between is and ought. Because the most fundamental questions for practical life were denied to rational discussion, they were delegated to demagoges, revolutionaries, and various kinds of saviors of countries and planets. The results are the never ending waves of totalitarianisms within Modernity.
No, modernity came with the invention of individualism, the existence of a private sphere of belief and endeavor that was secure from the ecclesiastical authorities who tried to define good, evil, morals etc as extending to every nook and cranny not only of private life, but even of thought and consciousness.
Brent
Roger Clough
Nov 12, 2012, 7:40:10 AM11/12/12
to everything-list
Hi meekerdb
Those are the complaints of the far left.
They hate everything that has authority or power.
Roger Clough,
rcl...@verizon.net
11/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody
Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-11-10, 18:36:27
Subject: Re: WHY FREE WILL IS A BOGUS ISSUE
Craig Weinberg
Nov 12, 2012, 8:07:07 AM11/12/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:32:27 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Physics thus tells us that a falling tree will make
a sound even if nobody is there to witness the event.
Just the opposite. Physics tells us that sound is an experience for subjects who have some kind of ear. Without that, there is only a recurring change in the position of bodies (vibration), which requires that there be bodies which can detect that this change is occurring. There doesn't need to be a human witness unless by 'make a sound' we mean an experience interpreted with human qualities of sound discernment and sensitivity.
Because existence then is independent of mind
(the realist position),
But it is not independent of experience.
This also refutes Berkeley's
position that things exist because we perceive them.
Yes, Berkeley didn't take it far enough and realize that perception was the sole universal principle, and not just a human privilege.
Those are the complaints of the far left.
They hate everything that has authority or power.
I think that the far left would argue that they do not hate powerful authorities like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, etc. You know, leaders who rise to positions of adoration without taking power from others.
Craig
Roger Clough
Nov 15, 2012, 9:36:38 AM11/15/12
to everything-list
Hi Craig Weinberg
Yes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove,
so your theory that perception causes existence holds.
But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other people
to report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-11-12, 07:07:07Subject: Re: I am a realist rather than a nominalist because universal gravityexists.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qzVxV_EizvMJ.
Craig Weinberg
Nov 15, 2012, 3:17:06 PM11/15/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:36:44 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig WeinbergYes, Berkeley's solopsism is impossible to disprove,so your theory that perception causes existence holds.But, forgive me, how do you know that there are other peopleto report your findings to ? We could all be chimeras.
Logically you could be, but we don't live in a logical universe, we live in a universe of sense. Some sense can be explained in terms of other senses, but other senses can't. The sense of realism is one example of the latter. We don't need to prove that there is a difference between waking and dreaming, because proof supervenes on that difference to begin with.
The miracle of sense is that it is translucent and reflective. You can sort of know things that it seems like you shouldn't be able to be sure about. But you are sure enough, and that's all that you need to be ultimately. If you are chimeras, then there word chimera has no meaning anyhow since it means there would be no way to tell the difference. The fact that we can conceive of 'illusion' and 'reality' means that some part of us cares to discern the difference. Why would that be the case in a solipsistic universe, and if it were, what would be the point of caring about it?
Craig
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages