Decisions made before you realize it?
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
What if the manner in which human
decisions are arrived at was shown
to be a mostly unconscious process?
What if "free will" was merely an
illusion, a 'trick' of the human brain,
if you will, giving us the impression
that we are in 'control' of our acts
while masking the fact that our acts
result from brain activity we are
unaware of?
- - -
April 15, 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm
- - -
Excerpts:
- - -
Insert
Graphic -- Brain regions (shown in green)
from which the outcome of a participant's
decision can be predicted before it is made.
The top shows an enlarged 3D view of a
pattern of brain activity in one informative
brain region ... [which can] then be used
to predict the outcome of a decision up
to 7 seconds before a person thinks he is
consciously making the decision.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/04/080414145705-large.jpg
End Insert
- - -
Contrary to what most of us would like
to believe, decision-making may be a pro-
cess handled to a large extent by uncon-
scious mental activity. A team of scien-
tists has unraveled how the brain actually
unconsciously prepares our decisions.
Even several seconds before we con-
sciously make a decision its outcome
can be predicted from unconscious
activity in the brain.
...
"Many processes in the brain occur auto-
matically and without involvement of
our consciousness. This prevents our
mind from being overloaded by simple
routine tasks. But when it comes to
decisions we tend to assume they are
made by our conscious mind. This is
questioned by our current findings."
...
The fact that decisions can be predicted
so long before they are made is a aston-
ishing finding.
... brain activity predicts -- even up to
7 seconds ahead of time -- how a per-
son is going to decide.
But they also warn that the study does
not finally rule out free will: "Our study
shows that decisions are unconsciously
prepared much longer ahead than previ-
ously thought. But we do not know yet
where the final decision is made. We
need to investigate whether a decision
prepared by these brain areas can still
be reversed."
- - - end excerpts - - -
Comments:
Each of us is both an influence-provider
-and- an influenced result. This post,
for example, resulted from a long his-
tory of my interest in this topic + read-
ing about this story elsewhere + reading
this story today + the totality of all my
life experiences + the totality of my gen-
etic make-up, consisting of billions of
years (at least) of information storage /
transference, + the circumstances I find
myself in at this exact moment.
Such is the case in each moment each
of us participates in, far more complex
and outside the simple notions of credit
and blame and 'free will' that each of us
has been programmed, from birth, to
accept as 'reality'.
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Iain
> What if "free will" was merely an
> illusion, a 'trick' of the human brain,
It can't be an illusation because not even the appearance exists.
~Iain
Steve Marshall
David V.
What he is trying to say is that he used his free will to come to
the conclusion that free will does not exist.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
This does not come as a surprise, previously it was known that musles
prepaired for action about 0,3 seconds before the decission became
conciouss. But 7 seconds is rather long, I wonder wether someone
forgot a decimal point.
However this by itself does not disprove "free will" as it only proves
consioussness to be lacking behind. Unconsciouss "free will" might
still be possible, though intuitivily it would be hard to imagine:-)
We have to keep in mind though that we are talking here about a very,
very unimportant discission. Who cares with what hand I push the
button?. As soon as the part of the brain that is going to make the
descission has spare time, it will probably make it,(little or no
knowledge required) before the part of the brain that decides when it
is tired of waiting and says" "OK decide now". When that happens the
decision becomes immediately conscious but it was made long before.
That would explain the seven seconds.
The time would go down very quickly when fresh input would be needed,
like in a lightning fast computergame. . . .
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Peter van Velzen
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Tsai_tsai
4de45a...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Ooh - sharp.
I agree. Not such a shocking article, after all.
On the other hand, I am the sum of all my parts.
Wouldn't that imply that those bits of me that are automated, are still
me?
Wouldn't that mean, that regardless of how the mechanism works, it is
still my decision, action and perception of past experiences that
influences my reflexes?
While my brain might premeditate all my actions and decisions, it is
still ultimately me.
Besides, I kind of like the idea that something on me is hard-at-work.
--
~
Strawberry.
~
Iain
wrote:
> "Iain" <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote
"Free will is an illusion" is like saying "the sun going round the
Earth is an illusion". I say neither are illusions, because neither
appears to be the case.
How else would these things look?
~Iain
Iain
> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:187d8167-ab0c-4dd2-9644-
> 4de45af67...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 15, 4:28 pm, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
>
> >> What if "free will" was merely an
> >> illusion, a 'trick' of the human brain,
>
> > It can't be an illusation because not even the appearance exists.
>
> > ~Iain
>
> Ooh - sharp.
> I agree. Not such a shocking article, after all.
> On the other hand, I am the sum of all my parts.
> Wouldn't that imply that those bits of me that are automated, are still
> me?
> Wouldn't that mean, that regardless of how the mechanism works, it is
> still my decision, action and perception of past experiences that
> influences my reflexes?
> While my brain might premeditate all my actions and decisions, it is
> still ultimately me.
> Besides, I kind of like the idea that something on me is hard-at-work.
Right. Morally, it doesn't matter how one becomes an arsehole. One's
extant aresholedom is the object of moral consideration.
~Iain
Iain
Another example of the appearence of no free will...
1. You think you've lost your wallet.
2. You search for it. It takes longer than you had hoped.
3. You find your wallet.
4. You are relieved.
5. Then feel panic for about 3 seconds, as if you are still in phase
2.
~Iain
Tsai_tsai
5411e6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
A very clever, very personal example.
My phase 5 is more along the lines of self-beration for not having put
the wallet in its usual place.
Which is in itself a proof of the appearance of free will - since if it
was pre-destined / decided, then wouldn't the wallet have been where it
should have been? (You know, as my automated mind did what it was
supposed to, instead of letting my non-automated mind do what it wants.)
--
~
Strawberry.
~
Mike
The wallet WAS where it was supposed to have been. It just wasn't where
you USUALLY put it. There's a difference.
For the main part, we really don't have free will. Do you have free will
to not eat when hungry (for any length of time) or not sleep (for days
on end?) You're basically just responding to programming, we just don't
understand the programming fully. Now there is a TINY allowance for free
will in the laws of QM but very tiny. (And no, I'm not saying "you
should be able to do anything you want because you don't have free will
and even if you kill someone, you should be able to go free because it
was 'pre-destined.' You getting put in jail for the murder was ALSO
pre-destined based on other people's 'programming.')
pba...@worldonline.nl
> Tsai_tsai wrote:
> > Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3a72eed3-c8cf-42fa-a5a1-
> > 5411e6e82...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
To be honest there is more reason to put a compulsery murderer away
for life, than there is for doing so with someone who murdered out of
free will.
The free will murderer won't want to murder anymore after being
punished for a while. The compulsery murderer will always do it
again. . . . .
I think we have hardly any choice:-)
Steve Marshall
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Free will is an illusion" is like saying "the sun going round the
> Earth is an illusion". I say neither are illusions, because neither
> appears to be the case.
But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's why we thought it did
for so long.
You say we don't appear to have free will? That isn't right. Many claim to
have it.
Steve M
Dan C
> "Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>"Free will is an illusion" is like saying "the sun going round the
>>Earth is an illusion". I say neither are illusions, because neither
>>appears to be the case.
>
>
> But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's why we thought it did
> for so long.
What would it look like if the Earth went around the Sun?
Steve Marshall
"Dan C" <dann...@comcast.net> wrote
> What would it look like if the Earth went around the Sun?
What do you mean, 'if' ???
Steve M
Dan C
You said, "But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's why we
thought it did for so long."
So I ask you again, what would the sun "appear to" do if the Earth went
around the sun?
The answer is that the sun appears exactly as would be expected given
the Earth orbits it.
The purpose of my question was to refute your reasoning for why we
thought the sun went around the earth for so long. It was not that
appearances deceived, it was other influences.
The sun appears to do exactly what it does. Humanity chose the belief.
Ben Goren
> Steve Marshall wrote:
>> Dan C wrote:
>>
>>> What would it look like if the Earth went around the Sun?
>>
>> What do you mean, 'if' ???
>
> You said, "But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's
> why we thought it did for so long."
>
> So I ask you again, what would the sun "appear to" do if the
> Earth went around the sun?
>
> The answer is that the sun appears exactly as would be expected
> given the Earth orbits it.
>
> The purpose of my question was to refute your reasoning for why
> we thought the sun went around the earth for so long. It was
> not that appearances deceived, it was other influences.
>
> The sun appears to do exactly what it does. Humanity chose the
> belief.
More useful would be to compare what the sun would look like in
both cases -- the reality of the Earth in orbit, and the ancient
worldview of the sun going 'round the Earth.
And the truth is that they would both look quite similar, until
one achieved a certain level of technology or intellectual
sophistication.
Given neither, and the fact that the sun going 'round the Earth is
the simpler explanation in such a circumstance, I think we can
forgive our ancestors for their original incorrect conclusions.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Steve Marshall
"Dan C" <dann...@comcast.net> wrote
> You said, "But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's why we
> thought it did for so long."
>
> So I ask you again, what would the sun "appear to" do if the Earth went
> around the sun?
>
> The answer is that the sun appears exactly as would be expected given the
> Earth orbits it.
That's a poor answer that relies on hindsight..
I'm not aware of the movement of the Earth. It seems pretty solid. The thing
that appears to move is the stuf we see in the sky.
> The purpose of my question was to refute your reasoning for why we thought
> the sun went around the earth for so long. It was not that appearances
> deceived, it was other influences.
Sounds like conspiracy theory thinking.
Steve M
Dan C
> "Dan C" <dann...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
>>You said, "But the sun does appear to go round the Earth. That's why we
>>thought it did for so long."
>>
>>So I ask you again, what would the sun "appear to" do if the Earth went
>>around the sun?
>>
>>The answer is that the sun appears exactly as would be expected given the
>>Earth orbits it.
>
>
> That's a poor answer that relies on hindsight..
So the sun doesn't appear exactly as expected given the Earth orbits it?
> I'm not aware of the movement of the Earth. It seems pretty solid. The thing
> that appears to move is the stuf we see in the sky.
The key is in how all the stuff seen in the sky moves. Not just the
sun. People looked at all of it for a long time and even did
complicated math to make the weird movement of planets work out instead
of seeing it for what it was.
>>The purpose of my question was to refute your reasoning for why we thought
>>the sun went around the earth for so long. It was not that appearances
>>deceived, it was other influences.
>
>
> Sounds like conspiracy theory thinking.
How so? Can you think of any incidences in history where institutions
suppressed the idea that the Earth went around the sun? Do you think
that suppression might have been going on in different forms for a long
time and contributed to the lack of progress?
There was plenty of evidence for a heliocentric solar system long before
it was accepted. Which was my main point in refuting your "Because
that's what it looked like" reasoning. Sure that was part of it, but I
don't think it was what made us wrong on the issue for so long.
Steve Marshall
"Dan C" <dann...@comcast.net> wrote
>> That's a poor answer that relies on hindsight..
>
> So the sun doesn't appear exactly as expected given the Earth orbits it?
That's even poorer. Saying that the sun appears the way it does doesn't tell
you anything new.
>> Sounds like conspiracy theory thinking.
>
> How so? Can you think of any incidences in history where institutions
> suppressed the idea that the Earth went around the sun? Do you think that
> suppression might have been going on in different forms for a long time
> and contributed to the lack of progress?
What do you consider a long time? I would say that we've had less time with
the right answer(s).
Having the right answers doesnt' mean you're going to agree with it. Look at
the number of people that don't accept evolution !
The reason you get the wrong answers is becasue you look at what you can see
and try and account for it. If the sun appears to go round the Earth then
that's a good enough solution to last until you find a better solution. In
fact that is how science works. We come up with a model - like Newtonian
gravity and then see where the model breaks down.
Steve M