1
   

The Will Before the Thought

 
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:22 am
I am starting this thread in hopes of getting some opinons on the actual spark of the thought process to see how many here can take themselves to the brink where things really begin.

First of all, I find that a great many intelligent and well thought out persons often refuse to look deep enough into some of these issues to really reach a truly beneficial argument. They make their opinions known and then when questioned only go so far to respond to them.

Of course us Intelligent Design advocates are accused of exactly the same thing with regard to the origin of life but this is different. This is an issue that can be dramatically argued alot further based on factual evidence, unlike the issue of creation which is always going to be speculative.

Now to the point!

In recent experiments using HCI, Human Computer Interface, neurologist specialists have been able to design some very interesting technologies that use thought impulses from the brain to manipulate external devices such as keyboards, wheelchairs, voice boxes, etc.

One such technology, available on the market already through Ambion Inc., has a device that is strapped to the neck and without even having to actually make a sound one can cause a computer to voice the words they are thinking. By thinking the word they can have this voice box that they are wearing say the word for them.

in another expreiment a totally paralyzed man is able to manipulate the mouse on a computer screen with thought alone, simply by thinking what he wants the mouse to do, it will move and perform the functions. he can also manipulate a mechanical device hooked up to the computer with his thoughts.

Now the first thing biology advocates are going to say is that this is a just another matter of the electrical impulses of the brain causing these things to move just like they stimulate the muscles to move.

But first of all, these devices are not cochial implants or prosthesis, they are computer chips hooked up to the brain cells that are reading the electrical/thought impulses of the brain and then turning those thought impulses into reaction by the computer interface with the device.

Now my argument here is that those who simply suggest that this is mere electrical impulse stimulation are just not looking at the deeper ramifications here. And the scientists will concur with me on this one.

Thought does not just randomly bounce around in our heads as a particular electrical impulse waiting to be used. There is no designated electrical impulse that one can tap into to move a mouse cursor on a computer screen for instance.

the thought has to be willed by the person first, and THEN the impulses are triggered for that particular reaction.

Biology theorists here are trying to suggest that the reaction comes first. What comes first is the person's desire or want, the thought to move something in particular. Then , after the thought is provoked or summoned by the will of that person, and only then, can that impulse be caught by a computer interface and transmitted into a reactionary force.

Until the person thinks the thought, the thought does not exist. So it wouldnt matter how many probes were stuck in his head, or how many computers he was hooked up to, all the elctrical impulses emanating from that brain cell would not operate anything, until the person created the thoguht to accomplish it.

This is one of the problems they had acclimating the patients to this process. It took some time for the patient to develop the mental ability to project the thought process to the computer.

Now what I would like to address here isn't so much the scientific detail, but eh indepth process of thought prejection before it ever evn becomes an electrical impulse.

Can we consider what that means?

here are some links for pre-study if interested. Under the first link read the section called cyborg speller.


http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/matrix_realized.html


http://www.mindmodulations.com


http://www.theaudeo.com/


http://speechlab.bu.edu/prosthetics.php


http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/matrix_realized.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,283 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 05:34 pm
@Pathfinder,
I prefer Brain-Computer Interface:)

You have tapped into some good food for thought about the idea that thoughts need to be "willed" first and Im trying to remember some things that Christof Koch said about the the 40 Hz oscillation speech and differing rhythmic scales and frequency bands I saw but Ill have to dig through some paperwork to find it.
Hermes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 07:26 pm
@Kielicious,
I have, elsewhere on these forums though mainly on my own site, presented my own ideas on how this occurs

Site is here.

In a nutshell (I can't get out of this giant nut), the will to action is a product of a Potentiality-for-Being of the Self. The mind, Dasein, is constantly Anticipating the Being of Entities-in-the-World. When Dasein has an Entity of Self within its own function, it may Anticipate what itself may do and then present this to the primary motor cortex for action. Easy!

My site also goes into details on how the frontal cortex and Broca's area play an important role in generating these Potentialities and how "choice" is an Interpretation made that simply filters these Potentialities before they are presented. This is all an adaptation of the philosophy of Heidegger.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 07:41 pm
@Hermes,
pathfinder wrote:
the thought has to be willed by the person first, and THEN the impulses are triggered for that particular reaction.


Why? 'Will' is not the cause of thought; 'will' is imaginary; it is a thought itself. We have conceptualized our experience to an extent that we see things through the schema of our own ideas, and assert that those ideas, not the actual experience, are the reality. Specifically, we have invented the concept 'will' and then inserted it into our experience, calling it the 'cause' of our activities. It is pure imagination. "Will' belongs with soul, because it is superstition. The term does not mean anything, unless we understand 'will' as nothing more than the name for a certain kind of experience: not the cause of them.
Doobah47
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 07:54 pm
@Hermes,
MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia wrote:

During [cocaine] withdrawal, there can be powerful, intense cravings for cocaine. However, the "high" associated with ongoing use becomes less and less pleasant, and can produce fear and extreme suspicion rather than joy. Just the same, the cravings may remain powerful.


Although this might be a slight tangent on the detection of brain triggers re actions, I think it's quite an important point to make:

The phenomenon of an addiction's 'pang' triggers neurological processes which in turn create physical/mental symptoms and addiction related psychosis (in my experience), so surely it is clear that there is a chemical/biological trigger for some thought processes. My point is that if people were to use these electro-neuro contraptions for activating electric machinery then would coercion and manipulation become as easy as selling cocaine to an addict - the control of a human being's speech for example could be controlled with drugs. This is a powerful argument against widespread usage of such technology.
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 08:29 pm
@BrightNoon,
Bright Noon,

If one is sitting in a chair and hooked up to one of these interfaces, and not concentrating on doin anything in particular, there will be no function or reaction.

Until one chooses to specifically focus on a particular action in his mind, only then can the interface create the desired reaction.

In other words, one must consciously and deliberately concentrate and develop a specific thought before any electrical impulse can be captured and transmitted.

The point is that there is absolutely no biological reaction taking place here until after a thought is provoked by the mind, before any electrical impulses are even produced.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 09:22 pm
@Pathfinder,
There is no need to seperate the 'will' from the thought, or to say that the 'will' causes the thought. Its all one event. The division is a conceptual one we make after the fact and the causality also. The machine dosen't recognize the 'will', unless as brain acitivity like that with thought.
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 10:09 pm
@Pathfinder,
the brian does not function on its own without the persons explicit will to perform a function from the thoguht or desire to do so.

When the brain begins to make commands to the body withoput the persons will we have the chaos of parkinsons disease.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 10:43 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
the brian does not function on its own without the persons explicit will to perform a function from the thoguht or desire to do so.


How do you know that? Think about what you actually experience. When you will something, perhaps there is a mental image of something you want to do (an intention), followed by the performance of that deed. Why do you assume that the intention caused the action? Couldn't the intention (the mental image of the deed you are about to do) be part of the effect of what is happening (youir experiencing of the world happening), just as is the experience of doing the deed? That we think about doing something before we do it, does not mean that the thought is the cause of the doing. 'Will' is just the name we have given to that process.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 06:36 am
@BrightNoon,
okay you stand in the middle of the room, and try to move the chair across the room while you are reading an Archie comic.

Let me know how you make out.
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 11:03 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
the brian does not function on its own without the persons explicit will to perform a function from the thoguht or desire to do so.

Then what the heck keeps my heart beating?!?
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 03:38 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Then what the heck keeps my heart beating?!?



Oh snap! *grabs popcorn*
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 06:19 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
okay you stand in the middle of the room, and try to move the chair across the room while you are reading an Archie comic.

Let me know how you make out.


What is that supposed to mean?
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 08:11 pm
@Bones-O,
cmon, Bones,

we all know there is a great difference bewteen the involuntary functions of the brain and the bodie's organs and what we are talking about here. and by the way your heart is in your chest not your head.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 03:26 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
What is that supposed to mean?



It means that without intention there can be no action, no electrical impulse, no further forward motion.

The chair across the room is not going to be moved by someone who does not first intend to move it.

Yes, there are involuntary functions that require brain output, but that has nothing to do with the deliberate focus that we are talking about here.

This is a discussion of the fact that before anything else is accomplished by an electrical impulse revealing itself in the brain, there must first be the will and intention of the person's mind to create that impulse.

Therefore there is a self behind the biological function. A self that is not bound to the physical limitations of a healthy body. And it reveals itself in this BCI, HCI situation as the will behind the mechanics and the biology.
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 01:16 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
cmon, Bones,

we all know there is a great difference bewteen the involuntary functions of the brain and the bodie's organs and what we are talking about here. and by the way your heart is in your chest not your head.

So you're saying the brain does function without explicit will or thought?

EDIT: The relevance of this is that your entire argument seems to depend on brain function being triggered by will. If you admit unconscious brain function, then how can you postulate that brain functions of the kind you are speaking of must be caused by conscious thought or will?
0 Replies
 
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 06:26 pm
@Pathfinder,
have you moved that chair across the room yet Bones?
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 09:29 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
This is a discussion of the fact that before anything else is accomplished by an electrical impulse revealing itself in the brain, there must first be the will and intention of the person's mind to create that impulse.


... so then you're saying that the mind/will transcends the physical brain? ... that the constitution of the mind/will itself is not fundamentally electrical impulses in the physical brain - but rather the mind/will exists somewhere beyond the physical brain and simply feeds it's intentions to the physical brain which then carries out those intentions via electrical impulses? ...
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 09:56 pm
@paulhanke,
Paul Hanke'

you must be a carpenter my friend cuz u hit the nail on the head big time.

Eggszactically
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 05:48 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
have you moved that chair across the room yet Bones?

That's your answer?!?!? :shocked:
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Will Before the Thought
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 12:29:17