Is free-will an illusion?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11066790_10153230722756605_1650449380895426404_n.jpg

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

It's about logic. Red herring much?

No, it's about the question you were asked, to wit:

Quote:

Have you forgotten the example cited in your cut and paste? Or was it a cut in haste?

0 Replies

@FBM,

You've presented no evidence against free will. And if you did not behave agressively, i wouldn't mention it...

No, doubting my own agency wouldn't do any good. Logical contradictions never yield anything useful. (i'm a strong believer in logic, as you might have noted)

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

You're pretending that your explanations are the only correct ones, even when they contradict the conclusions of the researchers who did them. This is mere verbal posturing on your part, when what I've been waiting for is for you to present some evidence done by professionals that supports your belief.

I can understand data, stats, and scientific posturing and grandstanding, yes. Scientists often overstate their case, either consciously or simply by error. They are only human. And it is a FACT that none of these experiments prove that any of the neuronal activity they spot is unconscious. Can you make the difference between your "word salad" and FACTS?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And it is a FACT that none of these experiments prove that any of the neuronal activity they spot is unconscious.

I agree with everything you're saying here, Ollie, but I think the think that what (more obviously) has not been proved is that the "neural activity" is the decision. The unadorned objection that they are not "conscious" will be met with the question: "Then why aren't you aware of them?" Then everything gets into murky waters where people will just talk past each other.

For me it's easier to look at it this way. Has it been proved that the "neural activity" IS the decision itself? The claim is that that DECISION (not the neural activity) precedes awareness. You can certainly have preparatory neural activity which precedes the decision without involving the "conscious will," and without having already "made the decision." I raised a few uestions, raised by the studies themselves, along these lines.2

These question have been largely, if not totally ignored. After posting this, I'll scroll back and paste in references to some of the posts where these questions and/or the relevant data (or lack of data) has been addressed.

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-65#post-6056514

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-65#post-6056499

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-65#post-6056507

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-62#post-6055723

2 Replies

@layman,

The motor cortex certainly does advance planning of movements that have yet to be sanctioned consciously, yes. You posted some article (or did I read that in wiki?) that the readiness potential is just what the name implies: It's about getting ready to act IF a decision is taken.

Still my point stands. There is some mind chatter alk the time, and particularly before (and after) a choice, and the experimenters never asjed their guinea pigs to record or report it. Nothing tells them that whatever neuronal activity they spot is 100% inconscious.

1 Reply

@layman,

Furthermore, if you read these articles, you will notice they will generally confess that these experiments deal with matters that are largely mysterious to the reasearcher, as was done here:

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-65#post-6056527

I'll just paste in the post, because there's something else to point out from it:

======

Quote:

Although the nature of voluntary action is a centuries-old question, the study of its neuronal basis is exceedingly difficult as it involves a phenomenon intrinsic to an organism and invisible to an observer. The neuronal circuits and mechanisms underlying self-initiated behavior are poorly understood.

Even these scientists don't seem to really get it, eh? They say this is all "poorly understood." Any fool knows that their studies prove there is no free will--end of story--no need to ask any more questions or critically exam the evidence and assumptions underlying the "known fact" that there is no free will.

======
I have posted a number of other comments which point out these kinds of things, and also ones that where I post summaries of experiments which were conducted for the specific purpose of providing data which conflicts with the prior papers where the paper glibly identifies the neural activity with the decision itself, without any real basis for doing so.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Yes, your last point is valid too, of course, and has been made by Dennet and others in this research field. I did make a post about the RP, and it referred to a source which I may have gotten from wiki, but I don't think I gave a wiki cite for it. I went to the paper itself.

As I assume you know, FBM doesn't read anything I post, because he has me on "ignore."

0 Replies

@layman,

Yes, it's all in the fine print... These articles are peer-reviewed so they can't avoid some degree of transparency as per what they know and don't know. They can't jump to conclusions too much, but they keep that stuff to the fine print and away from the headlines...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes, it's all in the fine print

Which FBM and his ilk always ignore, eh?

And by "ignore" I don't mean that they just overlook or "forget" these caveats. I think they "ignore" them because they don't even read the papers. The just read the provocative "headlines" and "conclusions," however ill-founded they may be. Then they reach for their trumpet and run around "announcing the news."

Of course then they talk about "peer reviewed articles" and think their information is indubitable because "it's science, by God!"

What a lazy, self-serving approach.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

"And it is a FACT that none of these experiments prove that any of the neuronal activity they spot is unconscious."

1) I apologize if I've seemed aggressive. No offense was intended, and "word salad" was a poor choice of phrases. I used it as a (poor) synonym for purely a priori reasoning, devoid of research-based backing. When someone chastizes me for referring to scholarly literature, I immediately see red flags and suspect disingenuity.

2) Subconscious neural activity is precisely what's being measured. It's what the Bereitschaftspotential is all about:

Quote:

In view of Libet et al.'s report [Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 1983;106:623-642] that the awareness of intention to move occurred much later than the onset of BP, the early BP might reflect, physiologically, slowly increasing cortical excitability and, behaviorally, subconscious readiness for the forthcoming movement. Whether the late BP reflects conscious preparation for intended movement or not remains to be clarified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16876476

3) This may be the sticking point. You seem to be putting me in the position to prove that there is no free will. I have explicitly stated that this is neither my intent nor my position. I've been clear that my position is only that there is good reason to be skeptical about it. Not taking the opposite view, only suspending judgment until more conclusisve results are available.

To demonstrate that there is good reason to be skeptical, and in light of your stance that free will is a slam dunk certainty, I have posted quite a few scholarly articles that do indeed provide reasons to be skeptical. Not reasons to form a conclusion, only reasons to be skeptical.

Scholars in various fields have been engaged in a long-standing debate over it. That alone should be sufficient evidence that there are reasonable grounds to be skeptical of either conclusion. I recognize that my opinions on the topic are inferior to those who actually do work in field. Therefore, I rely on their work, rather than simply stumping and cherry picking for a conclusion that I might prefer. I don't have a preferred conclusion; I'm simply looking at plenty of reason to skeptically suspend judgment.

4 Replies

@FBM,

Once again FBM shows that he either does not read, or does not understand, the things he posts (and even puts in BOLD lettering).

The article says:

Quote:

Whether the late BP reflects conscious preparation for intended movement or not remains to be clarified

.

See that? It says that they cannot say if the BP is conscious preparation. This is made very explicit. But what does FBM himself say it says? This:

Quote:

Subconscious neural activity is precisely what's being measured. It's what the Bereitschaftspotential is all about:

And there's no "disconnect" for him. In his mind these articles say whatever he wants them to say. No need to even read them closely.

1 Reply

@FBM,

No, there's no way (yet) to tell from an encephalogram ir MRI if some neuronal activity is conscioys or not.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/511891/researchers-identify-states-of-unconsciousness-with-eeg-data/

Quote:

The team recorded EEG patterns in 10 healthy volunteers while giving them increasing and then decreasing levels of a widely used anesthetic called propofol. The participants listened to verbal cues such as their name and auditory clicks and were told to press a button in response to each, which the researchers used as a sign of loss or recovery of consciousness.

The team found unique patterns in the brain waves of the volunteers as they lost and then regained consciousness. Changes in the relationship between brain waves of different frequencies predicted the transitions into and out of consciousness. The team also identified a pattern in the participants’ brain waves that was associated with the deepest state of unconsciousness. The patterns, or “signatures,” could one day be used to monitor and control sedation and unconsciousness in patients given propofol, say the authors.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Do me a favor, Ollie, and quote my last post for me, with your comments, if any. I want FBM to see it.

0 Replies

I will take a minute here to address an issue about science.

I can sit out on my porch all summer and observe things--the cars passing by, the girls in short skirts, the flowers growing--thousands of things. I can even write down everything I see in a journal. If I do that, by the end of the summer I will have many pages of "recorded empirical data."

But is that "scientific data?' No. Why not? Because the first step in any scientific endeavor is to frame a hypothesis (a hypothetical EXPLANATION of some aspect of what I see). Observation does NOT come first in science. Some hypothesis is the first step. Framing a hypothesis, however implausible, is the first step. For that reason, the very act of positing a hypothetical explanation of some recurring observable event(s) must be called "science."

Doesn't mean it's correct. It could, on it's face, seem absurd, but it's still "science."

If I now go out and collect data which I think is relevant to my hypothesis, that can be called "scientific observation." But it must be done with a pre-formed hypothetical explanation in mind, and it must have some presumed relevance to the validity of the hypothesis.

The point: Presenting a hypothetical explanation for observable events is "science," all by itself. It's what science does, and it's the reason that all published papers will (must, really) present some hypothetical explanation of the data being reported on.

But inventing some speculative hypothesis to be included with your paper is NOT proof of your hypothesis. It is, by it's very nature, merely speculative, a priori reasoning at that point.

Some treat the hypothesis as having been "proved" by the data because they assert, "it's a scientific conclusion, based on DATA!" Those "some" are quite foolish, actually.

2 Replies

@layman,

Now let's look at "scientific observation" for a minute. Let's suppose that every crow I've ever seen is black, and I form a hypothesis that all crows are black, because they are determined by their genetic make-up to be so.

I empirically "test" this hypothesis for years, watching crows, and always keeping an eye out for a crow that ISN'T black. Every time I see a black crow I have "confirmed, in the scientific sense, my hypothesis that all crows a black. Then one year I see a bird that is identical to a crow in all perceivable ways, except it's white. An albino crow, you might say.

So, now, do I have to say my hypothesis has been disproven, and that it is "wrong?' Of course not!

I just say that bird isn't a crow. Why not? Because it isn't black, that's why. I already told you: All crows are black.

With science, it's really not that difficult to act like you have "proved" almost anything, no matter what the "data" says. The data says nothing. Only the "scientist" says anything. And, despite their protestations to the contrary, scientists always have an agenda. It might be, for example, to claim the honor of being the first to "prove" that there is no such thing as human free will.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

You seem to be putting me in the position to prove that there is no free will.

And how would one be able to prove the non-existence of something non-physical? You may as well be challenged to prove that God doesn't exist. What would be the difference between the two when put that way? But what is the evidence for the existence of something non-physical? Only for the sake of analogy, what is the evidence for God? "I have felt the hand of God". "Just look around you at the awe-enspiring beauty in nature". "Look at the diversity and complexity of the things on this planet. It's more of a leap of faith that evolution did it instead of God".

https://youtu.be/yhvaSEJtOV8

3 Replies

@Briancrc,

A-yup.

0 Replies

@layman,

As far as logic goes, my efforts to keep my hypothesis alive are quite valid (even if not necessarily sound).

1. All crows are black (my basic assumption aka hypothesis)
2. This bird is not black
3. Therefore, this bird is not a crow.

Again, impeccable logic.

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know