Brain scanner predicts your future moves (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html?feedId=online-news_rss20)

Long before you decided to read this story, your brain may have already said "click that link".

By scanning the brains of test subjects as they pressed one button or another – though not a computer mouse – researchers pinpointed a signal that divulged the decision about seven seconds before people ever realised their choice. The discovery has implications for mind-reading, and the nature of free will.

"Our decisions are predetermined unconsciously a long time before our consciousness kicks in," says John-Dylan Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, who led the study. It definitely throws our concept of free will into doubt, he adds.

It's interesting how much of our perceived consciousness may not actually be conscious.

I should note the computer decoding the brain waves was only a bit better than random - 60% on a 50/50 trial.

I feel there is a lot of truth to this, whether or not this particular experiment was correct.

I've often noticed that when I try and consciously force myself to go against myself, or do something I'm not enthusiastic in, I perform worse. I largely attribute it to be for the reasons of the article, unconscious predetermination. I feel when you "go against yourself/your feeling" you are without the "unconscious predetermination" and there is a very noticeable difference.

It's not so much "going against yourself", but hopefully that was sufficient to communicate the idea. I'm not feeling up to articulating better right now ;)

Hmm so was the decision to go against yourself not unconsciously predetermined? How do you know?

Hmm so was the decision to go against yourself not unconsciously predetermined? How do you know?
I think it's a bit silly to say you don't have freewill because one part of your brain decides before another. It's all you, isn't it? As if all that grey matter is there just there for show. The very idea is absurd.

Many routine decisions probably are made by our subconscious. As Exhumed points out, sometimes he goes "against" his gut or whatever and notes a decrease in performance. Our forebrain is like our RAM. It gives us great flexibility, but it's not as powerful as our subconscious.

Think about when you're learning a new skill. It's all your conscious mind at that point, and you suck. As you practice, your subconscious takes over more and more of the process. And you get better and better at it.

PS I've also noted that when I'm doing confrontation visual fields (a procedure in which I hold up various numbers of fingers in the patients peripheral vision), I sometimes mean to show the patient five fingers and I hear them say three. Then I'll look, and see that they're right. I try to make the presentation random, but if I break my concentration, my subconscious takes over and picks for me. It's very disconcerting.

junk sensationalism

Our brains might pick beverages long before we realise, but Haynes thinks such decisions are still a matter of choice. "My conscious will is consistent with my unconscious will – it's the same process," he says.

the disclaimer

I think that for most people 99% of their life is led on autopilot. Probably why advertising is so powerful.

Hmm so was the decision to go against yourself not unconsciously predetermined? How do you know?

Maybe it was to a degree. :shrug:

But when "going against myself", predetermined or not, the point I was interested in is during those courses of action I don't have what I see as subconscious help I otherwise have.

Think about when you're learning a new skill. It's all your conscious mind at that point, and you suck.

Exactly. This is why practice is so important; why hard work > genius! :p

I'd also extend that to an emotional level as well. Like when you're giving a speech and you are afraid despite a sound conscious effort.

To bring the discussion back to the biology of free will.

Do flies have free will? (http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3324) discusses an experiment, where biologists tethered flies to a wire by glue and then watched their attempts to fly.

Their conclusion? Flies had the ability to be spontaneous, to take actions which were not predictable responses to their stimulation

IOW, "Under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases."


In Brembs' experiment, a fly is tethered inside a blank white cylinder devoid of any environmental triggers that might make it change direction. If the fly is nothing but an automaton impelled hither and thither by external inputs, then this lack of clues will leave it choosing directions at random. But measuring the tugs that the fly gives the tether reveals that it isn't trying to flit about randomly, but instead attempting to alternate localized buzzing about with occasional big hops.

This kind of behaviour has been seen in other animals (including humans), where it has been interpreted as a good foraging strategy: if a close search of one place doesn't bring a result, you're better off moving far afield and starting afresh.

But this was thought to rely on feedback from the environment, and not to be intrinsic to the animals' brains. Brembs and colleagues say that in contrast there exists a 'spontaneity generator' in the flies' brains that does not depend on external information in a determinate way. This seems to have proven useful in evolutionary terms, and so has become hard-wired into the fly brain.

Such a neural circuit could, the researchers say, be a kind of precursor to the mental wiring of humans that enables us to ignore environmentally conditioned responses and 'make up our own minds' — to exercise what is commonly interpreted as free will. "If such circuits exist in flies, it would be unlikely that they do not exist in humans, as this would entail that humans were more robot-like than flies," Brembs says. The researchers now intend to search for the neural machinery involved.

What this basically means is that you can learn all about an organism's neural circuits and still be unable to predict exactly what it will do. In the case of humans, besides the caprices inherent in our neural systems, we also have to contend with the heterogeneity of the social environments that surround us.


Another paper (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/MaeWanHo/freewill.pdf) [pdf] on the biology of free will opens up some interesting concepts for review:

What is free will?

Is it when the organism

*frees itself from the laws of physics?

*is free from mechanical determinism?
ie can decide how much fat it should contain?

*frees itself from mechanistic control as an interconnected, intercommunicating whole
ie can reinvent its environment to suit its needs

*is an autonomous coherent whole
are we all just liquid crystals with quantum coherence?


Deliberating further on the hypothesis that quantum coherence defines the unity of unintentionality (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/brainde.php), it is suggested that the reason why biologists and physicits alike have reached an impasse in delineating the mechanistics of consciousness is due to a lack of a conceptual framework that defines how the organism "behaves" as an integrated whole.

All research in the field can be defined by this assumption:

How the brain functions as a coherent whole is inseparable from how the organism functions as a coherent whole.

But what if, a body consciousness works in tandem but independently of a brain consciousness? From the preceding link...

Up to 70% of the proteins in the connective tissues consist of collagens that exhibit constant patterns of alignment, as characteristic of liquid crystals. Collagens have distinctive mechanical and dielectric properties that render them very sensitive to mechanical pressures, changes in pH, inorganic ions and electromagnetic fields (see ref. 29). In particular, a cylinder of bound water surrounds the triple-helical molecule, giving rise to an ordered array of bound water on the surface of the collagen network that supports rapid "jump conduction" of protons. Proteins in liquid crystals have coherent residual motions, and will readily transmit weak signals by proton conduction, or as coherent waves [31]. Thus, extremely weak electromagnetic signals or mechanical disturbances will be sufficient to set off a flow of protons that will propagate throughout the body, making it ideal for intercommunication in the manner of a proton-neural network [32].

It would certainly explain that zombies need not be vanquished by beheading :jason:

I don't find the fly story enough to discredit determinism. Just because you don't know all the different variables of a closed system at one time does not mean that, eventually, when you do know of all the different variables you can't make 100% accurate predictions. One day, we might just be able to predict exactly what the fly can do and similarly one day we might be able to do the same for humans.

I don't find the fly story enough to discredit determinism. Just because you don't know all the different variables of a closed system at one time does not mean that, eventually, when you do know of all the different variables you can't make 100% accurate predictions. One day, we might just be able to predict exactly what the fly can do and similarly one day we might be able to do the same for humans.

If there is a predictable element to the spontaneous reactions. Considering that all environmental cues were blocked and no pattern was seen to the flies' reactions, it would be difficult to locate what determines the spontaneity. Even if one were to locate the proton-neural mechanism that has been proposed in the last link, you would only be able to predict with a low degree of probability, since internal caprice would combine with social environment, making it far more complicated than a controlled system.

One day, we might just be able to predict exactly what the fly can do and similarly one day we might be able to do the same for humans.


but of course
i have a bridge to sell
wanna buy?

...the proton-neural mechanism ..


/perplexed

oh! i get it
you refer to the 'spontaneity generator'

/stupid like that

/perplexed

oh! i get it
you refer to the 'spontaneity generator'

/stupid like that

More like an autonomous nervous system which bypasses cranial involvement or perhaps works in tandem . Its mostly in the fruitless chin stroking phase right now. ;)

I think it's a bit silly to say you don't have freewill because one part of your brain decides before another. It's all you, isn't it? As if all that grey matter is there just there for show. The very idea is absurd.

Many routine decisions probably are made by our subconscious.
The point is that the part of your brain that initially "decides" isn't actually the part that's involved in conscious thought and decision. The conscious part of your brain doesn't "fire up" until the unconcsious parts have already reached a conclusion without you thinking about it. The question, then, is whether or not the conscious part of your brain is really the arbitor of what you do, or if it's just rationalizing the decision that's already been determined without any real thought. By "thinking about it" and "thought" I mean deliberate, conscious thought. Obviously if you define any brain activity as "thinking," then yeah, it's certainly always your brain that's making the decision.

If there is a predictable element to the spontaneous reactions. Considering that all environmental cues were blocked and no pattern was seen to the flies' reactions, it would be difficult to locate what determines the spontaneity. Even if one were to locate the proton-neural mechanism that has been proposed in the last link, you would only be able to predict with a low degree of probability, since internal caprice would combine with social environment, making it far more complicated than a controlled system.

Pardon, I come to this as a layman who was intrigued by the title so I could be missing something painfully obvious: But isn't this just admitting that we're not aware of all the variables that lead to the fly's behavior which is why we can't make accurate predictions at the moment?

Pardon, I come to this as a layman who was intrigued by the title so I could be missing something painfully obvious: But isn't this just admitting that we're not aware of all the variables that lead to the fly's behavior which is why we can't make accurate predictions at the moment?

In the absence of external cues that drive behaviour, what do you suppose would modulate spontaneity internally? And how would you measure or assess this quality in both a controlled and uncontrolled environment?

e.g. if you touch a hot stove, your predictable reaction would be to jerk yourself away from the stimulus. If you gave the same reaction to very cold ice, one could still predict that the sensors did not differentiate between hot and cold. If you had unpredictable reactions, ie sometimes you crawled over and lay down on the stove, one would be hard put to figure out your reasoning. ;)

though if you think about it even that analogy can have a predictable (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/abs/nature05413.html) conclusion, so you may be right.

We would need some way to measure the internal state that led to the crawling and laying down over the stove without interfering with the observation, and that way doesn't exist as of now. But, in theory, we would be able to have a holistic sense of exactly what happened that led to such a strange act, because of the causal link between every event and thought and action, even with the illusion of free will, assuming we were aware of all the variables.

Of course, I realize the problem is that I'm not speaking scientifically but philosophically. You ask how I would measure what I'm proposing and the answer is I have no idea. Bit embarrassed upon having above realization, perhaps I should have stuck to the philosophy section. :o

We would need some way to measure the internal state that led to the crawling and laying down over the stove without interfering with the observation, and that way doesn't exist as of now. But, in theory, we would be able to have a holistic sense of exactly what happened that led to such a strange act, because of the causal link between every event and thought and action, even with the illusion of free will, assuming we were aware of all the variables.

Of course, I realize the problem is that I'm not speaking scientifically but philosophically. You ask how I would measure what I'm proposing and the answer is I have no idea. Bit embarrassed upon having above realization, perhaps I should have stuck to the philosophy section. :o

I asked you because you may have a notion that has escaped due to being clearly obvious. Scientists too tend to get stuck in linear thinking which is why a fresh point of view should never be rejected without due consideration.

Actually when I wrote the analogy, the solution occured to me, so I added it in edit. ;)

And philosophy is always welcome, I consider it a much neglected area in current scientific theory.

Seems as though the physical nature of what incorporates things like decisions and thoughts in a mind should not be overlooked - they are moving patterns of firings of neurons, not material entities, and they are non-linear feedback amplifiers of arbitrarily small differences not only in state but in behavior.

Knowing the exact physical position of every electron in a brain, impossible already for even one electron, would not be enough for prediction: you would also have to know the manner of motion - would have to have tracked for some time - the patterns of activity in the brain as a whole.

Crude analogy: a still photo of a baseball in the air in front of home plate, no matter how precise and detailed, does not allow prediction of its future location. You have to know which way it's headed, how it is spinning, etc.

That is, the future moving patterns in the brain - the ideas, thoughts, etc - are created partly by the present ones. And some of these patterns are second, even third order - they are patterns of patterns. Or to put it shorthand, ideas cause ideas - you need to know what the mind is thinking, to predict its thoughts. And these thoughts affect the physical behavior of the body - the motions of the tongue, famously.

This situation has all the characteristics of free will - my thinking and doing is under the influence, even the partial control, of my thoughts, including the ones I am pleased to label "conscious" and the properties of the patterns of patterns I am pleased to label "my self".

To the extent "I" exist, or anything else, I have some freedom of will.

Short overview: In the end you have to know the patterns, which are behaviors in time incorporating non-linear amplifications and feedback loops as well as Wolfram-style deterministic unpredictability - to predict a mind, you have to create a duplicate mind and run it with impossible (in a quantum or Heisenbergi sense) precision.

In the absence of external cues that drive behaviour, what do you suppose would modulate spontaneity internally? And how would you measure or assess this quality in both a controlled and uncontrolled environment?

e.g. if you touch a hot stove, your predictable reaction would be to jerk yourself away from the stimulus. If you gave the same reaction to very cold ice, one could still predict that the sensors did not differentiate between hot and cold. If you had unpredictable reactions, ie sometimes you crawled over and lay down on the stove, one would be hard put to figure out your reasoning. ;)

though if you think about it even that analogy can have a predictable (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/abs/nature05413.html) conclusion, so you may be right.


Good response but not one that favours your point of view. It has been demonstrated that when a hand is withdrawn from a hot object any pain involved will not be felt until after the event. We don't consciously make the decision to withdraw a hand; it just happens, and then we become aware of what is going on

K....
weird but does anyone like taco bell? :shrug:

Good response but not one that favours your point of view. It has been demonstrated that when a hand is withdrawn from a hot object any pain involved will not be felt until after the event. We don't consciously make the decision to withdraw a hand; it just happens, and then we become aware of what is going on

Her example isn't the jerking of the hand but of the unpredictable and unexplainable act of lying down and rolling around on a hot stove.

Her example isn't the jerking of the hand but of the unpredictable and unexplainable act of lying down and rolling around on a hot stove.

Lying down and rolling around on a hot stove is purely hypothetical. It would only happen if no alternative response were available. or we were looking at aberrant behaviour.

...I am pleased to label "my self".

hmm
i see a first and third person
which of the two are you?

/happy eek

We don't consciously make the decision to withdraw a hand; it just happens, and then we become aware of what is going on

Umm yeah, and?:confused:

Is it not predictable? Is it not autonomous? Is it not a response to an environmental cue?

If you remove the environmental cue and the predictability, what does the rest tell you?

Umm yeah, and?:confused:

Is it not predictable? Is it not autonomous? Is it not a response to an environmental cue?

If you remove the environmental cue and the predictability, what does the rest tell you?

I thought we were discussing free will. It is not necessarily predictable. A leper would possibly leave a hand on a hot surface or he might not.

oh dear

1. They are universally shown by all members of a species (in the case of those reflexes related to sexual/parental behavior, they are shown by all members of the gender of the species).

2. Reflexes have been inherited because they are adaptive. The environment has selected for those individuals who had a genetic predisposition to behave in this way.

3. They involve an activity that must occur with very little conditioning. For example, a baby does not have time to learn how to suckle.

4. The relationship between the environment (the stimulus) and behavior (the response) is non-arbitrary and relatively little modifiable. For example, food produces salivation. pavlov 101 (http://employees.csbsju.edu/tcreed/pb/pavcon.html)

the hot stove is learned

ps : that sci is anti science was also learned thru attempting to upload "Further evidence for unconscious learning: preliminary support for the conditioning of facial EMG to subliminal stimuli" and failing. :thumbsup:

I thought we were discussing free will. It is not necessarily predictable.

Thats what we were discussing. :)

Ok, well I don't believe you can always predict behaviour. You may have knowledge of a cue and an associated environment, but that is insufficient Isn't that where Brian Skinner went wrong, more or less ?

the hot stove is learned


So in your opinion, conditioning modulates "unconscious" decision making?


Hmm then could memory acquisition, storage and retrieval play a role in the "unconscious" decision making process?


Or is it just the effect of sensitivity to stressful stimuli?


The Drosophila mutants amnesiac, dunce (dnc), and rutabaga were isolated after associative conditioning tests, during which animals were trained to associate the presence of an odor with that of electric shocks (ES). In the absence of conditioning, the odor avoidance (OA) of these mutants was shown to be normal, indicating that their poor associative conditioning performance was attributable to specific learning or memory deficits. However, I show that the OA of the mutants is greatly decreased after their exposure to ES. This effect can last for hours. These results strongly suggest that part of the defect displayed by these mutants in associative conditioning tests does not correspond to a learning or memory deficit but might arise from abnormal sensitivity to stressful stimuli.
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/20/8534

So in your opinion, conditioning modulates "unconscious" decision making?


of course
a baby learns not to suckle jes any ole tit

furthermore...

In the first two hours after birth, the baby is in a quiet, alert state, and will be the most willing to nurse. The infant's suckling reflex is strongest from 45 to 120 minutes following birth. "Delaying gratification of this reflex can make it more difficult for the infant to learn to suckle later on." (Riordan and Auerbach 283) Following those first two hours the baby may be quite sleepy and not very willing to nurse for as long as 24 hours (Riordan and Auerbach 284).


mmph
the reflex appears to be transitory. it has to be reinforced at later stage by conditioning

Hmm then could memory acquisition, storage and retrieval play a role in the "unconscious" decision making process?


ja
that determines reaction times. all eminently modifiable. for instance, compare the village idiot to a navy seal.


Or is it just the effect of sensitivity to stressful stimuli?


i fail to see the distinction

/eek

mutant babies (http://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVOctNov99p99.html)

Do reflexes from infancy persist or do they fade away? ;)

And what does it mean if they persist?

bah
you gotta be jerking me off

You're the one harping on conditioning. :bugeye:

Aincha heard of the APGAR score? Or the rooting reflex? Or the sucking reflex? Or other some such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflexes)?



http://z.about.com/f/p/440/graphics/images/en/9074.jpg

how dare you!
how dare you call me a harpy

/happier eek

lookee here, bitch
a revelation from google must be checked for relevance well before one utilizes as taking points or simply, a game of oneupmanship

Aincha heard of the APGAR score? Or the rooting reflex? Or the sucking reflex? Or other some such (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflexes)?


did i not goddamn introduce the rooting/suckling reflex 5 goddamn posts up?
you have the goddamn gall to allege ignorance on my part when the reference is in plain goddamn sight?

/happiest eek :D

how dare you!
how dare you call me a harpy

/happier eek

lookee here, bitch
a revelation from google must be checked for relevance well before one utilizes as taking points or simply, a game of oneupmanship




did i not goddamn introduce the rooting/suckling reflex 5 goddamn posts up?
you have the goddamn gall to allege ignorance on my part when the reference is in plain goddamn sight?

/happiest eek :D

Are you sure the delayed sucking is not due to the stress of separation anxiety, rather than anything to do with conditioning?:mad:

Do reflexes from infancy persist or do they fade away? ;)

And what does it mean if they persist?

alright
you are not jerking me off

the mature joe tends not to suckle. he mods suckle to a suck
persistence would indicate infantilism and other pathologies

but you knew that, did'nt you sam?

alright
you are not jerking me off

the mature joe tends not to suckle. he mods suckle to a suck
persistence would indicate infantilism and other pathologies

but you knew that, did'nt you sam?

I'm tapping your brain.

Hmm so we have instinct, unconscious premeditation and- conscious reasoning based on both (or not).

I've always wondered if intelligence or reasoning or conscious learning modulated unconscious decision making and thus eroded the effect of instinct. Does honing instinctual behaviour make it more premeditated?

Bah. Humbug.

With women it's 10 seconds.

Bah. Humbug.

With women it's 10 seconds.

Moderator note:

Substantiate. :mad:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64638

Are you sure the delayed sucking is not due to the stress of separation anxiety, rather than anything to do with conditioning?:mad:


"delayed gratification" as referenced by Riordan and Auerbach probably indicated a situ when the parent/child were denied physical proximity due to any number of reasons. the baby was on life support. the mother, post partum depression. hospital policies. whatnot

the reflexes rarely persist as it is not advantageous for the growth of the organism. eyeball.....

*Stepping reflex: ................. This remarkable reflex fades rapidly but reappears months later as learned voluntary behavior in preparation for true walking

*Tonic neck reflex: .............. Because it is difficult to turn over on an outstretched arm, this reflex must fade before your baby can roll over.

*Moro reflex: .......................... By three months of age, this reflex disappears (Michael Meyerhoff, EDD)



Hmm so we have instinct, unconscious premeditation and- conscious reasoning based on both (or not).

I've always wondered if intelligence or reasoning or conscious learning modulated unconscious decision making and thus eroded the effect of instinct. Does honing instinctual behaviour make it more premeditated?


well yeah but you make premeditation seem like a bad thing and instinct as a good thing. homo sapiens are crap. we need to be patched and modded pronto

Moderator note:

Substantiate. :mad:

uhh
you understood the ref? 10 secs of what?

..I am pleased to label "my self".
”
hmm
i see a first and third person
which of the two are you? And a second, if you look closely. "I", in that context, am all three.

The important aspect is the physical nature of the entity that has the will that exhibits the freedom - it's an immaterial pattern of action (simplistic analogy: whirlpool) operating on a fairly high "logical level" (in Bateson's sense). Its behavior is not determined by the material state of its substrate at any moment.

i can buy that
thoughts presuppose a thinker and vice versa
labeling is merely aesthetics

as for the rest....patterns/substrates/matrices/quantum/implicate/hologram/potential/interference/reiku/whatnot......love it. love it a lot ;)