I saw a BBC show on television about consciousness and its location in the brain. The scientist on duty said that consciousness is not another centre in the brain. It is what comes from the complex interaction of all the brain activity. This was shown by doing Ketamine experiments. Consciousness changes under the influence of this drug, because brain activity is altered. Then there was a test in which a subject had to stop a clock at will by pressing a button while her brain activity was being measured. She then had to indicate at what time exactly she decided to stop the clock. The graph showed that the motoric parts of the brain had built up activity before the conscious activity of pressing the button. The conclusion was that free will is not proven. Our actions could very well be directed by our unconsciousness. Our 'free will' is then used to justify the action. There was another interesting experiment to show this. A man had his brain halfs separated for medical reasons. No information could pass from one side to the other. He sat before a screen that projected words. The words on the right side of the screen, he knew he saw, because the right eye gives information to the left brain half and this brain half is responsible for words and understanding. The words on the left, he couldn't read. He could draw the objects however. He 'saw' the word phone, and drew something that looked like a phone. But he said it looked like a shoe. Then he justified why he drew a shoe. So it is possible that our actions are governed by the unconscious. Now I was thinking: could it be possible that we are just conditioned machines? That it is possible to condition ourselves, that everything is conditioning upon conditioning, while all the time we try to justifie what we do? Could it be that we are pure conditioned beings? The only thing we can do is change the conditions and hope (?) we react good. But the reactions themselves are not our doing. Any enlightment would be welcome.
those are all well known phenomenon. and don't really mean anything about consciousness. "She then had to indicate at what time exactly she decided to stop the clock. The graph showed that the motoric parts of the brain had built up activity before the conscious activity of pressing the button. " this just shows that various things don't activate at the same ecaxt time. she reports deciding after she has actually decided. does that make sense. the internal "i have decided to push the button" comes slightly after you actually push the button. it takes some time to think out loud "i am now pushing the button". so it is no surprise that the time she reports is different. we are not privy by introspection to all that is going on inside your brain. think about reflexes. You never really decide on them, they just happen. even with stuff that you just do fast. like say if you play any sports. sometimes you just act and don't sit there introspecting about every move, that will actually slow you down. 'So it is possible that our actions are governed by the unconscious." of course there are plenty of things going on that you are not really conscious of. you're breathing right now aren't you. you don't sit there and consciously decide to breath. also there are plenty of things you contol that you don't really think out loud "i am now doing this". you just do it. like if i were too shove you. you would pretty quickly do whatever you needed to not fall down. that's pretty automatic. you don't have to think "oh i'd better find someway to not fall" i don't see how this meeans that we are conditioned. unless you think that any sort of activity going on that is not up for introspection is conditioning.
Yes, that is the point. It is only after the action is decided upon, that we become conscious of the fact that we have decided. So our actions are not governed by the voice in our head that we call our self. Decisions are made before the entity that we call "me" actualy decides, making the "I" nothing more than something to make up excuses for our actions. Reflexes are the most obvious example of this. In sports, we don't have time to make up explanations for our actions. We are conditioned to hit the ball, then we act without intervention of what we consider our decision maker. The lady in the test pushes when she wants to push, at a certain point on the clock, and she names that point. THEN the brain activity before the pushing and the naming is measured. It shows that the decision to push was way before the action itself. It is not just a matter of interval between decision and pushing.
so, why does it matter that when i decided to do something, as indicated by activity in my brain, it comes slightly before my little internal monologue knows it?
It means that what we consider free will, is just an interpretation of something that was already decided by our subconscious. This is not a matter of reaction time differences. It means that we move before we decide to move, to put it in broad terms.
Well, maybe we're all insane? Maybe we're not functioning like we were made to. I play alot of Counter-Strike and sometimes when I play a serious game, it has happened that I completely disconnect from what I would call myself and just react. I think there's something we all build up that sort of gets in the way of our core. It's obvious when you play. Maybe it's not going very well for me so I try to think of something that will make it work. Well, guess what, it's just not working, I really have disconnect (or rather connect) with myself and just trust my reactions and my brain to do the job.
A4Ever, Let me see if I can show you how I see this issue... Firstly, it takes a change in focus. I gather that you are thinking about this issue from a dualistic western pov, meaning the mind and body, consciousness and brain are two separate things. I think if you look at it from a more eastern monist pov these issues make more sense. An eastern pov doesn't do any separation. Think of it this way... You are a collection of organisms working together in a system, a gestalt. There is a part of you that is the "foreman" so to speak, this is consciousness. This alone isn't you, but it's the part that makes the "managerial decisions". When a decision is made by consciousness, the non-consciousness processes take over. These decisions aren't always carried out, and a lot of times the sub-organizations make decisions for the gestalt. Nevertheless it's all you. So what does this mean in terms of freewill and determinism. It's all word play. When taken the "eastern" scenario above, you could argue either way. Freewill and Determinism are models of rationality, and like all models, they don't completely describe how the world is. My personal opinion is that they are rather shotty models. As for the button pushing experiment that you described, think of it this way. The woman made a decision to push the button even before the experiment had begun, she had been instructed to. After knowing what was expected of her and deciding to participate in the experiment, she then left it up to the non-consciousness part to take over. In this way you could label this activity "freewill".
Check out a theory by Johnjoe McFadden. It essentially states that human consciousness is merely an EMF created by the brains electrical activity. I like this theory primarily because it lends creedance to some of my own theories. This doesn't make it correct, but it may make me right. I'm obviously biased, but it is worth taking a look at. I hope this helps put a path under your feet.
The button pushing experiment (originally by Libet) are well known but are not considered conclusive in any particular regard by the folk who argue about these things - there are too many variables and, as Xenu said, the decision to push the button was made (and planned) by the subject long before any particular button push. Third-person scientific theories about consciousness are two a penny - and all entirely speculative as yet, including EM fields, quantum effects on tubules, epiphenominalism, supervenience, complex mechanical self-reference etc etc. There is no concensus as to what it is, never mind how it works. We know no more about it (scientifically) now than we ever did, not surprising since it's only in the last few years that science has recognised its existence as an acceptable topic of conversation (and many think it still isn't). This is good news. It means we each know as much about consciousness as any expert based on our own experience. Quite a lot is known about the brain, but that's another matter, if you'll excuse the pun.
If we adopt the common defintion of consciousness as being 'what it is like', and as there is clearly something that it is like for our brains to be active, then there is inarguably a connection. Of course in itself this does not tell us anything about whether they are the same thing thing or not.
Canute, Exactly! I am glad finally somebody else has shown up who knows about this subject. Xenu, you still have a dualism. Maybe even worse: a multi-alisme. Merlijn .... still feeling happy about reading words like "third-person scientific theories" on these forums! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
