free will, volition, choice oh my!

[Deleted]

May 8, 2014 16:28:15 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 7, 2014 15:59:37 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

As far as I know Libet didn't talk about self.

As I recall, Libet asked has subjects, whenever you choose to do so, lift your finger. What else could he have meant?

I think that was his whole point............

sdp

I don't know -- I haven't looked at Libet's philosophical musings. It's hard to instruct volunteers to do stuff without using proper pronouns and such. So it could be that he's just wanting to be efficient with communication and not necessarily implying that "felt intention to lift finger" = self/consciousness.

[Deleted]

May 10, 2014 23:09:28 GMT -5 enigma said:

May 7, 2014 16:05:10 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Libet, as far as I know, sidesteps that by focusing on 'felt intention' which is reported by the subjects. Definitely squishy.

It may be squishy science, but the marker of interest here is, when do I consciously acknowledge my intention? That's the point at which will is volitionally exercised regardless of what happens before that in some pre-conscious mode. The action is referenced to that, and it turns out the action occurs first.

Implications of Libet's experiments[edit]
Libet's experiments suggest to some[7] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."[8]

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[9][10]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).

Libet's experiments have received support from other research related to the Neuroscience of free will.

Reactions by dualist philosophers[edit]

It has been suggested that consciousness is merely a side-effect of neuronal functions, an epiphenomenon of brain states. Libet's experiments are proffered in support of this theory; our reports of conscious instigation of our own acts are, in this view, a mistake of retrospection. However, some dualist philosophers have disputed this conclusion:

In short, the [neuronal] causes and correlates of conscious experience should not be confused with their ontology [...] the only evidence about what conscious experiences are like comes from first-person sources, which consistently suggest consciousness to be something other than or additional to neuronal activity.[11]

A more general criticism from a dualist-interactionist perspective has been raised by Alexander Batthyany[12] who points out that Libet asked his subjects to merely "let the urge [to move] appear on its own at any time without any pre-planning or concentration on when to act".[13] According to Batthyany, neither reductionist nor non-reductionist agency theories claim that urges which appear on their own are suitable examples of (allegedly) consciously caused events because one cannot passively wait for an urge to occur while at the same time being the one who is consciously bringing it about. Libet's results thus cannot be interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism, since non-reductionist theories, even including dualist interactionism, would predict the very same experimental results.

Timing issues[edit]
Daniel Dennett argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Libet's experiment because of ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved. Libet tells when the readiness potential occurs objectively, using electrodes, but relies on the subject reporting the position of the hand of a clock to determine when the conscious decision was made. As Dennett points out, this is only a report of where it seems to the subject that various things come together, not of the objective time at which they actually occur.

Suppose Libet knows that your readiness potential peaked at millisecond 6,810 of the experimental trial, and the clock dot was straight down (which is what you reported you saw) at millisecond 7,005. How many milliseconds should he have to add to this number to get the time you were conscious of it? The light gets from your clock face to your eyeball almost instantaneously, but the path of the signals from retina through lateral geniculate nucleus to striate cortex takes 5 to 10 milliseconds — a paltry fraction of the 300 milliseconds offset, but how much longer does it take them to get to you. (Or are you located in the striate cortex?) The visual signals have to be processed before they arrive at wherever they need to arrive for you to make a conscious decision of simultaneity. Libet's method presupposes, in short, that we can locate the intersection of two trajectories: • the rising-to-consciousness of signals representing the decision to flick • the rising to consciousness of signals representing successive clock-face orientations so that these events occur side-by-side as it were in place where their simultaneity can be noted.

[enigma]

May 13, 2014 7:43:51 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

May 10, 2014 23:09:28 GMT -5 enigma said:

It may be squishy science, but the marker of interest here is, when do I consciously acknowledge my intention? That's the point at which will is volitionally exercised regardless of what happens before that in some pre-conscious mode. The action is referenced to that, and it turns out the action occurs first.

Implications of Libet's experiments[edit]
Libet's experiments suggest to some[7] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."[8]

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[9][10]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).

Libet's experiments have received support from other research related to the Neuroscience of free will.

According to Batthyany, neither reductionist nor non-reductionist agency theories claim that urges which appear on their own are suitable examples of (allegedly) consciously caused events because one cannot passively wait for an urge to occur while at the same time being the one who is consciously bringing it about. Libet's results thus cannot be interpreted to provide empirical evidence in favour of agency reductionism, since non-reductionist theories, even including dualist interactionism, would predict the very same experimental results.

But if the theory is correct, that's the only way it could occur. We do, in fact, passively wait for all urges to occur. If the alternative is to actively intervene so as to initiate the urge, that would, itself, be the arising of the urge which is being reported.

Daniel Dennett argues that no clear conclusion about volition can be derived from Libet's experiment because of ambiguities in the timings of the different events involved. Libet tells when the readiness potential occurs objectively, using electrodes, but relies on the subject reporting the position of the hand of a clock to determine when the conscious decision was made. As Dennett points out, this is only a report of where it seems to the subject that various things come together, not of the objective time at which they actually occur.

The experiment is about the relationship between subjective urge and objective movement, so one cannot dismiss the subjective part as not being sufficiently objective. We want to know when the subject is subjectively, consciously aware of the urge because until this happens, there is no possibility of volitional activity.

As for timing problems, baseline data was taken to determine what those delays are. I believe something was flashed on the screen, whereupon the subject noted the position of this pointer. In this way, the timing relationship between RP and pointer notation could be factored in.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 12, 2014 13:11:03 GMT -5 @rupa said:

May 12, 2014 10:59:12 GMT -5 topology said:

At what point do the rungs stop?

At what point does a person decide to stop trying to climb to the next rung?

When they realize fulfillment can never been found in the next(future) rung.

You would be surprised, fulfillment can be an obstacle.

sdp

[stardustpilgrim]

May 12, 2014 10:59:12 GMT -5 topology said:

May 10, 2014 21:23:55 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view.

The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down.

My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof).

So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ In my view, there are meaningful, differentiated "rungs", and interior practices using attention and awareness are the means of moving from one rung to another. It all has to do with the transformation of energy and the saving of the energy to-and-of a higher rung which makes participation thereof possible.

sdp

At what point do the rungs stop?

At what point does a person decide to stop trying to climb to the next rung?

That's an excellent question. It depends upon your aim. If your aim is fulfilled, you stop. Your aim can change, or you can find a new aim. The question is, what is your wish? Most people have superficial aims, everything depends upon you.

sdp

[enigma]

May 13, 2014 12:20:59 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 12, 2014 13:11:03 GMT -5 @rupa said:

When they realize fulfillment can never been found in the next(future) rung.

You would be surprised, fulfillment can be an obstacle.

sdp

Yes, fulfillment occurs repeatedly. (Can probably be found right now lurking in one's fridge) If it stopped occurring, desire for new fulfillment would fade. The 'problem' is that satisfaction, as with all feeling, is a movement, and therefore temporary. Fulfillment is the beginning of the end of that particular movement.

[Deleted]

Choose and get happy, in less than a minute!

[enigma]

May 14, 2014 8:41:18 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Choose and get happy, in less than a minute!

Do ya hafta be unconscious for that to work?

[Deleted]

May 14, 2014 9:58:53 GMT -5 enigma said:

May 14, 2014 8:41:18 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Choose and get happy, in less than a minute!

Do ya hafta be unconscious for that to work?

That's a toughy. I'd say, at minimum, you hafta be unhappy for it to work. Now, is it possible to be consciously unhappy? And if so, is it possible to be consciously happy and have the smile effect the endorphs in the same way? Time for an experiment!

[enigma]

May 14, 2014 11:42:23 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

May 14, 2014 9:58:53 GMT -5 enigma said:

Do ya hafta be unconscious for that to work?

That's a toughy. I'd say, at minimum, you hafta be unhappy for it to work. Now, is it possible to be consciously unhappy? And if so, is it possible to be consciously happy and have the smile effect the endorphs in the same way? Time for an experiment!

It reminds me of all those advertising tricks, and the frightening thing is that they work.

[laughter]

May 14, 2014 11:42:23 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

May 14, 2014 9:58:53 GMT -5 enigma said:

Do ya hafta be unconscious for that to work?

That's a toughy. I'd say, at minimum, you hafta be unhappy for it to work. Now, is it possible to be consciously unhappy? And if so, is it possible to be consciously happy and have the smile effect the endorphs in the same way? Time for an experiment!

Ha! "all the worlds a stage..."

The emoter does not emote he is emoted.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2014 20:44:31 GMT -5 enigma said:

May 14, 2014 11:42:23 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

That's a toughy. I'd say, at minimum, you hafta be unhappy for it to work. Now, is it possible to be consciously unhappy? And if so, is it possible to be consciously happy and have the smile effect the endorphs in the same way? Time for an experiment!

It reminds me of all those advertising tricks, and the frightening thing is that they work.

Why is it frightening?


Just a thing that happens...

[enigma]

May 14, 2014 21:18:17 GMT -5 @empty said:

May 14, 2014 20:44:31 GMT -5 enigma said:

It reminds me of all those advertising tricks, and the frightening thing is that they work.

Why is it frightening?


Just a thing that happens...

It denotes unconsciousness, which results in vulnerability to manipulation and various other modes of suffering.

[Deleted]

Background: I find the arguments for free will and volition being an illusion of mind to be very convincing. See Sam Harris' Free Will for a very clear and concise delivery of those arguments. He's a neuroscientist, philosopher, and has already had an 'awakening' of some sort (involving seeing through the illusion of selfhood). He's also a vocal atheist.

Recently I've found myself drawn to a number of podcasts and essays by bloggers and such that are into productivity, excellence, "biohacking" and self improvement related subjects in general. All of their arguments rest on the presence of Free Will and self. One book I am reading now basically warns against those irony-addled writers who claim free will does not exist. Leads to passivity among other things. (On a side note, I ran into Sam Harris' book on Free Will and his awakening story Waking Up, via one of these efficiency/excellence podcasts. Evidently the host has yet to ponder the veracity of Free Will or or no-self arguments that Harris has made.)

Before, I would touch on these 'how to improve yourself' topics with quite a bit of skepticism. The skepticism was primarily moralistic, based on skepticism of greedy snake-oil salesmen. There was a political bent to the skepticism as it turns out many of these productivity folks are enamored by Ayn Rand to greater or lesser degrees (on Rand, her essay title The Virtue of Selfishness pretty neatly summarizes her views).

Nonetheless it's been partly amusing to read and list to these self-improvement spiels from within a perspective where free will and volition are seen as more mind magic. The internal comment is something like "and here I am being exposed to how-to tricks that assume something that does not exist." And I have implemented some of these practical solutions founded on illusion, with success! And that's funny too.

Seems to me the free will and self illusions evolved as mental tools which increase survivability on a small, local scale. (On a global scale, it could be argued that this survival mechanism could be the global downfall.) Does anyone have tips to writers proposing that angle?

[laughter]

Feb 9, 2015 14:26:00 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Background: I find the arguments for free will and volition being an illusion of mind to be very convincing. See Sam Harris' Free Will for a very clear and concise delivery of those arguments. He's a neuroscientist, philosopher, and has already had an 'awakening' of some sort (involving seeing through the illusion of selfhood). He's also a vocal atheist.

Recently I've found myself drawn to a number of podcasts and essays by bloggers and such that are into productivity, excellence, "biohacking" and self improvement related subjects in general. All of their arguments rest on the presence of Free Will and self. One book I am reading now basically warns against those irony-addled writers who claim free will does not exist. Leads to passivity among other things. (On a side note, I ran into Sam Harris' book on Free Will and his awakening story Waking Up, via one of these efficiency/excellence podcasts. Evidently the host has yet to ponder the veracity of Free Will or or no-self arguments that Harris has made.)

Before, I would touch on these 'how to improve yourself' topics with quite a bit of skepticism. The skepticism was primarily moralistic, based on skepticism of greedy snake-oil salesmen. There was a political bent to the skepticism as it turns out many of these productivity folks are enamored by Ayn Rand to greater or lesser degrees (on Rand, her essay title The Virtue of Selfishness pretty neatly summarizes her views).

Nonetheless it's been partly amusing to read and list to these self-improvement spiels from within a perspective where free will and volition are seen as more mind magic. The internal comment is something like "and here I am being exposed to how-to tricks that assume something that does not exist." And I have implemented some of these practical solutions founded on illusion, with success! And that's funny too.

Seems to me the free will and self illusions evolved as mental tools which increase survivability on a small, local scale. (On a global scale, it could be argued that this survival mechanism could be the global downfall.) Does anyone have tips to writers proposing that angle?

All I know is that it's really cool that you're noticing the skepticism as it arises.