From thought to beer

[FBM]

Hmm. I'm not sure that just setting up the experiment with different parameters effectively refutes Libet's and Haynes' results. I'd like to see something done that tries to mimic everyday life situations as much as possible. I'm trying to figure out whether or not using the tone stimulus was a good approach.

[Rob]

I think this has a higher discussion potential; Maybe it should get moved to a the lounge subforum or the science/tech forum.

[JimC]

I think this has a higher discussion potential; Maybe it should get moved to a the lounge subforum or the science/tech forum.

OK, science it is...

(In the OP is permission to move if required...)

[SpeedOfSound]

I don't know guys. This paper is pretty weak.

we expect that it would be larger before a decision to move than before a decision not to move.

I believe ERP's are recorded if you simply watch someone else move or wait for them to move. (trying to find relevant papers) I would expect a significant ERP to be present for both a suppressed and an enacted movement. Depending on where the measurements are taken. I'm surprised because I thought this was pretty basic knowledge.

But let's back up. The subject is Consciously prepared to do the task and has Consciously agreed to do it. Or not to. In other words the gun is loaded and has been cocked. Consciousness creates a context (see Baars global workspace theory) and this is running around in the background. It is causal but not consciously causal at the moment of initiation. ANY conscious activity will consist of dozens of unconscious preparations, plans, and evocations.

On the other hand many unconscious processes could inspire us to get up and do something with little conscious thought. Throw a vase at someone and ask when they became conscious enough to duck. Drink a gallon of water and watch a good movie.

This is way too complicated to make free-will philosophy based on a few electrodes glued to a skull. There is always a vast mix of U and C processes going on and inter-playing. None of this has anything at all to do with letting criminals off the hook. In particular if you have a killer that kills with absolutely no conscious intent I kind of want him off the streets before anyone else.


Anyway. Still on the first page.

[SpeedOfSound]

It's not just philosophers. A lot of neuroscientists are trying to figure out whether or not we are morally or legally responsible for our actions, and are doing experiments to see if the decision-making process is already complete by the time we consciously perceive the decision. If it all happens in our unconscious (the experiments so far suggest that at least some of them are made up to 10 seconds before conscious awareness of the decision is reported), then how can we be held responsible for unconscious actions that happen in our brains? In what way is that volitional? This has wide-ranging implications for criminal justice.

http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publica ... tyNN01.pdf

You can also Google Benjamin Libet and John-Dylan Haynes for more on their experiments.

This is the right level to be pursuing this free-will thing. At the neuron. It's the only place we can hope to make sense of it all.

But here is what's interesting. We all have a sort of an agreement that if consciousness is not involved then the person isn't guilty. Some want to go even further and say that if it isn't conscious all of the time, from beginning to end, that the person isn't guilty.

There is this persistent idea of the mind making a conscious choice at the moment of action. I suggest that this is firmly rooted in the idea of Cartesian dualism. We humans stink of the stuff.