Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:
Haynes(2008) has a prediction rate of up to 88%, and they can also predict determining factors up to 10 seconds a head of time.

Haynes' conclusion: "Thus, a network of high-level control areas can begin to shape an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness."

chaz wyman wrote:
Please pay attention.
I did not quote nor cite Haynes

chaz wyman wrote:
PS I don't give much credence to a pro-christian popular science magazine.

My citations included 3 British professors of Philosphy at top universities talking on IOT (BBC), and probably the best science TV programme in the world; Horizon also BBC.

MGL wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Haynes(2008) has a prediction rate of up to 88%, and they can also predict determining factors up to 10 seconds a head of time.

Haynes' conclusion: "Thus, a network of high-level control areas can begin to shape an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness."

Thank you for the reference, but now please explain why this demonstrates Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered. It certainly suggests there are processes going on in the brain that favour one decision rather than another. Indeed, I would go so far to say there are processes outside the brain that occur minutes, hours and years in advance that favour one decision rather than another. But this is what I would expect whether there is free will or not. At most it demonstrates that humans may find it difficult to exert free will, which I have no problem accepting, but not that it is impossible.

You will have to read the article yourself. it is quite plain.
Free-will without a conscious choice is not choice at all. You must have a idiosyncratic view of free-will , maybe you should try to define what you mean by it?
Personally I don't give a rat's arse for Haynes - he has just confirmed what every respectable Philosopher has said about the issue. The idea of the will is compatible with determinism but the idea of free-will is a fantasy.
There are perfectly good philosophical reason why this is true, as I have demonstrated in several places on this Forum.
Hume said all that need be said on the subject.
The notion that you have a choice that does not have to include determining factors such as your genetics, experience and motivation is bankrupt, and is only favoured by Christians and those that have not managed to extricate themselves of the Christian fantasy of shame and blame.

chaz wyman wrote:
Please pay attention.
I did not quote nor cite Haynes

I never said you did.
Please pay attention.

chaz wyman wrote:
You said:"The links you cite do not support your claim that Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered."
Since you have not followed up on either of the links I did make (I know this because they do actually support that claim) , then you can only have been talking about Haynes, which I had not seen up to that point.
But it is now clear that no only have NO knowledge of the 2 things I cited but you have NO knowledge of the the Haynes.
The conclusion is that you are talking bollocks- because all 3 sources support the claim of determinism.

MGL wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
You said:"The links you cite do not support your claim that Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered."
Since you have not followed up on either of the links I did make (I know this because they do actually support that claim) , then you can only have been talking about Haynes, which I had not seen up to that point.
But it is now clear that no only have NO knowledge of the 2 things I cited but you have NO knowledge of the the Haynes.
The conclusion is that you are talking bollocks- because all 3 sources support the claim of determinism.

MGL wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Haynes(2008) has a prediction rate of up to 88%, and they can also predict determining factors up to 10 seconds a head of time.

Thank you for the reference. . . .

ughaibu wrote:

MGL wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Haynes(2008) has a prediction rate of up to 88%, and they can also predict determining factors up to 10 seconds a head of time.

Thank you for the reference. . . .

The 88% given is not the rate of successful prediction, naturally, as this work is exactly that which gained so much attention at the time. The rate of successful prediction was around 63%.

ughaibu wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/ ... 7023a.html "Haynes and his team could predict a left or right button press with only 60% accuracy at best"

http://www2.gsu.edu/~phlean/papers/Scie ... e_Will.pdf " ‘ predictions ’ (actually post - hoc correlations) could be made with only 60 percent
accuracy"

Recent replication: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0021612 "statistically significant decoding accuracies of up to 57%"

In any case, let's imagine that Haynes achieved 100% predictive success, with the given methodology, how would this demonstrate that decisions are made pre-consciously?

chaz wyman wrote:No secular philosopher would support the notion of free-will.

chaz wyman wrote: If you have access to these sources then by all means investigate them and tell me why you don't like them.

ried's experiments showed that there was activity in individual neurons of particular brain areas about a second and a half before the subject made a conscious decision to press a button. With about 700 milliseconds to go, the researchers could predict the timing of that decision with more than 80% accuracy. "At some point, things that are predetermined are admitted into consciousness," says Fried. The conscious will might be added on to a decision at a later stage, he suggests.

Sir John was a Presbyterian elder and active in his denomination (also serving on the board of the American Bible Society), he espoused what he called a "humble approach" to theology. Declaring that relatively little is known about the divine through scripture and present-day theology, he predicted that "scientific revelations may be a gold mine for revitalizing religion in the 21st century." To his mind, "All of nature reveals something of the creator. And god is revealing himself more and more to human inquiry, not always through prophetic visions or scriptures but through the astonishingly productive research of modern scientists."

People who form their knowledge from Faith are no ultimate threat to science.

The entire basis of the backlash against the neuroscience is solely due to this Foundation, And Nature is offering a rather tongue in cheek, though subtle refutation of this move.
There is not doubt that the Templeton Foundation is a very powerful institution, but there is nothing of any importance to emerge from it if you are a freethinker.
Despite this there is no doubt that Nature does not think much of the challenge offered by the Templeton Foundation despite the 4 million.

Thanks for linking it. I take this as positive confirmation of the concept of determinism.

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:No secular philosopher would support the notion of free-will.

Another assertion which is trivially false by demonstration.

chaz wyman wrote:Okay Name ONE SECULAR philosopher that argues a case against determinism.

MGL wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: If you have access to these sources then by all means investigate them and tell me why you don't like them.

I have already watched the Horizon documentary and listened to the IOT radio podcast and told you why I don't agree with their and your conclusions, but for your benefit I will recap.


1) Haynes' conclusion: "Thus, a network of high-level control areas can begin to shape an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness."
2) Summary of the LIbet experiment - an action potential occurs before a subject is aware of making a conscious choice
3) My interpretation: there are processes going on in the brain that precede the awarenes of a decision that favour one decision rather than another
4) This not the same as saying that decisions themselves are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered, which is what you are claiming.

Sorry it is only a differnce of semantics. You have just shot yourself in the foot.

5) At most it demonstrates that humans may find it difficult to exert free will, which I have no problem accepting, but not that it is impossible.

Yeah so difficult that there is not one single example you can show, that cannot more easily be explained and is more rational than airy-fairy free-will.


Your last response to these points was:


1) You will have to read the article yourself. it is quite plain.

Can you tell me which bit of the article I missed or misunderstood and explain what interpretation I should have come to other than (3)?

3 has it. Everything after 3 is bullshit.
Because 3 confirms determinism, whilst you have nothing to support free-will.



2) Free-will without a conscious choice is not choice at all. You must have a idiosyncratic view of free-will , maybe you should try to define what you mean by it?

I have tried before, without success,


Hey - no shit!

but I get the impression this is because you refuse to acknowledge the coherence of probablistic\non-deterministic causation without specifying your worries with it. So all I can do is refer you to Robert Kane's work and see if he can make more sense to you than I do.

If Kane made any sense to you, then You would be able to explain his bullshit. He is motivated by his right wing political agenda, which rests on a justification of oppression of working people and those in society are poor, because he wishes to deny then mitigating circumstance; rather he has to convince himself to avoid moral problems that the poor choose to be poor. He's a Texan good old-time religion boy of the worst sort.



3) The idea of the will is compatible with determinism but the idea of free-will is a fantasy. There are perfectly good philosophical reason why this is true, as I have demonstrated in several places on this Forum.
Hume said all that need be said on the subject.

You have certainly demonstrated it could be a fantasy, but not that it necessarily is a fantasy, except by defining free-will in extremely narrow terms that requires it to exclude causal factors such as genetics, experience and motivation.

We cannot be free of who we are. It is essential to us all that we make our choices based on what we understand our situation to be, and that is determined by our experience. Were we to have the same circumstances again our choice would have to be the same, otherwise it would not be our choice, but a random one.