You write about waves of “electrical activity.” The movement of potential differences across the membrane of a neuronal process is electrical activity. But you’re confusing this with electromagnetic waves.
“Neural oscillations, or brainwaves, are rhythmic or repetitive patterns of neural activity in the central nervous system. Neural tissue can generate oscillatory activity in many ways, driven either by mechanisms within individual neurons or by interactions between neurons. In individual neurons, oscillations can appear either as oscillations in membrane potential or as rhythmic patterns of action potentials, which then produce oscillatory activation of postsynaptic neurons. At the level of neural ensembles, synchronized activity of large numbers of neurons can give rise to macroscopic oscillations, which can be observed in an electroencephalogram. Oscillatory activity in groups of neurons generally arises from feedback connections between the neurons that result in the synchronization of their firing patterns.” ( Neural oscillation - Wikipedia)
If you read the article I quoted, the author hypothesizes that there is also necessarily EM waves involved. The electrical waves measured by EEG are the macro manifestation of an underlying electromagnetic activity.
Contrary to what you imply, the exact source of the electrical waves is unknown. What you state is theory. The author of the article I referenced has a different theory. He hypothesizes a source of infrared EM sufficient to maintain coherence at the dendrite/soma junction, also possibly within the soma itself.
If this is accurate, neural signals are propagated lengthwise as electricity, not primarily by diffusion, and thus achieve what can somewhat liberally be regarded as relativistic speeds that slightly increase electron mass, most likely much greater than 10% the speed of light and probably closer to 50% or higher. We know from many technological applications that electrical currents which accelerate at relativistic speeds emit EM radiation of longer wavelength, and decelerating electric current shorter wavelengths.
At this point, it seems more possible to model coherence current behavior within the soma, between the base of dendrites and the axon hillock. An axon hillock has the largest quantity of Na+ channels and Na+ ions in a neuron, and dendrite/soma junctions are where Cl− channels and Cl− ions are concentrated. Reuptake of Na+ within the soma, upstream of the axon hillock, remains somewhat less than in the rest of the neuron due to greater volume, which is also the case with K+, so a fairly steady gradient of positive ions ranging from highest concentration at the axon hillock to gradually lower concentrations while approaching the dendrites is maintained. Cl− reuptake must be efficient enough that most of this ion’s concentration cycles near the dendrite/soma junctions as a result of diffusion.
What I wrote is knowledge taught in universities and repeatedly confirmed in practice. The article you cited, even in the passage you quoted, begins with the word “If this is accurate.” I’ve seen this article before and couldn’t find any proven conclusions that could play a role in the decision-making process.
As I said it’s just unproven theory, regardless of who has been teaching it. Despite what you might think, your claim that there is no coherence has not been confirmed in practice.
On the other hand, that human beings willfully choose between real possibilities has been confirmed in practice. This has been known and understood for thousands of years, and the theory of free will has been developed over this time to account for what this evidence demonstrates to us.
Therefore it is misguided science to follow a theory which excludes the possibility of free will, because it has already been falsified by that vast evidence. So you’d be heading in a much truer direction if you follow theories similar to the one I presented for your metaphysical speculations, rather than ones which are contrary to the evidence, such as what you claim.
Why do you willfully choose deterministic theories which are contrary to your own experience? Is it because they appear to simplify the matter?
According to the authors of this study, the reason why the electrical field of the brain is commonly studied, and the magnetic aspect is often ignored, is that the latter is much more difficult and more expensive to measure.
Let me try to explain. I’ll outline it in brief statements, and you can simply pick out the points you disagree with, okay?
- No one denies the fact that people consciously imagine themselves making a choice. We actually feel that way.
- We need to imagine a conscious choice so that our thinking organ (the brain) can decide which action is best at a given moment. This is why we developed this phenomenon.
- Our choices are made at a subconscious level before we consciously realize it. This has been confirmed in experiments.
- At a subconscious level, decisions are influenced by factors we may not be consciously aware of.
- The study of the brain has led to the understanding that subconscious choices are influenced by a subconscious comparison of the positive and negative consequences of a choice.
Therefore, no one disputes that we imagine this way, and no one disputes that this phenomenon plays a very important role in our lives. Rather, we’re talking about the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. For example, no one disputes that we see different colors, but we’ve already understood that this is merely a subjective perception of photons with different energies. Does this knowledge negate the existence of the concept of color? No, it doesn’t. Likewise, the discovery of objective, subconscious decision-making doesn’t negate the subjective perception of “free will.”
I am interested in understanding how consciousness arises from unconscious things. Do you have any explanation? I am all ears.
There is no denying that the brain is complex. The point is that the processes that occur in the brain are completely unconscious, so the question is how consciousness may arise from unconscious processes.
“The electromagnetic field (EMF) of the human brain generated by the movement of ions in the brain can be measured in a novel manner. The measurement can be completed through the skull, in a non-contact, non-invasive, continuous manner using a lightweight helmet. This investigation was conducted to determine if brain activity from movement and thoughts of movement can be measured at a distance and if that measurement can be readily evaluated at a distance using shielding with a shielded helmet and a shielded EMF channel surrounding a sensor.”
Please pay attention to what was written at the very beginning of the article you suggested.
It only discusses a method for measuring the results of ion movement across a membrane. Therefore, the article is devoted to measuring the results of the process I described—the results of changes in the permeability of neuronal membranes to ions.
You know that our thinking is the work of our brain’s neurons, right? To answer your question, I first need to understand your thoughts about the mechanisms of thought.
No, by unity of consciousness I mean that you have a single experience as a person. You don’t feel that you are this electron and that electron, etc.
No, split-brain people have single consciousness, but they have different preferences.
Whatever is responsible for experience must certainly be a consciousness entity.
Of course. Inference to Best Explanation is subjective: it’s dependent on the facts of which I’m aware. My facts could be wrong, or there could be additional facts I’ve overlooked. If you can falsify my facts, or identify overlooked facts that would point to a better explanation, you will have undercut my justification. If not, then you have no rational basis for claiming my belief is unjustified (irrespective of your own subjective beliefs).
Human experience is a starting point, but we don’t experience making the same choice twice, so there’s no evidence to deny. It’s hypothesis that we could have chosen differently, which you’ve supported only by asserting that “it seems like we could have”.
The possibilities we consider are epistemic possibilities. They may, or may not, correspond to a set of metaphysical possibilities.
If you don’t grasp this, then you don’t understand modality.
If (and only if) we could actually have chosen differently, then they are metaphysical possibilities. IOW, it’s entailed by the hypothesis, so it’s not support FOR the hypothesis. It’s circular reasoning to claim an entailment is support for your premise.
I didn’t say it did. I was suggesting that (unintentional) unconscious activity interacted with conscious activity.
You didn’t grasp my point. My scenario applies even if determinism is false: there are not multiple metaphysical possibilities about who the perpetrator is, but the detective doesn’t know who it is. It’s exactly the same in all cases where there is just a single metaphysical possibility, but we’re ignorant of it. You had said we shouldn’t waste time deliberating when there is just one metaphysically possible outcome (per determinism) - you ignored that we don’t know what that outcome is until after we make the choice.
If you stop all deliberative processes, you have just made a decision, and there’s no basis to assume you it was metaphysically possible to have decided otherwise.
If one could actually stick with that decision, then going forward, your behavior will be limited to stimulus-reaponse with some influence by the unconscious brain activities.
As the detective analogy shows: when we don’t know what the real (i.e. metaphysical) possibilities are, we can only base our actions on what we believe the possibilities are (i.e. the epistemic possibilities).
And as you continually ignore: the mental process must be executed to reach the outcome.
By your reasoning, the output of a computer program is “pre-determined”, because it is deterministic. So why execute the program? You keep getting hung up on the fact that brain processes are more complex. Complexity is irrelevant; it’s still:
input-process-output.
The output is “pre-determined” but no one actually determined it, in advance. It is determined by the process.
But in any given past instance, you actually did NOT change the last state of your mind before you committed the act. Your only basis to claim you could have changed your mind yet again, is your belief that determinism is false. This is circular reasoning.
I think this is impure reasoning because obviously the deliberation process is already an act of free will.
There is no gap whatsoever, in between a decision being made, and one of the alternative possible futures being made the present.
I choose to go left or right, I choose left, I go left.
Then choosing in the mind, the result is instaneous in the mind that left is chosen instead of right.
And then it takes some time to move the body to go left, with further decision-making, but those further decisions just repeat the same logic of the initial decision, that for each decision one of alternative possible futures is instantaneously made the present.
And then like with salsa dancing, you can also choose without the mind having a big role, and then you instantaneously move the body left instead of right.
The whole problem is that we think action begins after we make a conscious choice. In fact, it always begins earlier. Either before deliberation (when there’s no time for reflection) or after deliberation (including its results), but nevertheless, it always begins before we make a final, conscious decision. It’s difficult to understand, but it’s a fact.
Does deliberation influence the decision the brain makes? Of course it does, because “deliberation” is nothing more than an echo of the brain’s own work.
But then what influences deliberation itself? Exclusively the conditions the brain is currently analyzing.
We deliberate—that is, we weigh options, choosing the one that will be better. Unless we have special reasons, we will always make a rational choice. Between events that bring pleasure or pain, all other things being equal, we will always choose the former. Not because we are free to do so, but because our brain is a good computing machine. We think we’re deliberating, but in reality, we’re simply looking for the best solution that takes into account all the factors that matter to us at the moment.
We’re wired to seek the best solution for the moment, and that’s exactly what we always find. Remember, we always think we’re right, right?
Are we free to make stupid choices? No. Any choice we make will appear reasonable, but it will only appear stupid to others or after we see a different outcome than we expected.That’s just how we’re wired.
I would disagree with this. I do not believe that it has been proven that conscious choices are made at the subconscious level.
So the issue is, whether the so-called “mechanisms” involved in this perception of conscious choice, which has been traditionally described as “free will”, are such that the concept of "free will’ remains applicable with respect to modern scientific evidence. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly indicates an answer of “yes”. Furthermore, I would argue that the interpretation of scientific experiments which makes a person like yourself disagree with this, is misinterpretation.
This is an example of such a misinterpretation. There has been no “discovery of objective, subconscious decision-making”. That is a misinterpretation of the science.
The point is that you denied the reality of this electromagnetic field, insisting that it was only electrical. And, on the basis of this denial you insisted that there was no quantum coherence in brain activity, only incoherence. Those claims are clearly false. Quantum phenomena is very likely a part of brain activity.
I said that the decision-making process does not depend on quantum processes. If you look at any event in our Universe, you will see that absolutely everything is based on the quantum level of elementary particles. Everything! Point your finger anywhere, and we will find the quantum level everywhere. But we will not claim that quantum processes cause rain. The organization of matter has different levels. We consider it this way in order to separate obvious causes from everything else. If we throw a ball, do we study its wave function or simply calculate the forces applied by our hand? Just as the flight of the ball in this case is determined by our throw, in the same way the movement of an impulse along neurons is determined by the permeability of the membrane for ions—that is, by the electric potential. This is not the same as electromagnetic waves (electromagnetic radiation). I have pointed out an error to you. If you find an error in how I constructed my statement, then quote my statement that you consider erroneous, and not how you understood it. I’d be happy to explain in more detail what exactly I meant.
"It is concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a ‘decision’ to act has already been initiated cerebrally. " ( Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act - PubMed)
If you manage to find a refutation of these conclusions by experts, I will be glad to learn about it too.
What I’m saying is that it’s dependent on your personal opinion of what constitutes “best”. This has nothing to do with “facts”. It’s based on one’s purpose, aims or goals.
This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the possibilities involved in making a supposedly free choice, not the possibility of what is or is not the case. The detective has the choice of accusing or not accusing any particular person, and this is regardless of the epistemic possibilities. Therefore the scenario is not relevant.
Sure there is basis to consider otherwise. I could have stopped my deliberation earlier, or continued longer. Therefore the opposite to what you claim is the truth. There is no basis to your assumption that the deliberation had to stop at that particular point in time, which produced that particular conclusion. If you could show what forces the deliberation to stop at that particular point in time, thereby forcing that particular decision, then you might have a case. But no such force exists. So the person may or may not have continued to deliberate, therefore it is very “metaphysically possible” for the person to have decided otherwise, and continues to be metaphysically possible for the person to decide otherwise .
The detective analogy is irrelevant, for the reason given above. When we are dealing with possible future events, these are ontological possibilities, what may or may not happen in the future, they are not epistemic possibilities. To confuse this type of possibility with epistemic possibilities concerning past events (who committed the crime), is a category mistake.
The mental process of considering possibilities for future actions, if the world is deterministic is superfluous, because the idea that there is such possibilities is false. Therefore considering them cannot change the outcome, and this type of thinking is not required for the outcome to be reached.
Why do you have so much difficulty understanding this basic feature of determinism? This misunderstanding and your insistence on it is skewing your perspective.
This, just like your detective analogy is irrelevant. The computer program is not considering possibilities for future events. If human thought consisted solely of following the rules of calculating mathematics, then there could be an analogy. But in reality the mathematics is applied toward real life problems of ‘should we do this or should we do that?’. This problem of future actions is our subject here.
The “process” we are talking about is not a matter of following rules until we reach a conclusion. The “process” we are talking about is a matter of applying those conclusions toward future possibilities for events. This process would be completely unnecessary if determinism was true. There would be no future possibilities for events, all events would be predetermined. therefore applying any thought toward future possibilities for events would be completely unnecessary.
Do you understand that these are two completely distinct types of processes? The latter, which is a matter of applying conclusions derived from the former, toward future possibilities, would not, in any way, be necessary, if there was no future possibilities (deterministic world).
You are not making sense. Changing the mind would be to suddenly decide not to commit the act. In this case, I actually do change the last state of my mind before committing the act. It is what prevents me from doing what deliberation told me to do. So your statement in that sense is false.
And this is very obviously false. The basis of my claim is experience. I’ve changed my mind in this way often. After deliberation influenced me to decide to act in a specific way, I’ve suddenly decided not to, without further deliberation. My claim, and my belief, is based in my experience.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I’m sure you experience it as well. Why are you so bent on denying the reality of your own experience. If we deny that, what could we base any knowledge on?
OK, but we must represent these as two distinct acts of will then. One is the mental decision to do X, and the other is the act which puts X into motion. There is temporal separation between these two.
Yes there is such a gap, by the explanation above. Otherwise a person could not procrastinate, or decide today what will be done tomorrow, or any of those common experiences.
These two types are completely different. One involves thinking only, while the other involves moving body parts. Further, there is no necessary relation between the two. Coming to the conclusion “I will go left”, does not necessitate that the body parts will move that way. This is why we can change our minds and not actually carry out what we’ve decided on.
This is not difficult to understand, the brain is always active it never stops until death.
But “best” here is subjective, just like Materialist’s use of “best” above. It is determined by the purpose. So “takes into account all the factors that matter” makes “factors that matter” extremely subjective, not tomention that they may even be fictional.
And the proof of free will, as I’ve been arguing, is that one can decide that no factors matter, and choose randomly, like my example of pulling the trigger at a random time.
Well, which is it then? If it is true, as you say, that “absolutely everything is based on the quantum level of elementary particles”, then it must also be true that the decision making depends on quantum processes.
Ok, many things have what you call “obvious causes”. But willed actions do not. Right? If they had obvious causes there would be no debate about free will.
This is where there is disagreement. What you are saying here is debated, and the article I provided for you explains why it is mostly likely the case that there is electromagnetism involved, in the form of infrared (which is common to life forms) and evidenced in the brain by temperature. That this electromagnetism provides the coherence required for quantum phenomena is the hypothesis. This means that the activity, and the associated electrical potential is mostly likely not determined in the way that you say it is.
You claim to have read the article I referred. Did you not get to the part where they discussed infrared EM radiation? Please read this before you continue with your reference to my “error”. Further, you ought to also read the other article about measuring the electromagnetic field of the human brain. How can you deny electromagnetism when it’s been objectively measured? Maybe you will see that the error is yours, in insisting that there is not electromagnetic radiation involved in these brain processes.
This does not prove anything. In most cases, thinking about acting is prior to initiating the act. And if the act is habitual then something must trigger it. This is the temporal delay I’ve been discussing with Materialist. It is an essential aspect of free will, because it allows for the changing of one’s mind between deciding to act, and initiating the act. And in the case of an habitual act, it allows us to break the habit with will power. The conscious mind can overcome that subconscious brain activity which would otherwise lead to the act, designated as a bad habit.
There is no need to refute such conclusions, they are consistent with the concept of “free will”, especially “will power”. This is what I mean about misinterpreting the scientific evidence.
I’ve provided you with sufficient citations to support my assertions. You haven’t refuted a single one of them with other scientific papers. This means that all the citations I’ve provided are true, as are my assertions based on them.
If you want to prove otherwise, you’ll have to find refutations of the scientific articles I’ve cited.
And if the article states:
“The recordable cerebral activity (readiness-potential, RP) that precedes a freely voluntary, fully endogenous motor act was directly compared with the reportable time (W) for appearance of the subjective experience of ‘wanting’ or intending to act. The onset of cerebral activity clearly preceded by at least several hundred milliseconds the reported time of conscious intention to act.”
then this means that the signal for this particular action is sent by the brain before conscious awareness. This means that your brain decides what to do before you make a conscious choice.
But I didn’t object to this concept as a subjective representation:
It’s more important to first establish the basic logic of choosing, than to figure out the logic in some arbitrary real world example, and then get a skewed view of the basic logic because of the peculiarities of the example. And in the basic logic, there can be no gap whatsoever in between a decisison being made, and one of alternative possible futures being made the present.
A decision creates the new information of which way the decision turned out. As far as I know, there are no other mechanisms for creating information except by decision.
Therefore you cannot put some other process inside or underneath decision-making, because you have no mechanism whatsoever for creating said process, because decision is the mechanism for creating things. There can be no gap there to put things in, whatsoever
As also the rest of your arguments are somewhat arbitrary, and not directed towards obtaining efficient general logic of choosing.
We use the brain to make decisions, the brain doesn’t decide free of a user(which the con-argument seems to think).
The argument seems to be does the brain make the decisions, free of a user, where the user is overridden by brain and influences, or whether a user makes a decision using its brain.
In my experience of consciousness, I, the user, makes decisions using brain.
As I said, the citations you provided are not necessarily true, they are theoretical.
Now the point is that good scientific method requires that we consider all relevant empirical evidence when verifying theories. And, as I have been explaining in this thread, our lived experience indicates that we freely choose between options, and the theory of free will has been developed over thousands of years to accommodate this empirical evidence.
The theory you presented, “the movement of an impulse along neurons is determined by the permeability of the membrane for ions”, in the same way that the motion of a ball through the air is determined, is not consistent with the empirical evidence, that we freely choose.
However, the theory I presented, that there is an electromagnetic field at the dendrite/soma junction, and probably within the dendrite itself, which is sufficient to support quantum indeterminacy is consistent with the empirical evidence of free will. Therefore it’s simply bad science to favour the theory you presented over the theory I presented.
This is consistent with what is known as habit. The subconscious inclination toward the act (want) precedes in time, the conscious choice to permit that act. The important point though, is that the will may prevent such a “wanted” act. This is called “will power”. So unless the experimenters determined whether the brain activity which corresponds with the “want” to act is always, and necessarily, followed by the act, the experiment has no bearing on the question of free will or determinism.
In the context of this information you provided, it might be better for you to think of the brain as always active, and continuously being inclined by various “wants”, due to conditions internal (hunger, habit, etc.) to the being, and also external (suggestion from the experimenters etc.) conditions. The “will” is the power (will power) to resist al those inclinations, which would otherwise be a direct cause of one’s actions. This power to suppress (will power) the multitude of inclinations allows that the person can freely select from those various inclinations, including those produced from rational deliberation, and act accordingly. That is freedom of choice.
The important point being that the brain is always active with various inclinations, so it’s not at all surprising to find in experimentation, that the inclination to act precedes the act. But these inclinations ought to be conceived of as the options from which the free willing agent chooses, not the cause of the act which is chosen, due to that lack of necessity forced by will power.
This is a good example of misinterpreting the scientific evidence. The experimenters carefully described the measured brain activity as the inclination to act, the “want”. You are interpreting this “want” as the decision to act. As I explained above, unless it is demonstrated that this specific type of brain activity, which is described as the inclination to act, is always and necessarily followed by the act which it is an inclination toward, the experiment provides no evidence which would support switching to determinism over free will. And, since all the other empirical evidence, which I mentioned above, supports free will, good scientific principles would dictate that we maintain our belief in free will.
If this is your premise, then your logic is not addressing the issue. The issue is that a person can decide to do something, yet not go ahead with that act immediately. This is very real, and true, so it must be respected by your premises.
Therefore it is not “decision” itself which is the mechanism of creation. “Decision” is defined as the result of consideration. But this result does not necessarily produce action. Therefore it is not the mechanism which creates things. That is why we must assume something further, the free will, which causes actions and creates things.