What we can and cannot control

[Gerry Seymour]

in depth look at free will.

His philosophical approach comes closer to a reasonable interpretation of the available data - especially in his comment about how time available changes our amount of "choice" in a matter. Harris' reaction to that data ignores the philosophical concept of sub-conscious choice (that is, our "mind" being able to choose freely without us being conscious of it), in addition to the problems Peterson points out here.

 

[dvcochran]

Rush: Freewill

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

Great music; may have been the most boring concerts I have ever been to.

 

[hoshin1600]

@gpseymour
i have gone through hours and hours of Sapolski's college lectures and i have to give credit. he makes some pretty convincing arguments. a lot of his work revolves around violence which i like due to the relevance to martial arts. i would have to agree with Peterson in the fact that we have a higher level of consciousness than Sapolski's baboons. i think the more primal brain functions are deterministic as Robert implies but our frontal cortex allows us to choose alternate futures albeit it is often difficult to overcome the automated systems nuerological decision making processes.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Great music; may have been the most boring concerts I have ever been to.

I've been to many a Rush concert, never thought one was boring though, of course it was many years ago

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour
i have gone through hours and hours of Sapolski's college lectures and i have to give credit. he makes some pretty convincing arguments. a lot of his work revolves around violence which i like due to the relevance to martial arts. i would have to agree with Peterson in the fact that we have a higher level of consciousness than Sapolski's baboons. i think the more primal brain functions are deterministic as Robert implies but our frontal cortex allows us to choose alternate futures albeit it is often difficult to overcome the automated systems nuerological decision making processes.

So, I take two issues with pretty much all the deterministic assertions I've seen (those based on psychology - I don't deal in religious claims). Firstly, the research is largely based around things like the finger movement (which Peterson discusses in one of those videos) and the activation potentials. The problem is, we're not quite sure we know for certain what's going on in those measurements. They seem to be measuring something directly related to the decision, but what, precisely. Perhaps we're measuring the brain's process that leads to the decision. That leads to the second issue (which some would argue is philosophical, but early-stage psychology tends to be philosophical until we find a way to measure it): where does "choice" start and end? Is the "self", the mind, only confined to conscious awareness? Or if we train our brain to be able to make a decision unconsciously, does that decision count, too? Is there a part of the un-conscious brain that is still part of "self" (as opposed to being mere programming we respond to)? This is something we don't have a good model to handle yet, so any strong claims made either way, in my opinion, are ill-grounded.

We experience free will, but some measurements don't support that experience. Perhaps the issue is that some of what we experience lags behind the actual mental process we're experiencing. In other words, maybe we make a choice, but don't experience the actual choice in real time. Or maybe those action potentials are pre-programming we have no choice but to respond to. Or maybe those action potentials are the less-than-conscious "self" making the choice our conscious self will later experience. Or maybe those measurements aren't what we think they are. I don't think we can actually rule out any of those possibilities with current knowledge - and there are probably others I'm not aware of (some of which probably haven't been codified yet).

 

[dvcochran]

I've been to many a Rush concert, never thought one was boring though, of course it was many years ago

I am a concert goer of the late 70's and 80's. Rush, Kansas, Deep Purple and such just did not move my meter like say REO or Aerosmith. I enjoy listening to their music just not watching it live. Personal preference of course.

 

[dvcochran]

So, I take two issues with pretty much all the deterministic assertions I've seen (those based on psychology - I don't deal in religious claims). Firstly, the research is largely based around things like the finger movement (which Peterson discusses in one of those videos) and the activation potentials. The problem is, we're not quite sure we know for certain what's going on in those measurements. They seem to be measuring something directly related to the decision, but what, precisely. Perhaps we're measuring the brain's process that leads to the decision. That leads to the second issue (which some would argue is philosophical, but early-stage psychology tends to be philosophical until we find a way to measure it): where does "choice" start and end? Is the "self", the mind, only confined to conscious awareness? Or if we train our brain to be able to make a decision unconsciously, does that decision count, too? Is there a part of the un-conscious brain that is still part of "self" (as opposed to being mere programming we respond to)? This is something we don't have a good model to handle yet, so any strong claims made either way, in my opinion, are ill-grounded.

We experience free will, but some measurements don't support that experience. Perhaps the issue is that some of what we experience lags behind the actual mental process we're experiencing. In other words, maybe we make a choice, but don't experience the actual choice in real time. Or maybe those action potentials are pre-programming we have no choice but to respond to. Or maybe those action potentials are the less-than-conscious "self" making the choice our conscious self will later experience. Or maybe those measurements aren't what we think they are. I don't think we can actually rule out any of those possibilities with current knowledge - and there are probably others I'm not aware of (some of which probably haven't been codified yet).

I had to click like on the post because I really do even though it is in a realm I cannot fathom, But I am gonna have some fun and take a more grounded swing at it.
From my limited understanding the brain is a very, very complex circuit board. Our experiences build the conditional inputs and things like parental influence, and a great many others determine how the inputs are processed. Just like in conventional electrical signaling there is dwell based on many factors like input quantity, distance, voltage/current drop (disease?)and most importantly the complexity of the initial signal. Once the input(s) have been expressed and the values processed, decision is made and output is triggered. For all practical purposes in real time. What output (emotion, analytical, discrete decision, etc...)is where judicious processing comes on. The brain is so amazing at this in ways I am certain we are yet to understand. So if I the term deterministic is used the same in my field it is a horizon I don't see logically how we can ever reach. Well had fun, how well did I do?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I had to click like on the post because I really do even though it is in a realm I cannot fathom, But I am gonna have some fun and take a more grounded swing at it.
From my limited understanding the brain is a very, very complex circuit board. Our experiences build the conditional inputs and things like parental influence, and a great many others determine how the inputs are processed. Just like in conventional electrical signaling there is dwell based on many factors like input quantity, distance, voltage/current drop (disease?)and most importantly the complexity of the initial signal. Once the input(s) have been expressed and the values processed, decision is made and output is triggered. For all practical purposes in real time. What output (emotion, analytical, discrete decision, etc...)is where judicious processing comes on. The brain is so amazing at this in ways I am certain we are yet to understand. So if I the term deterministic is used the same in my field it is a horizon I don't see logically how we can ever reach. Well had fun, how well did I do?

I think that's a reasonable analogy of one of the issues, DV. And if you carry that over to brain function, it's not unreasonable to think that some decisions (though perhaps not all) may have a similar build-up effect. In fact, I expect that's exactly what happens in that experiment. If you're not familiar with it, the subjects were set up on brain scanners and told to move a finger whenever they wanted to (I think any time after an "OK" instruction from the tester each time). So, there was no direct stimulus to the decision - it's a decision in a void, without real purpose. We've all felt a decision build-up when we are trying to guess when to do a thing with randomness attached (push the button to stop a slot machine, etc.). We tend to think, "wait....waaaiiiit....now!" I suspect - but cannot prove - that build-up experience is somehow related to the build-up of action potential seen in the experiment. Other decisions have a similar experiential effect (rating something 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, and you can't initially decide if they earned a 3 or a 4), but not all.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am a concert goer of the late 70's and 80's. Rush, Kansas, Deep Purple and such just did not move my meter like say REO or Aerosmith. I enjoy listening to their music just not watching it live. Personal preference of course.

Also 70s and 80s concert goer. Saw REO, but surprisingly ( I grew up around Boston) I never saw Aerosmith. However I did see Joe Perry when he was solo. The only truly boring concert I ever went to, that made me never want to go to another of their concerts or even listen to their music again was the Grateful Dead...that was simply horrible, the show, the audience and the people that I went with. It was an all around bad experience. Next worst big concert, surprisingly, was Ozzy. But I still would listen to Ozzy's music after that concert. I was once talked into going to see Jerry Garcia in a theater in Boston, free tickets, and I regretted that one too, that was the only concert I walked out of.

 

[hoshin1600]

So, I take two issues with pretty much all the deterministic assertions I've seen (those based on psychology - I don't deal in religious claims). Firstly, the research is largely based around things like the finger movement (which Peterson discusses in one of those videos) and the activation potentials. The problem is, we're not quite sure we know for certain what's going on in those measurements. They seem to be measuring something directly related to the decision, but what, precisely. Perhaps we're measuring the brain's process that leads to the decision. That leads to the second issue (which some would argue is philosophical, but early-stage psychology tends to be philosophical until we find a way to measure it): where does "choice" start and end? Is the "self", the mind, only confined to conscious awareness? Or if we train our brain to be able to make a decision unconsciously, does that decision count, too? Is there a part of the un-conscious brain that is still part of "self" (as opposed to being mere programming we respond to)? This is something we don't have a good model to handle yet, so any strong claims made either way, in my opinion, are ill-grounded.

We experience free will, but some measurements don't support that experience. Perhaps the issue is that some of what we experience lags behind the actual mental process we're experiencing. In other words, maybe we make a choice, but don't experience the actual choice in real time. Or maybe those action potentials are pre-programming we have no choice but to respond to. Or maybe those action potentials are the less-than-conscious "self" making the choice our conscious self will later experience. Or maybe those measurements aren't what we think they are. I don't think we can actually rule out any of those possibilities with current knowledge - and there are probably others I'm not aware of (some of which probably haven't been codified yet).

Sapolski talks about different "buckets" every field has its own thought bucket and it's own answers. I would say your looking only at one bucket.
To use Peterson's anology about the Chess game, the presupposition is that we all share the same limiting rule sets, but we dont. Our rule sets are determined by everything from our ancestry to the amount of testosterone in the womb to if we ate Wheaties for breakfast. These factors change the chemistry and function in the brain. So where you see black and white squares and CHOOSE between the two binary options, I see purple and blue circles in non linear symmetry. So my choices are not the same as yours. We can compare "normal" cognitive ability with say psychotic but the studies show is that these are not absolute values, they are on a gradient scale. Your choices may be between the black square or white, if my choice is between purple or blue the judgment is based on your rule set. If my rule set limits the choices can it really be called free will ? The question is not do we make choices but rather is free will an illusion as a concept when cognitive ability not a constant.
I'm on my phone now I'll try to explain better later.

 

[dvcochran]

Also 70s and 80s concert goer. Saw REO, but surprisingly ( I grew up around Boston) I never saw Aerosmith. However I did see Joe Perry when he was solo. The only truly boring concert I ever went to, that made me never want to go to another of their concerts or even listen to their music again was the Grateful Dead...that was simply horrible, the show, the audience and the people that I went with. It was an all around bad experience. Next worst big concert, surprisingly, was Ozzy. But I still would listen to Ozzy's music after that concert. I was once talked into going to see Jerry Garcia in a theater in Boston, free tickets, and I regretted that one too, that was the only concert I walked out of.

Yes, I have seen a Dead concert, it was a snooze fest. And I thought their live music was pretty bad.

 

[dvcochran]

I think that's a reasonable analogy of one of the issues, DV. And if you carry that over to brain function, it's not unreasonable to think that some decisions (though perhaps not all) may have a similar build-up effect. In fact, I expect that's exactly what happens in that experiment. If you're not familiar with it, the subjects were set up on brain scanners and told to move a finger whenever they wanted to (I think any time after an "OK" instruction from the tester each time). So, there was no direct stimulus to the decision - it's a decision in a void, without real purpose. We've all felt a decision build-up when we are trying to guess when to do a thing with randomness attached (push the button to stop a slot machine, etc.). We tend to think, "wait....waaaiiiit....now!" I suspect - but cannot prove - that build-up experience is somehow related to the build-up of action potential seen in the experiment. Other decisions have a similar experiential effect (rating something 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, and you can't initially decide if they earned a 3 or a 4), but not all.

Interesting. Since there is no urgency to push the button doesn't it change the response?

 

[dvcochran]

Also 70s and 80s concert goer. Saw REO, but surprisingly ( I grew up around Boston) I never saw Aerosmith. However I did see Joe Perry when he was solo. The only truly boring concert I ever went to, that made me never want to go to another of their concerts or even listen to their music again was the Grateful Dead...that was simply horrible, the show, the audience and the people that I went with. It was an all around bad experience. Next worst big concert, surprisingly, was Ozzy. But I still would listen to Ozzy's music after that concert. I was once talked into going to see Jerry Garcia in a theater in Boston, free tickets, and I regretted that one too, that was the only concert I walked out of.

Joe Cocker puts on a great show. Pretty laid back but he was great to watch and hear.

 

[Chrisinmd]

All this to say that I am neither the victim of the accidents of my birth and upbringing, nor am I unaffected by those aspects of my life which I had and have no control over.

Very well said and I agree.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Interesting. Since there is no urgency to push the button doesn't it change the response?

It seems likely. This is the issue when people generalize very basic research like this. You end up with conclusions that aren't really supported by the meager data. It's like the old "communication is 93% non-verbal" nonsense.

 

[jobo]

We are doomed to happenstance and luck of the draw. We have control over nothing. We should lie down and await our inevitable fate like the nothings we are.

Curly said it best. All hail Curly.

main stream physics is reasonably clear that we live in a derterminstic universe, that's is every thing about atoms and therefore you, others and the things in your life was determined by the conditions at and shortly after the big bang. you exist as an inevitable consequence of that. any choices, good or bad are inevatable, because you, your personality and those who influence you for good or bad were inevitable. it's really pointless trying to fight it, your just along for the ride.

or if you subscribe to the slightly neish many worlds theory, everything is random chance, you have no more control as it's impossible to see the life changing consequencesther that roll out, from even the most inconsequentle decision. and of course with that model, every choice you make causes a parallel universe to spring into existence, where another you has to live with the consequences good or bad of the other option.

some where theres another you, on death row, for the time you decided not to strangle someone to death and even more annoying, another you living in the lap of luxury with a super model girl friend, for the time you decided not to buy a lottery ticket this week

 

[Buka]

main stream physics is reasonably clear that we live in a derterminstic universe, that's is every thing about atoms and therefore you, others and the things in your life was determined by the conditions at and shortly after the big bang. you exist as an inevitable consequence of that. any choices, good or bad are inevatable, because you, your personality and those who influence you for good or bad were inevitable. it's really pointless trying to fight it, your just along for the ride.

or if you subscribe to the slightly neish many worlds theory, everything is random chance, you have no more control as it's impossible to see the life changing consequencesther that roll out, from even the most inconsequentle decision. and of course with that model, every choice you make causes a parallel universe to spring into existence, where another you has to live with the consequences good or bad of the other option.

some where theres another you, on death row, for the time you decided not to strangle someone to death and even more annoying, another you living in the lap of luxury with a super model girl friend, for the time you decided not to buy a lottery ticket this week

I can see that.