What do you think before you think?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]"How can I call a will 'mine' if I don't even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?"

As far as I can tell, the work only shows that under the conditions tested (where subjects are tasked, in a supposedly congenial setting for it, to make a series of spontaneous decisions regarding the same left/right options, which is a task with atic for the compatibilist. So, I think Glannon's last statement here is just wrong.[/b]

First, the study does not even remotely find that unconscious brain activity predicts decisions perfectly.

Of course, hence the “if”—but the studies thus far seem interesting enough to pursue the question further, so the investigations are likely to continue. Perfection may not be had at any rate, but the question is whether more refined studies might produce greater predictability with statistical significance. I don’t see that Glannon was taking this study as conclusive.

Second, even if it did, it's not clear to me that this would be problematic for the compatibilist. So, I think Glannon's last statement here is just wrong.

Agreed entirely; though, as you note, it would undermine libertarian notions of free will (which, however, I think are already sufficiently undermined).

In any event, the interesting aspect for me is not the compatibilist/libertarian freewill question, or the studies’ impact on that—but the tendency to assume that we, strictly, consciously choose to think/believe whatever it is we say that we think/believe (which assumption, however, underlies libertarian freewill). From the standpoint of introspective meditation/contemplation, that seems to be false. For example, if one cannot consciously predict her next thought (or potential thoughts) before she thinks it—and it seems to me trivially clear that one cannot—, and if that also includes thoughts that affirm or reject prior thought, then how can one say that the conscious “I” is in charge of whatever one thinks/believes? So I see the claim, that is sometimes made, that we consciously choose all that we think/believe, the content of our formed character, etc.—to simply be wrong.

And although I think a focused introspection is sufficient to lead to that conclusion, which the science may support, it is that which makes me suspect that it will, but the science may also defeat that hypothesis—in which case I will have to revise my view; the preliminary evidence certainly fails to defeat the hypothesis, and with statistical significance, though with fairly low (but nonrandom) predictability. The empirical question for further experimentation, then, seems to be whether greater predictive power can be discovered with sufficient statistical significance.

____________________________________________

What really interested me was the thoroughgoing Zen nature of the hypothesis that all our thoughts, rather than being strictly consciously formed, arise from what the Zennist might call the mind-ground; and the recursive dynamics that I mentioned (for lack of a better phrase) would be another aspect of the Buddhist principle of “mutually arising”. And since the mind-ground is itself not a thought-form (gestaltic figure/ground stuff), then blackbeetle properly references the Buddhist notion of emptiness (which is “emptiness of figures/forms”, whether extrospective/objective or introspective/subjective ). Of course, it is as impossible to really separate figure and ground as it is to separate the gulfstream from the ocean, and vice versa; so that is just a way of speaking—the “emptiness” is really the nonseparable fullness.

The “pure Zen” response to my little koan is, of course, the one given by ChessPraxis. 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
I hope you and yours are well, my ole friend. Best wishes for 2012!

And to you, my friend!

Originally posted by RBHILL
i personally am always thinking from one thing to the next, even while i talk.

I become aware of the thoughts as they arise; sometimes my speech seems to simply record the thoughts as they become cosncious, especially if I am speaking (or writing rapidly, perhaps similar to a free-association, but with suffcient editing to keep it all coherent. If I become aware that what I am saying is not coherent, I need to slow down and edit more carefully--but then the editing also entails thoughts that are arising as I "discover" (think) them.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]First, the study does not even remotely find that unconscious brain activity predicts decisions perfectly.

Of course, hence the “if”—but the studies thus far seem interesting enough to pursue the question further, so the investigations are likely to continue. Perfection may not be had at any rate, but the question is whether more refined studies m ...[text shortened]...

The “pure Zen” response to my little koan is, of course, the one given by ChessPraxis. 🙂[/b]

The work is definitely interesting and I hope that it does continue in earnest. I do not think the results yet have much impact on the philosophical debate, but I think further results in this area certainly could undermine libertarianism (in particular).

So I see the claim, that is sometimes made, that we consciously choose all that we think/believe, the content of our formed character, etc.—to simply be wrong.

I have to agree strongly with you on that. I think, for example, the claim that we predominantly choose or determine our own characters is outrageously false. It is not clear that such a claim is even coherent (since: choosing a character would require making considered choices that hang together in a characeristic way; but making considered choices that hang together in a characteristic way is already indicative of an underlying consortium of choice-guiding dispositions; but a consortium of choice- and action-guiding dispositions is, to first order, just what a character is; so, you can see the problem here...making decisions to bring about a character of your own seems to imply you already had a character to begin with, which is all a bit incoherent). Prima facie, the claim that one chooses all that he thinks/believes would also suffer from a similar incoherency or regress problem, since considered choices also reflect/indicate underlying beliefs and thoughts.

I also agree with you that such claims of self-determination are commonly attached to views on freedom. To me, this signals some notional confusion. I do not think freedom of the will is or should be about this type of self-determination; about choosing who you are and how you think; etc; etc. I think it is about being a genuine source of actions. It seems perfectly consistent to me that both (1) one is not responsible (and cannot really even in principle or practice be responsible) in predominant ways for who he is and how he thinks and (2) yet one is a genuine source of his actions when they flow from who he is and how he thinks. I do not see a problem here, but it a good source for debate.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The work is definitely interesting and I hope that it does continue in earnest. I do not think the results yet have much impact on the philosophical debate, but I think further results in this area certainly could undermine libertarianism (in particular).

[b]So I see the claim, that is sometimes made, that we consciously choose all that we think/beli ...[text shortened]... from who he is and how he thinks. I do not see a problem here, but it a good source for debate.

We may not have free-will not to think, but we have at least a certain
amount of free-will on what we think and what actions we take. There
is no claim that God has given us total free-will, but only the free-will
to believe in Him or not and to love Him or not. Christians do not
believe you have free-will to choose your parents, for example. 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
We may not have free-will not to think, but we have at least a certain
amount of free-will on what we think and what actions we take. There
is no claim that God has given us total free-will, but only the free-will
to believe in Him or not and to love Him or not. Christians do not
believe you have free-will to choose your parents, for example. 😀

We have ability not to think via drugs. During surgury, via anesthesia, etc. But the question is, are our choices determined by forces we do not control?

Originally posted by LemonJello
The work is definitely interesting and I hope that it does continue in earnest. I do not think the results yet have much impact on the philosophical debate, but I think further results in this area certainly could undermine libertarianism (in particular).

[b]So I see the claim, that is sometimes made, that we consciously choose all that we think/beli ...[text shortened]... from who he is and how he thinks. I do not see a problem here, but it a good source for debate.

I was just outside walking, and carrying some wood in, and thinking about our conversation here--and I remembered "Chyono's Bucket", which, an oblique way, is about the same kind of question, if one thinks of the bucket as the complex self-construct (or to use your word, which I think is better, the conscious-level "consortium" ) that we work so hard to hold together.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]First, the study does not even remotely find that unconscious brain activity predicts decisions perfectly.

Of course, hence the “if”—but the studies thus far seem interesting enough to pursue the question further, so the investigations are likely to continue. Perfection may not be had at any rate, but the question is whether more refined studies m

The “pure Zen” response to my little koan is, of course, the one given by ChessPraxis. 🙂[/b]

Further thought on this leads me to regard it as a psychological/control question, not a spiritual one. The consciousness is involved in some actions of the body, and not in others; it has varying degrees of involvement according to the situation. In a sense, it may be an final check on some decisions, referring decisions to the degree it has learned to do so, to some other brain function in a way that was not triggered in the experiments reported. I think more study of situations that are emotionally or value-system loaded, would be instructive.

Originally posted by JS357
Further thought on this leads me to regard it as a psychological/control question, not a spiritual one. The consciousness is involved in some actions of the body, and not in others; it has varying degrees of involvement according to the situation. In a sense, it may be an final check on some decisions, referring decisions to the degree it ha learned to do so, ...[text shortened]... hink more study of situations that are emotionally or value-system loaded, would be instructive.

IMO it is unlikely that thespiritual will be discovered through physical
experiments. Just saying. 😏

Originally posted by JS357
We have ability not to think via drugs. During surgury, via anesthesia, etc. But the question is, are our choices determined by forces we do not control?

The brain is doing something during anesthesia. Are you sure that all
thinking is eliminated?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The brain is doing something during anesthesia. Are you sure that all
thinking is eliminated?

All conscience thinking is clearly inhibited. Subconscious thinking HAS to go on or else the heart would stop beating, the lungs would stop breathing, etc.

This whole question of free will may come down to further research or developments in psychology or Fmri experiments or maybe Zen meditation, the idea being to know much more about subconscious brain activity. When we fully understand subconscious thinking all this debate will become moot.

What I mean by that is at some point in the future, we may extend our control of subconscious brain activity into our conscious lives through science or meditation or some such and discover our true selves.

If that were to happen the world would be a much better place.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All conscience thinking is clearly inhibited. Subconscious thinking HAS to go on or else the heart would stop beating, the lungs would stop breathing, etc.

This whole question of free will may come down to further research or developments in psychology or Fmri experiments or maybe Zen meditation, the idea being to know much more about subconscious brain ...[text shortened]... and discover our true selves.

If that were to happen the world would be a much better place.

IMO the world would be a much better place if everyone accepted
Jesus the Christ as their Lord and Savior. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
All conscience thinking is clearly inhibited. Subconscious thinking HAS to go on or else the heart would stop beating, the lungs would stop breathing, etc.

This whole question of free will may come down to further research or developments in psychology or Fmri experiments or maybe Zen meditation, the idea being to know much more about subconscious brain ...[text shortened]... and discover our true selves.

If that were to happen the world would be a much better place.

I always considered the 'unconcious' level to be the level that keeps us ticking physically, as well as being where thoughts are that are only recalled when prompted.

-m.

Originally posted by vistesd
I just want to springboard from the following August, 2011 Nature article to a discussion of the more introspective (intuitive) questions at the end of this post. (I posted this here, rather than in the science thread because I am more interested in the philosophical considerations.)

_______________________________________________________

http ...[text shortened]... quasi-koans; or—

Who is the I
who thinks “I”
before I know it?

"...a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds."

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it. Of course the idea that thought doesn't originate in the brain is as acceptable an idea as the idea that someone could actually rise from the dead.

The spirit and thought are way ahead of the brain.

My nine year old son asked me a question this morning. It was unsolicited and unprompted. He asked me, "how can I hear my thoughts"?

Indeed!

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds."

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it. Of course the idea that thought doesn't originate in the brain is as ac ...[text shortened]... It was unsolicited and unprompted. He asked me, "how can I hear my thoughts"?

Indeed![/b]

Speaking of thoughts. I dream about someone I knew in my past and "poof", there they are in the near future.

It's happened too many times to be a coincidence and it is freaking me out!!! 😲