First off all, this is not supposed to be a religious discussion. If you're not capable of separating this discussion from religion(s) then simply don't participate in the discussion.

The matter I want to talk about is something I've seen in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nhv56 documentary. Specifically, I'm talking about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbItRBc4Cp8#t=48m37s

As you can see from that portion of the documentary, scanning the brain while it's making a decision of when to press a button and whether it'll be left or right one has enabled the scientists to locate a group of neurons from whose activity they can predict 6 seconds in advance when and which button is going to be pressed. This leaves us with an obvious problem - if we say that that group of neurons is exactly what our "self" is controlling when it makes a decision, why is our "self" only aware of the decision not even a second before the button has been pressed, when those neurons are activated 6 seconds in advance in either one of the two patterns which cause us to press left or right button? Why would our "self" be fooling itself into thinking that it has made the decision long after the decision has already been made? Or is it simply the case that our "self" is not exactly what makes the decision of when and which button to press? From this it seems inescapable to conclude that it isn't, but what is the point of having a "self" which feels as if it's making all the decisions when it's actually not?

We do make the decisions, we just haven't made up our minds yet.

Running a brain takes a lot of energy. If we were aware on a conscious level of all of that stuff while it went on we would go insane, or have larger brains and consequently higher nutritional intake. Also to some extent human decisions are predictable, but the really interesting thing is when they're not. And they can be, which still baffles a lot of psychologists, sociologists and neurologists. By all rights we should be highly advanced meat puppets, and in many cases if you dig deep enough we can look that way. However, there still remains the fact that some of our mind is actually shaped as we grow. Hell it might even be possible under extreme circumstances for the brain to rewire after normal growth is done. So even on a purely mechanical level nothing is fixed. But there are some things that defy the biological hard wiring that we're trying to figure out to this day. The mind is an incredibly complex organ, and don't even get me started on the possibility of the quantum mind theory if it holds true. It's pretty baffling really.

Are you saying that we make the decision 6 seconds in advance (in this example) but only realise we've made one and which one we've made a bit less than 6 seconds after we've made it? Why can't we realise earlier which decision we've "made"? If you're not aware of it and only realise it 6 seconds later, is it really your decision?

Is your arm really yours when your not consciously thinking about it. I am no neurologist, but I know thought of any kind requires immense amounts of energy. The brain also accidentally evolved, it hasn't been planned out to be as efficient as possible. Nature just sort of blunder upon it. At this point I can't confidently say why our thoughts are preplanned. It's like sleep, most of the time it happens on a subconscious level. Just like as your thinking now your not aware of each and every one of the hundred billion or so neurons firing to bring up memories.

I understand all that, but what confuses me is what's the point of having a conscious "self" then at all and why does it feel like it's making all the decisions. A group of neurons fires in a certain pattern which six seconds later causes us to press left or right button, but less than a second before the button-pressing action is made the entire neuron network "simulates" or "produces" such "state of the mind" of the "self" which makes it "think" that the decision has been made at that moment, not six seconds ago when it actually was. What's the point of that, i.e., why is it evolutionarily beneficial to have a brain which functions that way, fooling itself into thinking that the decisions it makes are made long after they've actually been made?

the brain is too complex to fully understand it. I often wonder how it is i can type fast and process what i am saying in my head and translate it into text and the exact same time im thinking it like what im doing right now.

as far as the "self" part, im totally going to take a shot in the dark:

That 6 second prediction could be ourself. Our brain has conditioned itself to memorize muscle memory so i would assume that our brain knows more about us than we do ourselves because its been memorizing and honing in on skills we have been practicing for X amount of years. Its a commonly accepted idea that walking is nothing more than synchronized falling and we "learn" to walk meaning our brain has perfected it. I guess what im trying to say is that our brain pretty much knows what we are going to do since its been memorizing our actions since we have been in the womb. :hehe:

There might be none, and when it comes to evolutionary ANYTHING it's all theory. We can't go and test or learn this stuff. So as of right now there is no good answer that I've ever heard to explain it. Personally I think that it is a remnant from when minds were much simpler. Then again I have no data if other species with brains behave the same way. At this point there is insufficient data. Another opinion is that it could be if we were aware of separate groups of neurons firing to make decisions it would lead to more self doubt. Perhaps hesitation in the animal kingdom meant death? Either way there just isn't enough data on the subject, it's only been discovered fairly recently. Since Psychology is so new it's lagging behind in the other sciences. There's still no definitive answer if humans have pheromones or not. There's some slight evidence to suggest we do in that woman's menstruation cycles linked up after a month or living together. In essence they had their period all in the same week.

Edit
In simplified terms think of it like this. The entire debate your having about choosing between water or juice? Displace the entire debate back six seconds. The neurons still had to decide if there was a choice, go through memories, and ultimately make a decision. They still had to debate, but it occurred earlier than you were aware of. Then it just played out on a conscious level. Your still the one making the choices, but subconsciously they are done earlier. If that makes any sense at all.

That's exactly the part that makes me wonder. Obviously we don't consciously make the decisions because if we did we'd be consciously aware of the decisions we "make" at the moment they happen, not six seconds later. But if our subconscious is capable of making the decisions, what does it need the conscious for? Obviously not for decision-making, but what for? Is the conscious just something that "reviews" the decisions, checks whether they're ok or not ok? That's fine, but why does the reviewer need to think that it was it itself who made those decisions?

And even further, to "review" whether the made decision was ok or not ok, doesn't that require another decision? It would be silly to expect that that one (the decision of whether another decision was ok or not ok) isn't executed subconsciously but is instead entirely conscious only because it's a meta-decision, so obviously the conscious can't be a reviewer of decisions either.

Like I said, not a damn clue. Perhaps some of the researchers working on it have some idea based on the detailed data, or from being familiar with the work. I can't say anything further than what I have.

Party pooper.

There's a lot of unanswered questions out there, and it's just a matter of time. Who knows maybe some day I'll answer some of them. But for now I can't say, I doubt my year one textbook would be illuminating, and since I've had to drop out I won't have access to better books. Hmm... I could just go there and buy some lol. Hahahaha nerd it up hardcoe.

I think my brain was rewired when I first watched http://www.hongfire.com/cg/data/25/caramelldansen.swf and had an epiphany that changed everything about how I saw the world. No joke. I was a different person before and after. ^_^

But I probably have a few shorts in the decision making part of the brain. I've always been terrible at making decisions, and change my mind a million times. It makes playing RPG's almost impossible, because every few hours I go "hey, I want to make a new character with this and this and this, instead of what I have now." I rely on coin tossing and dice rolling quite a bit to get through the day.

You should know better than not to add anything further to a discussion started by veeno thus curving his philosophical dominance over all of us.:hehe:

You dropped out of university? That's a real shame, I remember you used to talk about psychology all the time. (Or have I mixed you up with someone? :unsure: )


Uh... lol?

You have not mixed me up with anyone, and it was partially my fault and environmental factors that forced me to drop. First of all the hours were killing me, the bus system was going on strike, and I couldn't understand my instructor no matter how hard I tried. The other problems I had were more personal and of a philosophical epiphany (which will no doubt be superseded by another one down the line.) New step one for now is just to get a car so I can go back on my own terms and have some time to actually work. Unknown how I will cope with [censored] teacher who can't speak English and was being corrected by the student's who could understand him 50% of the time. So I will have to find some way to learn that subject on my own. For now just writing my book and playing the waiting game to see what happens.

Well don't worry, you're young so at least you still have enough time to spare, but remember that by the time you decide to go back to the university your decision will already have been made at least six seconds ago.

took the words right out of my mouth.... or you where 6 seconds ahead making me 12 seconds behind? :shocking:

It is kind of scary that someone looking at high-resolution fMRI of your brain can be consciously aware of your decisions long before you yourself are consciously aware of them. That sort of beats the point of being consciously aware of your decisions.

The self is not just made up of the conscious, but also of the subconscious.
We do many things everyday out of habit, that once were new descions for us. For example, driving. Signaling when driving, estimating distance on a left hand turn and deciding whether or not it is worth it to attempt the turn, choosing a route, etc, etc, etc. The "self" is a culmination of data, gathered from the experiences of life.
Who hasn't made a snap descion, started the motion to achieve it, only to instantly mentally replay situations where a similar descion didn't work out, then went on ahead with carrying out descion anyway, ignoring previous data? I would think the delay is an evolutionary failsafe. By learning from previous experience, we make descions. Whether we are aware of it consciously or not.
A new driver would be more aware of making descions about things an expreienced driver would have down pat and consider rote.
BTW, I am an atheist.

An interesting find, not totally unexpected when you really think about it. I mean, the idea of a consciousness is created by our brain as a way of explaining the decisions we make through chemicals and such. We as a person are still in charge of our destiny. It's just that our brains are in charge of us. Makes sense.

I'd also like to note that he was supposed to make a decision and then press a button immediately. No considering it on the conscious level. It's a snap decision, and those always take place on a sub-conscious level. For example, it was quite icy here this week, and while I was walking the Dog, I slipped quite a few times. Now I never fell, and I can tell you that my thoughts were more along the lines of "Well [censored] this" than "Move right leg .03 cm to right to counteract loss of traction, while moving left arm straight backwards in order to maintain balance!" It's a snap decision.

your reflex in other words. I watched a video on reflexes and if memory serves, our brain sends signals to our spinal cords in a pattern. When we need a "snap decision", it forfeits the pattern and sends the instructions directly to the spinal cord instead of it going through the process.

huh, I don't know how much room there is for an unprofessional input, but as far as contious* decisions go I don't particularly "fire" on a decision until the last second. [In fact much of the time I try to stay away from 'favoring' one choice to another, until it is necessary to have to choose one or the other, during which it's sort of an "optimum trajectory" mode.] So I am not sure what that means or how it fits into the study, but I would be interested to see what kind of thought patterns people go through in those 6 seconds.

* I'm sorry, but I have to point out the irony that is the brain fart keeping me from getting conscious [hell yeah, got it on round 2] even near spell checker correction.

The subject matter is too broad to come to such a solid conclusion, IMHO. I mean..what about instances where one decides to press a button, but then does not? Would that mean that the neurons somehow fired in such a pattern that made us change our mind up to once, maybe twice, in a matter of six seconds? Honestly, asking somebody to choose to push a button for a test seems to just put pressure on them, so instead of relaxing and actually thinking it through, the neurons in the brain just take full control of the situation.

Then again, I haven't studied this stuff an inkling, so I'm merely just guestimating. :tongue: However, I will say that button pressing is a bit too simple to make any serious observations from. If anything, those results are exactly what I would expect. If asked to choose between two things with absolutely no inherent meaning to them, we kind of just let our nerves do all the work in the end. There's nothing worth contemplating in a situation like that. Hell, I'd just press a button at random. Obviously there's some brain activity involved no matter what I did. That's kind of the point.

Edit: To add a bit more...A more productive test would be to associate those buttons with things or events. Let's take the "Push the button" riddle from Baldur's Gate 2 as an example. Two people trapped in cages. Two buttons. If one person presses the button, they are set free, but the other will die. Will you push the button? In a test like that, there would be more potential to study the mind and human behavior. IMO, anyway. Problem is, a test like that would be morally unjust and cruel as hell. :laugh:

So what you're proposing is that even though the "decision" has been made six seconds before the action itself takes place, during those six seconds the brain (or the "self") can decide that the made decision was a bad one after all and choose a different outcome? But like I said, that poses another problem: to conclude whether the made decision, let's call that one "decision A", was a bad one or not and whether to change the outcome or not, the brain has to make another decision, let's call it "decision B". Since decision B is equally a decision, it should take as long as the decision which it's trying to evaluate (decision A) - taking at least six seconds until the action of accepting or rejecting decision A. But decision B must happen after decision A. (How can a decision try to evaluate whether another decision that has not yet happened is a good or a bad one? Decision B has to "know" what decision A is in order to evaluate it, and it can't "know" what it is before decision A happens.) Therefore, decision B has no time to prevent or approve the action caused by decision A regardless of what it has decided.

Furthermore, the tests have not shown that humans are capable of changing the decision of whether to press the left or right button after the aforementioned part of the brain has been activated in "press-left-button" or "press-right-button" pattern. Admittedly, that might be simply because the decision of whether to press one button or the other itself is truly mundane and with no serious consequences so the brain has no reason to question the reached decision. It would be interesting if this same test could be done while the human whose brain is monitored is making more serious decisions.

edit:

He was specifically asked to decide which button to press and then press it immediately, as soon as he made the decision.

edit2:

That's a rather silly thing to say; as if the neurons in the brain are not in control of the situation all the time.