The Mind and the Brain

[perplexis]

Do you want to understand "how is it possible to make decisions"? Or to understand why an organism takes the decisions it does?

I'm not sure it's possible to do both; but I am sure science asks the how? not the why?

How is the more pertinent question.
But it's intimately tied in with why. If the "Why" is 'because the system has a way of responding automatically to input (via whatever complex processes)' then the "How" is the same question. No?
Meh, I don't think I'm making any sense today so I will knock it on the head for now.

 

[Jonti]

I think so too

If the "How" is "by creating information" then the "Why" of any particular decision will be inscrutable. The best we could hope for is some kind of broad-brush statistical answer ("Why ... because gentlemen prefer blonds"*).

And I think that's right. At any rate, it accords with the Harvard Law of Animal Behaviour ...

"under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases."

* this statement is quite likely not true, and is used purely for illustrative purposes.

 

[8ball]

Yes, but the evidence also suggests that the notion that we sit in the middle of a perceptual space is illusory. We perceive ourselves as being in the middle of a perceptual space all the same!

I tend to think of this 'perceptual space' a bit like the desktop on my PC.

I'm quite aware that it's not a 'real desktop' in any sense whatsoever, but it's a useful tool for getting things done.

 

[Jonti]

Actually, we more perceive ourselves as being in the middle of a possible perceptual space. I've just remembered the space behind my head; it's so not anything, it's not even there

But the desktop's there, or would be if I turned, and I can hear noises off

 

[Fruitloop]

Have ordered The Character of Physical Law - looks cool but isn't online as far as I can see.

I like this quote:

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . . Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Frankly, I'm not sure defining "a process" that "is going to send the rat somewhere" as "conscious" (or not) helps. I've described how I think choice happens, just above at #602.

.

You say this at 602:

Look at it this way: the sensorium can flag actions and activities as being part of the organism; or as impinging on it from outside, as an external influence. If you move your hands, you know you chose to move them. If they are moved, by someone or something (perhaps even an organic disease), then you know that too. Subjectively, there's a qualitative difference between voluntary movements and involuntary tics.

So there's got to be a processing delay between the decision being made, and its being flagged in the sensorium.

Paragraph one, you describe how you know if you've moved your hands, or if they've been moved.

In paragraph 2, you come to a conclusion: that there has to be a processing delay - between a decision being made, and its being flagged in the sensorium.

In neither paragraph, do I see a description of how choice happens.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is consciousness necessary to make a decision, though? I don't think it is – in fact even conscious beings, it appears, make their decisions subconsciously (or more accurately, pre-consciously). I don't disagree that a rat will probably have some form of limited rat consciousness, but that is not a precondition for decision-making.

...which is the point I was trying to get at with the example.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think "making a decision" brings new information into play (otherwise nothing would change), and that consciousness accompanies the creation of information.

But the fact that the being becomes aware of new information, thus necessitating a decision, isn't the same as the 'creation' of information. It's more the 'reception' of information.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ok, we need to ensure we're talking about the same thing. What is usually taken as consciousness in everyday parlance is something akin to self-awareness - knowledge that you exist. This is the kind of consciousness that I am talking about.

A new-born human baby is not conscious by this reckoning, but becomes so as it develops. The baby will make decisions, however.

Wasn't it Freud who said that a newborn is conscious, it just isn't aware of the distinction/boundary between itself and everything else. To a baby, it is the universe.

You're right that it needs to develop 'self' awareness, in that it must learn to differentiate between itself, and what surrounds it.

Maybe 'satori' etc, is a reawakening of that awareness that we possessed at the moment of birth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, it's not illusory. If you move your hand, you really did decide to move it; and your movement is flagged as yours, something stemming from your being..

Ever see someone scratch their nose, or brush at their face, in their sleep, maybe as a response to someone tickling or shaking them?

 

[Jonti]

Of course, and I've seen people sleepwalk. The fact that we do some things unconsciously and automatically does not mean we do all things unconsciously and automatically.

 

[Jonti]

But the fact that the being becomes aware of new information, thus necessitating a decision, isn't the same as the 'creation' of information. It's more the 'reception' of information.

I'm saying that to make a decision (not to respond mechanically) requires the creation of new information. It's almost tautological, really. If you can predict exactly what's going to happen, then there's no real decision involved -- it's just what's going to happen anyway.

 

[Kizmet]

It's a good question, though. How does it fit in with your ideas of a processing delay difference between voluntary and involuntary movements?

 

[Kizmet]

I'm saying that to make a decision (not to respond mechanically) requires the creation of new information. It's almost tautological, really. If you can predict exactly what's going to happen, then there's no real decision involved -- it's just what's going to happen anyway.

What about recall?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm saying that to make a decision (not to respond mechanically) requires the creation of new information. It's almost tautological, really. If you can predict exactly what's going to happen, then there's no real decision involved -- it's just what's going to happen anyway.

It requires a mental process; I'm not sure if that is the same thing as creating information.

You are hungry. You see an apple. You decide to pick it up.

A process whereby your state of hunger is coordinated with the sight of the apple occurs, resulting in your action.

What information is created?

 

[Jonti]

Is consciousness necessary to make a decision, though? I don't think it is – in fact even conscious beings, it appears, make their decisions subconsciously (or more accurately, pre-consciously).

No, I don't think it is. What I think is that the making of a decision (properly speaking) requires the creation of new information. And I suggest that whenever information is created, consciousness also happens. I'm not saying that the fleeting "I AM" is always integrated into an organised consciousness. It's reasonable to imagine that would take a complex structure to to integrate the phenomenisca with sense data.

If that is how things work, then although we may be free to make decisions, our decisions might always be unconscious -- just that when we become aware of them, we can recognise them as our own decision.

 

[Jonti]

Johnny, do you accept that if it can be exactly predicted what's going to happen, then there's no real decision involved -- it's just what's going to happen anyway?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Johnny, do you accept that if it can be exactly predicted what's going to happen, then there's no real decision involved -- it's just what's going to happen anyway?

No. Your hand doesn't just decide on its own to pick up the apple. A decision gets made.

 

[Jonti]

LOL, that's a "yes", then!