Comments on: Decision Making in the Brain

By: NeuroLogica Blog » More Neuroscience Denial

NeuroLogica Blog » More Neuroscience Denial — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:09:42 +0000

[...] It is my position that all of these specific predictions have been validated over the last century of neuroscience research. It is a cheap debating trick to dismiss my position as “hubris” rather than simply address my points. In fact I would add another prediction to the list, one that I have discussed but have not previously added explicity to the list – if brain causes mind then brain activity and changes will precede the corresponding mental activity and changes. Causes come before their effects. This too has been validated. [...]

By: NeuroLogica Blog » More Sloppy Thinking from Michael Egnor on Neuroscience

NeuroLogica Blog » More Sloppy Thinking from Michael Egnor on Neuroscience — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:34:15 +0000

[...] our latest exchange I first wrote that a recent bit of neuroscience research showed that brain activity comes before any evidence for [...]

By: CelticBear’s Musings » Blog Archive » Life in the future! An ode to reason.

Thu, 01 May 2008 19:05:43 +0000

[...] a completely sheltered life in theirs. Here in the year 2008, we have machines that can literally detect thought before you have the thought, we can map the genome and know what each gene is for, we’re perhaps just years before we can [...]

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Dr. Egnor on Neuroscience - Wrong Again.

NeuroLogica Blog » Dr. Egnor on Neuroscience - Wrong Again. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:00:54 +0000

[...] weeks ago I wrote about an fMRI study that looks at the process of decision making in the brain. (Rather than re-summarizing this study, [...]

By: Nevar

Nevar — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:15:34 +0000

Here follows some incredulity, on the skeptic side

I really don’t get the problem with consciousness or even mind. We have labelled certain experiences with these words and in my opinion that is all they are, labels for experiences. How we got to something like a consciousness or mind possibly being separate or outside of the brain is like stepping into the realm of invisible pink unicorns and teapots. I realise that the experience of consciousness is not a trivial thing, but I am not convinced it is anything more than the output of the brain. The input being anything from genes to memes.

Sure, the resulting experience is rather astounding, but even as I sit here typing this, I can imagine being only a machine, processing things. I am perfectly comfortable with that. What an incredible machine

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:05:30 +0000

BA,
You’re assuming the article is about psychological phenomena, when in fact it’s about the quantum universe and the question of the randomness that was presumed to allow for uncertainty.

Vacuous or not, it’s a detailed attempt to sum up what the physicists involved seem to think is a very important project, and directly involves questions of determinism in the universe.

What does this have to do with free will (which after all was part of what this post was about), and with your comment about dualism?

I’ll risk more vacuousness by making it simple:

Both dualism and determinism allow for the supernatural.

Free will and the uncertainty principle ultimately, in my view, don’t.

Because supernatural concepts invariably posit an omniscient or omnipotent presence in nature.

By: BA

BA — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:02:06 +0000

Asserting determinism for behavior does not suggest a dualistic perspective. Behavior is like all other natural phenomena, beholden to the laws of the universe. Dualism posits a “special” world for the mind but the mind is a hypothetical construct that suggests there are special rules for certain human behavior like thinking. But behavior is determined by phylogenic selection, ontogenic selection and/or socio-cultural selection.

And the argument that because NewScientist says something it is pertinent to a scientific analysis is vacuous. It often borders on Omni mag more than science at times, particularly when it comes to psychological phenomena.

By: Roy Niles

Roy Niles — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:08:18 +0000

BA,
If you are arguing that all behavior is determined, it would seem to be you who are attempting to preserve dualism, not those who hold the philosophical position that it doesn’t have to be.

Poor questions to answer through science? These are in fact questions that science itself has posed in an attempt to understand the universe. Take a look at the cover story of NewScientist, March 22-28 issue.

By: BA

BA — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:02:38 +0000

Steven is on the money with the comment that the questions of free will “research” border on unanswerable or are poor questions to answer through science. All behavior is determined but the fact behavior is highly unpredictable makes it appear as if one cannot assert determinism for human behavior. Behavior is like any other natural phenomenon. It is complexly determined by an interaction between genetic inheritance/phenotypic expression, ontongenic experience and socio-cultural influence. Attempting to preserve dualism for explaining human behavior is similar to creationists preserving the role of the creator.

By: Michelle B

Michelle B — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:55:10 +0000

Pec wrote: …but we have no idea if it precedes subconscious “awareness.”
_______

subconscious “awareness”? Is that similar to unfelt “love?”

Humans are endowed with the ability to sense/feel something when there is nothing (perhaps from developing skills to sniff out predators before it is too late).

We now have proof that Pec is human.