| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » Brain makes decisions before you even know it
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Hasenkam |
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Curt Welch" <curt@kcwc.com> wrote in message
news:20080416122109.799$iL@newsreader.com...
Quote: JHasenkam@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:16 am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
Pranav Peshwe <pranavpes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:19 am, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease.com> wrote:
In a way not surprising but I find the 10 sec delay suspicious. It
is also a simple decision making process(left or right button). I
don't think that is representative of most decision making
processes.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize
it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while
making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people
would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a
decision.
...
Ten seconds seems a bit too much. What about split second decisions
like the ones we have to take while driving or playing ?
They are no trying to claim that _all_ behavior can be predicted 10
seconds before it happens or before we can report being aware of our
decision, just this one very specific type of test which had no time
limit on the decision.
Also, it is
the brain which takes the decision and it is the brain itself which
gives the feeling to the individual that 'he' has taken a decision,
so the delay between taking the decision and feeling the decision
might very well be a property of our brain.
:)
The brain _is_ the "he". It's one and the same. It's not "might very
will be", it's "obviously is".
No, you are confusing matters. There is no you to answer your question.
It may also be possible to argue that all behavior constitutes learning,
hence in all behavior there exists a degree of randomness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf K. |
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
Quote: Wolf K. wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:
JHasenkam@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
insufficient evidence to make the claim.
In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly
deterministic. I'm
not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm
just say
that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is
highly
predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain
scan
is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as
all
that surprising.
[...]
"Determined" does equal "predictable."
Then all is etymologically well, since if a person is at all familiar to
us (even just by belonging to the same species as us) the same such as
her behavior is largely predictable.
Sorry, I meant to type "determined'" does NOT equal "predictable."
Clumsy fingers... ;-)
--
wolf k. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alpha |
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 17, 10:24 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:19:30 -0400, "Wolf K." <wolf...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
Wolf K. wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:
JHasen...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
insufficient evidence to make the claim.
In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly
deterministic. I'm
not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm
just say
that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is
highly
predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain
scan
is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as
all
that surprising.
[...]
"Determined" does equal "predictable."
Then all is etymologically well, since if a person is at all familiar to
us (even just by belonging to the same species as us) the same such as
her behavior is largely predictable.
Sorry, I meant to type "determined'" does NOT equal "predictable."
Clumsy fingers... ;-)
Curious, then, that the behavior of most seems quite predictable.
That may not be because determined though. Patterns can develop out of
the chaos and we assimilate those patterns and learn how to respond,
the bevy of responses (even if chaotic seeming) in turn create more
patterns etc.
Quote:
~v~~- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zzbunker@netscape.net |
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 13, 9:19 pm, "John Hasenkam" <jo...@goawayplease.com> wrote:
Quote: In a way not surprising but I find the 10 sec delay suspicious. It is also a
simple decision making process(left or right button). I don't think that is
representative of most decision making processes.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it,
according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a
decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before
they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.
But that deception is also why high speed computers were invented.
Since humans only make decisions in advance because it takes
them months and years to realize that decisions even need to be
made.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lester Zick |
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:19:30 -0400, "Wolf K." <wolfkir@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
Quote: Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
Wolf K. wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:
JHasenkam@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
insufficient evidence to make the claim.
In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly
deterministic. I'm
not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm
just say
that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is
highly
predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain
scan
is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as
all
that surprising.
[...]
"Determined" does equal "predictable."
Then all is etymologically well, since if a person is at all familiar to
us (even just by belonging to the same species as us) the same such as
her behavior is largely predictable.
Sorry, I meant to type "determined'" does NOT equal "predictable."
Clumsy fingers...
Curious, then, that the behavior of most seems quite predictable.
~v~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lester Zick |
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Alpha
<omegazero2003@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 17, 10:24 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:19:30 -0400, "Wolf K." <wolf...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
Wolf K. wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:
JHasen...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Not quite sure what you mean by "deterministic" Curt but I'm inclined
to think that the play of randomness is important in learning and
moreso in creating. I don't think we can convincingly argue that our
behavior is determined. That may be true but at present there is
insufficient evidence to make the claim.
In that context I mean it only loosely and not strictly
deterministic. I'm
not saying strictly deterministic such as a computer program. I'm
just say
that brains, like all matter, follow the laws of physics which creates a
great deal of predictability in their behavior. Current behavior is
highly
predictive of future behavior. The fact that a high resolution brain
scan
is able to detect behavior which, under just the right condition, is
predictive of behavior 10 seconds in the future should not be seen as
all
that surprising.
[...]
"Determined" does equal "predictable."
Then all is etymologically well, since if a person is at all familiar to
us (even just by belonging to the same species as us) the same such as
her behavior is largely predictable.
Sorry, I meant to type "determined'" does NOT equal "predictable."
Clumsy fingers... ;-)
Curious, then, that the behavior of most seems quite predictable.
That may not be because determined though.
Personally I can't imagine an indeterminate predictable response,
Alpha.
Quote: Patterns can develop out of
the chaos and we assimilate those patterns and learn how to respond,
the bevy of responses (even if chaotic seeming) in turn create more
patterns etc.
The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
old party line.
~v~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Curt Welch |
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Alpha
The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
old party line.
I've seen change in myself and others. It's just very very slow.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:02 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 18, 11:13 pm, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
Quote: Lester Zick <dontbot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Alpha
The point is that I have yet to see anyone change their perspective on
ai or much of anything else. By and large they just stick to the same
old party line.
I've seen change in myself and others. It's just very very slow.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
c...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
A frictionless billiards table B1 starts at time T1. B1, a replicate
to precision P, starts at time T2 > T1, with momentum ball_b2_i = 2*
momentum ball_b1_i. To what precision does B1 at T1+ t equal B2 at T2
+ ( T2- T1 )/ 2?
Also, the weight of the brain divided by the molecular weight of water
is in the billions+ (or was that cells). Even if particles are lined
up like billiard balls, what Earthly system, including other brains,
can replicate it?
Or, if you are merely interested in the state of a single neuron, less
numerous and scales larger than particles (DNA fits in every cell),
you can infer propogation-cone boundaries on what state it's in. So
long as you take over the world in realtime, brains shouldn't pose
resistance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri May 16, 2008 11:42 am
|
|