Profound Discovery

[Michael]

Neuroscientists working in the Max Planck Institute have discovered that predispositions in brain patterns can anticipate the outcome of the decision process 7 seconds before the subjects have cognized their decisions.


The implications of this in terms of free will, identity, the nature of 'self', judgement of others, the nature of reality, the concept of history, of past and present are challenging to say the least.

Its relationship to mystical apprehensions such as Maya and The Way (which spring to mind - there are many, many more which relate, connections welcome) are also deeply challenging.

For me it brings up my believe that we are very foolish to judge ourselves or others. It also appears to bear out The Way, which recognises the ego does not exist and the line to follow is the line of least resistance - the goal of no goal. Without self-identity we cannot have a goal. It also says to me that our biggest error is to hold on to a sense of self.

I must say I find the implications hugely liberating.

[Flux]

First of all, I'm quite skeptical as to whether this discovery is correct until I see hear a bit more about it. Think you could provide a link? In any case, I'm always extremely warry of attempts to use scientific discoveries to justify spiritual stances. Spiritual and philosophical positions are usually results of interpretations of data, not things invariable engraved in reality itself. I've often been amazed how different groups of people can take the same scientific discovery, and draw two completely philosophical interpretations from it.

In my opinion, ego is our very desire to think that every other thing is something imensly profound. For much of human-kind, every scientific discovery is a paradigm shift in revolution, and every ill event is a harbringer of apocalyptic destruction. Does this theory have implications for free will? Certainly, just as much as Newtonial physics, the Second law of thermodynamics, Quantum mechanics, chaos theory, neuro-science, and a multitude of other theories, each of which has been used to both support and deny the existance of choice.

Personally, I think that both free will and self exist in a conceptual sense, although the concepts arn't etched into reality in any absolute sense. Free will is simply a concept that we use to describe what occurs when I choose which flavor of icecream to eat. It is neither strengthened or discredited by discovery of it's underlying components any more than the claim that we are humans is strengthened or discredited by the fact that we are composed of cells. Discoverying what underlies choice doesn't make choice a non-event; it merely shows that our conceptual basis for accepting it is subject to change.

I

[Thomas Knierim]

The discovery is actually not that new. The fact is mentioned in the Mind And Consciousness section (http://www.thebigview.com/mind/) of this website and I remember having read about it in a neuroscience magazine more than two years ago. 7 seconds sounds awfully long, since most decision processes happen faster, but possibly it depends on the experiment setting, or perhaps on the measurement methods.

This does not negate free will. It just forces us to rethink "naive" ideas of free will.

Cheers, Thomas

[Michael]

You're quite right, Thomas, the idea isn't new. Benjamin Libet, now deceased, discovered the 'readiness potential', which is a signal the brain sends milliseconds before a conscious decision is made, a good few years ago. But I do feel, that while the principle is the same, there is a huge difference between milliseconds and seven seconds.

The experiment was a simple one - decide which of two buttons to push.

I don't feel it negates free will, but it does raise the question of whether we need free will and what are the implications of choosing (!) to use it or not. It is interesting that so many spiritual beliefs have at their core the surrender of the will.

For those interested, more detail can be accessed at: http://www.cbs.mpg.de/index.html

[Michael]

Flux, I'm the one making the spiritual connections. In this respect I find myself in a serious dilemma. I am highly sceptical of the ultimate benefit of what we like to call 'knowledge (empirical science). Yet I see how quantum mechanics and other areas of scientific discovery seem to be bringing us face to face with the unknowable.

I would speculate that science is actually a self correction mechanism which enables the spirit to begin the journey back from extreme materialism. If so, it is very elegant and certainly contains a high degree of humour. Of course it also contains the challenge of controlling it.

The whole point here is that this discovery serves to undermine the concept of the 'self' to a degree beyond any of those you have referred to simply because it is so comprehensible.

[Michael]

We Who Sing




Before we speak the words are uttered
and what can be said
that will change what has been said?


Before we do the deed is done
and what can be undone that has been done?


How then should we judge
the word or deed,
where then shall we find
the power to undo what has been done
when what was done
happened before the deed?


And out of what did Dylam Thomas sing,
the rhythms wrote before he writ?


And what is it that sang
you and me before we are
and after we were
but we who sing
before the song is sung?

[schrodinger]

Here’s the fly in the ointment, in my opinion:

"In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand.
They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind."


If I were given any amount of time to ponder a simple choice between Left and Right, I can easily see where I would “debate” the question in my own mind, and then lean one way or the other before I feel I have made my choice. Perhaps it is the leaning bit which triggers the “unconscious” signal? And how do I know exactly when I feel I have decided unless I actually press the button at the moment I make the decision? It seems the subjects are allowed to carry on a little debate in their minds, and then they must remember when they feel they decided and only after that they actually press the button. This sort of process seems very sloppy and can easily cause a “lead time” of several seconds before the button is pressed, and if the subjects lean one way or the other before they feel they have made a decision this can easily skew the results in favor of a “predisposition”. As the article says, the results are not 100%; they only appear to be somewhat greater than mere chance, which is not very convincing.

[Taeguk]

Overall I don't find this discovery to be especially "profound"; if anything I find it to be highly ambiguous. It also seems rather doubtful to me that a question as complex as the free will problem will ever be answered conclusively by a scientific experiment.

As far as free will goes, I know a number of people find the idea that there is "no self" to be highly liberating because it means that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. This is "liberating" to be sure, but is it necessarily liberating in the most positive of ways? <_< If anything I would say that most people in this society need to have a greater sense of personal responsibility, not less.

As for the parallels with "mystical" teachings, well, again, I find them to be inconclusive and rather tenuous. Buddhism certainly teaches anatta, but this does not necessarily contradict the idea of responsibility and free will----on the contrary, Buddhism teaches we are all responsible for our own karma. Likewise if there were absolutely no free will there would be no possibility of ever leaving samsara.

As for Daoism, since you mentioned 'The Way', the entire premise of Daoism is that we have control over whether or not we are in harmony with the Way. The Way can be lost, and indeed the writers of the Daodejing clearly felt that the society of their time had lost the Way; hence the entire work is essentially a guidebook for re-aligning the kingdom and the self with the Way. Wei wu-wei is anything but passive.