6

I recall reading some article or other some time ago that it had been demonstrated that our actions are apparent before we are entirely conscious of them; and here we are not talking about fractions of a second but some significant elapse of time. I had dismissed it at the time as some clever marketing by some scientific team looking for some eye-catching anti-intuitive result. But it does appear that some people are taking this seriously.

A philsophical riposte to these claims can come from Bergson:

Our ordinary behavior, Bergson grants, may be habitual: even to the point of automatism. But this cannot always be the case. In crises in which our future and our very concept of ourselves are threatened, we may overcome our habitual lethargy and our conventional roles, and express ourselves freely. Blackwells - Companion to continental philsophy

Who ran these experiments, and in which journal was the article published in? Who has examined this critically from a philosophical point of view? For example the Bergsonian perspective alluded to above.

Frank Hubeny
  • 19,136
  • 7
  • 28
  • 89
Mozibur Ullah
  • 1
  • 14
  • 88
  • 234
  • If Gugg's answer isn't what you were looking for, there is other research that comes to the same conclusion--let me know if so. Also, note that the research shows that actions *can* be determined before we're conscious of them, not that they *must*, so it doesn't follow that consciousness has no control over things, only that you must be skeptical about whether it actually _was_ or whether you're retrodicting. – Rex Kerr May 22 '13 at 15:17
  • @RexKerr - since we act within the constantly changing framework of space/time, it would seem that the conscious mind, which is of necessity defined by the particular point in space/time in which the action takes place, **must** be the final arbiter of that action, regardless of predispositions. Or could "Retrodicting" be considered a manifestion of p-zombies? – Vector May 22 '13 at 18:56
  • @ReallyRational - Er, how does that make sense? Just because you're aware of what's happening at that moment (well, actually over a short temporal window about that moment) doesn't mean that you chose it consciously, even if you have the feeling that you did. How are zombies relevant? It's a simple matter of being able to be mistaken about one's own mental causal process. – Rex Kerr May 22 '13 at 19:02
  • One can make a decision arbitrarily and execute an action based on that decision that impacts the physical world. If you hold out the possibility that this is a figment of one's imagination, or simply a 'feeling', then of necessity you must also hold out the possibility that there is perhaps no clearly defined physical reality at all, but only 'a feeling'. I categorically reject that possibility, **axiomatically**, and I think the laws of physics support me. (I believe Einstein also held that position). – Vector May 22 '13 at 19:22
  • continued: I refuse to deal with idle speculation about infinite "possibilities", no matter how 'philosophically' plausible they seem. Perhaps being an engineer and not a philosopher influences my POV... :-) – Vector May 22 '13 at 19:23
  • @RexKerr : "mistaken about one's own mental causal process". You are speaking for yourself. However, you are mistaken about my 'mental causal process', and you have no way of countering me on that. 'Zombies' are relevant because you are essentially contending that conscious actions are not necessarily truly conscious, but simply a 'feeling' of consciousness induced in and by a zombie. In essence you have relegated humanity to a very large group of p-zombies. But since I know that I am human and conscious, I do not include myself in your p-zombie induced group. – Vector May 22 '13 at 20:54
  • 1
    @ReallyRational - I am speaking of the results of psychophysics experiments (and Lamme's experiments, and others). If sensory qualia are unreliable, what you can learn about physical reality is also unreliable (and you may doubt that there is one). Unfortunately, it looks like qualia regarding cognition are pretty unreliable. Introspection is thus a poor strategy. Saying, "Well, I introspected it!" regarding your accuracy w.r.t. your mental processes is hardly compelling when the evidence indicates that people are poor at introspecting such things. You need to demonstrate your competence. – Rex Kerr May 22 '13 at 21:14
  • @RexKerr - I believe there is an anecdote attributed to Einstein. Story goes that he said to a "philosopher" who contended something similar: "If I punch you in the nose, will it be a figment of your imagination?" Nothing further interests me. Our reality is that which we perceive and deal with, regardless of how it comes about or is 'presented' to us. It is irrelevant - the realm of idle speculation.... until it becomes relevant. – Vector May 22 '13 at 21:46
  • @ReallyRational - We seem to be talking past each other. When our perceptions do not agree with each other, it can be useful to find the source of the disagreement. For example, http://richrock.com/gifs/optical-illusion-wheels-circles-rotating.png looks like it's rotating. It's a png, which doesn't support animation. You are doing the equivalent of staring at that and saying, "It is moving! Get away from me with your 'cameras' and 'file formats' and all that--I see it moving _so it is_." Do you not see the problem with this stance? – Rex Kerr May 22 '13 at 22:00
  • @RexKerr - I don't see it moving. I simply feel my eyes being pulled back forth in ways that would be perceived as motion given a different medium. But I understand where you are coming from. I'm sure you have read Flatland, a favorite book of mine. I think the author may be dealing with this problem. The poor Square was assaulted by people from Spaceland who denied that people in Flatland could discern Lines. But they DID discern lines, just not the way people in Spaceland do. Still, they were fine in Flatland, just as they were in Spaceland. So... – Vector May 22 '13 at 22:17
  • @RexKerr: That is: they were fine in Flatland and also in Spaceland, until their worlds intersected - only at that point did the issue became relevant. So - find me a Flatlander and we can talk... – Vector May 22 '13 at 22:28
  • 1
    @ReallyRational - If you understand my point, you should reply to my earlier comments. If not, what do you mean _your eyes are being pulled_? It's a picture on a computer monitor! How can it pull on your eyes? Clearly, your introspective feelings are out of step with our view of objective physical reality. (As are everyone else's, more or less, who views this illusion--certain kinds of color blindness or loss of peripheral vision can render it relatively ineffective.) – Rex Kerr May 22 '13 at 22:37
  • @RexKerr - Please - I don't care for word play. I speak common vernacular English. My eyes react to visual stimuli and are 'pulled', metaphorically of course. What it means is that they react to the visual stimuli in a way that gives me the feeling of 'pulling', and I believe that physical movement is detected in the eyes when confronted with such an image. (I do not discount your possibilities. I simply assert that they are moot in our quite human grasp of reality, even if true on some 'higher plane' of ideas, or reality, or whatever you choose to call it.) – Vector May 22 '13 at 22:53
  • @RexKerr - besides, if you want to get technical, the light that emits from the image is indeed a physical force, so the term 'pulling' is not inappropriate. Even if it's 'just a picture on a computer monitor', that picture emits light: photons - wave/particles - energy: Objects that can indeed push and pull in the literal sense. – Vector May 22 '13 at 22:58

1 Answers1

5

I am fairly sure this is (among others?) Victor Lamme and the Cognitive Neuroscience Group Amsterdam. Besides plenty of research papers (by him and/or the group), he wrote a pop-sci book in 2010, the title of which translates as Free will doesn't exist: About who really is boss in the brain.

  • "Who really is boss in the brain?" **YOU ARE**. Can you not change your mind at will at any given point in time? Is there anything that prevents you from doing so? Certainly not - each time you act, you have simply gone through a decision making process during which numerous ancient, old and new factors entered into **your** determination of **your** action. If you don't think it's so, try writing two opposite responses to my assertion and validating both. Will you not succeed? Is what we call "habit" relevant here? – Vector May 22 '13 at 19:04
  • @ReallyRational Let's go to [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/538/cafe-philosophy) and discuss your use of capitals and boldface and perhaps free will. :) –  May 22 '13 at 19:08