What is the use of consciousness?

[Bahman]

I was reading about Epiphenomenalism and I was strike with a scientific experiment done with Libet. According to experiment the readiness time is 500 ms earlier than action time and is 300 ms earlier than the time we become conscious of our decision. This means that decision we make and its awareness are not synchronized and the later always comes after. The question that strike me was what is the use of consciousness at all if it cannot causally affect our decisions?

 

[Qoeleth]

So, the muscles are ready to act before the brain ‘decides’ to act?

I have often felt that decisions are made in retrospect. At the time of doing something, there is no conscious ‘why’, but later on (especially if asked), one comes up with a decision and a reason.

But how can they possibly time when decision become conscious, etc. especially within milliseconds? I mean, you’d have to be pretty fast with the stopwatch…

Are the measurements reliable? I am not a scientist, so I have no way of telling good science from bad science.

 

[Bahman]

So, the muscles are ready to act before the brain ‘decides’ to act?

The sequence is illustrate in a figure in wiki link I provided and it is as following: brain decide, then we become aware of decision then muscles act.

I have often felt that decisions are made in retrospect. At the time of doing something, there is no conscious ‘why’, but later on (especially if asked), one comes up with a decision and a reason.

We all become conscious about our decisions before our action but decision itself is made before we become conscious about it.

But how can they possibly time when decision become conscious, etc. especially within milliseconds? I mean, you’d have to be pretty fast with the stopwatch…

This is also illustrate in wiki link and it is done by looking at position of the dot on the oscilloscope. They are asked to remember the time at which they decide by looking at the position of the dot.

Are the measurements reliable? I am not a scientist, so I have no way of telling good science from bad science.

It is reliable as he is a well know scientist in his filed.

 

[empther]

I was reading about Epiphenomenalism and I was strike with a scientific experiment done with Libet. According to experiment the readiness time is 500 ms earlier than action time and is 300 ms earlier than the time we become conscious of our decision. This means that decision we make and its awareness are not synchronized and the later always comes after. The question that strike me was what is the use of consciousness at all if it cannot causally affect our decisions?

Good grief, Charlie Brown! :bigyikes:
We’ve seen a lot of threads around here that were wastes of time, but this one takes the cake.
You got to wonder how much could be accomplished by concentrating our time and energy on more profitable pursuits.

“Do not many of us fail to achieve big things…… fail because we lack concentration ----- the art of concentrating the mind on the thing to be done at the proper time and to the exclusion of everything else?” — John D. Rockefeller, built the oil industry from nothing in the Civil War to the largest industry in the world and became the richest man of all time

Rockefeller would sometimes mull over a decision for days or weeks. Then when he decided, he’d concentrate on that and eliminate competitors. I don’t think he worried about milliseconds.

 

[RPRPsych]

I was reading about Epiphenomenalism and I was strike with a scientific experiment done with Libet. According to experiment the readiness time is 500 ms earlier than action time and is 300 ms earlier than the time we become conscious of our decision. This means that decision we make and its awareness are not synchronized and the later always comes after. The question that strike me was what is the use of consciousness at all if it cannot causally affect our decisions?

Libet’s experiment can be interpreted in that way if one holds to a purely materialistic framework. For a dualist (I’m a naturalistic dualist) it admits of other explanations.

So, to answer your question: the use of consciousness is to annoy materialists who think that “mind=brain”, because consciousness upsets their little schemes.

 

[empther]

From original post…

According to experiment the readiness time is 500 ms earlier than action time and is 300 ms earlier than the time we become conscious of our decision.

22 year old Magnus Carlson of Norway won the world chess championship yesterday.

sports.yahoo.com/news/chess-has-a-handsome–charismatic-new-star-in-world-champion-magnus-carlsen-162459722.html

In taking several minutes to decide on his next move, which required thinking ahead of every possible combination of ten moves by each player,
he probably became conscious of his decision before any “readiness time” ( whatever that is )

This “science” has no value in people’s real lives.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…obviously because the decision will be subject to free will. So you propose a decision, send it to your consciousness, it decides to go ahead or not, and then you act.

 

[Beryllos]

We’ve seen a lot of threads around here that were wastes of time, but this one takes the cake.
You got to wonder how much could be accomplished by concentrating our time and energy on more profitable pursuits.

This “science” has no value in people’s real lives.

I disagree. It is a real phenomenon. How useful this research is, I cannot say. It might help to understand how people perceive and react to sudden events when reaction time is critical.

 

[Qoeleth]

The sequence is illustrate in a figure in wiki link I provided and it is as following: brain decide, then we become aware of decision then muscles act.

We all become conscious about our decisions before our action but decision itself is made before we become conscious about it.

This is also illustrate in wiki link and it is done by looking at position of the dot on the oscilloscope. They are asked to remember the time at which they decide by looking at the position of the dot.

It is reliable as he is a well know scientist in his filed.

Hmm.But surely, even looking at a dot takes some time to move the head- more than a few milliseconds, even a whole second (if the person is of slow disposition, or elderly). How can we measure when a decision is made in the head, aside from when one is conscious of it? How can anyone possibly know that someone has made a decision before they are conscious of it?

That fact that the person is ‘well known in his field’ means very little. There are presumably people who are well known in the fields of astrology or clairvoyance. But that doesn’t mean they are right. As I said, I am not a scientist, and therefore I have no grounds for accepting the evidence which is asserted. No offence, but it could be pseudo-science.

 

[Qoeleth]

Good grief, Charlie Brown! :bigyikes:
We’ve seen a lot of threads around here that were wastes of time, but this one takes the cake.
You got to wonder how much could be accomplished by concentrating our time and energy on more profitable pursuits.

“Do not many of us fail to achieve big things…… fail because we lack concentration ----- the art of concentrating the mind on the thing to be done at the proper time and to the exclusion of everything else?” — John D. Rockefeller, built the oil industry from nothing in the Civil War to the largest industry in the world and became the richest man of all time

Rockefeller would sometimes mull over a decision for days or weeks. Then when he decided, he’d concentrate on that and eliminate competitors. I don’t think he worried about milliseconds.

Ah, but if a pigeon flies towards your eye, you close the eye, virtually before the decision to do so is made. If someone says "Hello, most people say “Hello” back without taking time to make a decision.

Now, if you consider the thread a waste of time, then surely you taking the time to respond must be considered even a greater waste of time.

 

[wcknight]

Most decisions allow us much more time to consider and do things.

Unless you are a prize fighter, or professional sports player, your reflexes do not need to react that fast.

Most of us can take a lot more time to consider and evaluate before we act…
Though some times it seems like folks act first and think later. Most times we have a lot more than a fraction of a second to act.

The study is virtually meaningless for most of us.

 

[Aquinas21]

… the use of consciousness is to annoy materialists who think that “mind=brain”, because consciousness upsets their little schemes.

That statement sounds good to me. I’m reminded of idealism and maybe even some Jungian psychology.
Perhaps James 1:17 might be quoted (as the opposite of epiphenomenalism) concerning the origin of the human mind or soul or spirit.
.
[bibledrb]James 1:17[/bibledrb]

 

[Bahman]

Libet’s experiment can be interpreted in that way if one holds to a purely materialistic framework. For a dualist (I’m a naturalistic dualist) it admits of other explanations.

So, to answer your question: the use of consciousness is to annoy materialists who think that “mind=brain”, because consciousness upsets their little schemes.

Epiphenomenalism is a dualist picture. It accepts mind as an entity but it does not give a room in causal chain of events to mind therefore it deduces that mind is inert. There are several arguments supporting epiphenomenalism. Please read epiphemnomenalism.

 

[Bahman]

…obviously because the decision will be subject to free will. So you propose a decision, send it to your consciousness, it decides to go ahead or not, and then you act.

The question is whether the free will is an conscious entity at all. According to this research free will, decision is made in subconsciousness then we become aware of it. This is in agreement with Libet’s experiment when first we decide at readiness time, then we become aware of decision and later we perform the action. There are two other examples in epiphenomalism which the first was done with Helexy. Huxley observed that a frog with certain parts of his brain extracted was unable to initiate actions but nevertheless able to carry out a range of reflex-like actions. And the last example is about a soldier who had a brain damage being unconscious yet able to live like a normal person.

 

[Bahman]

Hmm.But surely, even looking at a dot takes some time to move the head- more than a few milliseconds, even a whole second (if the person is of slow disposition, or elderly). How can we measure when a decision is made in the head, aside from when one is conscious of it? How can anyone possibly know that someone has made a decision before they are conscious of it?

That fact that the person is ‘well known in his field’ means very little. There are presumably people who are well known in the fields of astrology or clairvoyance. But that doesn’t mean they are right. As I said, I am not a scientist, and therefore I have no grounds for accepting the evidence which is asserted. No offence, but it could be pseudo-science.

There are other research which support Libet’s experiment mentioning that free will is an unconscious entity. Please read free will

 

[Paddy_Walker]

The question is whether the free will is an conscious entity at all. According to this research free will, decision is made in subconsciousness then we become aware of it. This is in agreement with Libet’s experiment when first we decide at readiness time, then we become aware of decision and later we perform the action. There are two other examples in epiphenomalism which the first was done with Helexy. Huxley observed that a frog with certain parts of his brain extracted was unable to initiate actions but nevertheless able to carry out a range of reflex-like actions. And the last example is about a soldier who had a brain damage being unconscious yet able to live like a normal person.

You are always free to decide and/or change your mind. It is not possible to be trapped in a decision.

 

[Bahman]

You are always free to decide and/or change your mind. It is not possible to be trapped in a decision.

First, the subject of this thread is related to mind-body interaction rather than mind evolution. There are basically four models for mind-body interaction namely, interactionsm, parallelism, epiphenomenalism and reductionism. This experiment clearly support epiphenomenalism as a correct theory hence conscious mind is inert and we only experience the decisions.

Second, regarding your comment, there is the question on how my mind changes? I mean do you believe in casual change when it comes to changes in mind, this implements psychological laws hence free will is lost.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

First, the subject of this thread is related to mind-body interaction rather than mind evolution. There are basically four models for mind-body interaction namely, interactionsm, parallelism, epiphenomenalism and reductionism. This experiment clearly support epiphenomenalism as a correct theory hence conscious mind is inert and we only experience the decisions.

Second, regarding your comment, there is the question on how my mind changes? I mean do you believe in casual change when it comes to changes in mind, this implements psychological laws hence free will is lost.

I believe you were the person arguing that once God made a prediction you would change your mind and choose the opposite. In order for you to do this you will have to hear and understand and then make a decision to continue with your experiment and choose the opposite.
It cannot be said that you made the decision unconsciously without knowing and without the benefit of free will, as at that stage you did not know what God would predict before you made your decision. And you need the ability to understand and choose the opposite of whatever he says.

 

[Bahman]

I believe you were the person arguing that once God made a prediction you would change your mind and choose the opposite. In order for you to do this you will have to hear and understand and then make a decision to continue with your experiment and choose the opposite.
It cannot be said that you made the decision unconsciously without knowing and without the benefit of free will, as at that stage you did not know what God would predict before you made your decision. And you need the ability to understand and choose the opposite of whatever he says.

This is understandable in epiphenomenalism framework since my reflex is already set up, meaning that I do opposite of what I hear since decision is already made. That true that God prediction comes to conscious first but the time at which I react is up to me hence we are faced with the same situation that is explained in the experiment. For example:

1. God says that I raise my left hand
2. I deduce that I have to raise my right hand
3. I raise my right hand

From these 1 and 2 comes to consciousness first but there is no decision involved in them and 3 is subject to current experiment.

You could also say that from these 1 and 2 are performed consciously and 3 is done unconsciously which accept epiphenomenalism for 3 and deny for 1 and 2.

 

[RPRPsych]

Epiphenomenalism is a dualist picture. It accepts mind as an entity but it does not give a room in causal chain of events to mind therefore it deduces that mind is inert. There are several arguments supporting epiphenomenalism. Please read epiphemnomenalism.

Epiphenomenalism is interesting (believe me, I’ve studied the question quite thoroughly), but I’m uncomfortable with the “mind is inert” conclusion; it boils down to a sort of machine functionalism in the end. You might want to have a look at Chalmers’ naturalistic dualism.