Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Brain Cells Linked to Choice
An anonymous reader writes "Scotsman.com is reporting that Harvard Medical researchers may have found the neurons, or brain cells, that play a role in a persons ability to choose between different items. From the article: 'Scientists have known that cells in different parts of the brain react to attributes such as color, taste or quantity. Dr Camillo Padaoa-Schioppa and John Assad, an associate professor of neurobiology, found neurons involved in assigning values that help people to make choices.'"
If you're male I'd suggest looking in your pants first.
If you're female, I'd suggest you look at your significant other first.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
According to some research consciousness is something that comes *after* the rest of your brain already made the choice. So you can't do anything consciously to begin with.
You're talking about Libet's well-known research, and mischaracterizing it. In his experiment people have already decided to move their arm, in cooperation with the researcher's request, at a "random" time. They're also watching a clock on a computer screen, and are to push a button at the time that they are aware of making the choice to move their arm. Meanwhile Libet is monitoring what he interprets as a "readiness potential" at a certain location in the brain, which is a good predictor of moving your arm. The finding is that the potential is there before the subject reports awareness of the volition relative to the clock. However, Libet also found that people can successfully decide not to move their arms even after the readiness potential was in evidence. These findings are still much debated. But what they do not show is anything about the efficacy of complex, conscious deliberations.
without defining "free" there is no way to talk about it in a meaningfull way
You're working from an old, bogus notion in philosophy that we must "define our terms" before we can talk about anything. It's a failed program. Terms don't get meaning that way. Rather, terms get meaning from context, and from overlay ("blending" is the technical term in modern cognitive linguistics) with other contexts. There are few if any things that we can define (1) without context, and (2) without being in some sense circular. Yet there are a great many things we can talk about in a meaningful way - although it depends who we're talking to. Still, most all of us know, from our contexts in life, what freedom is, and what it is to will something to happen. That you can befuddle yourself about what these words mean is nice; but we can befuddle ourselves about any word if we just repeat it to ourselves a few hundred times. And that's basically the whole trick about demanding a definition before allowing a discussion to proceed - with every repeated demand you're moving the word closer to that temporarily alienated state. But, since that can be done with any word, what you've done is just on the level of a psychological illusion, not a revelation of the ill-defined meaninglessness of whatever word you've targeted.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
OCD is a powerful beast. Please do not underestimate its power. It makes the daily struggle that some of us have to cope with every single instant of our lives seem trivial. It is insulting to say the least.
I accepted the fact that I will have to live with OCD years ago. It does not make things any easier or any more possible.
OCD is not a behavioral problem. The odd behavior is the result of OCD. And even if you can avoid the behavior you still have to deal with the constant and crippling mental distress and anguish.
Brain chemistry cannot be altered through the power of the mind anymore than a diabetic can produce insulin by the power of will alone.
You cannot wish it to go away. You cannot use your mind to destroy the problem if the problem is the mind itself.
Wishing away distress and pain is nothing more than new age BS. It should be given the same credibility as crystals, pyramids or magnets.
The converse is, you might have monkeys that are genetically different from each other, in different environments, always making the same choices (e.g., to always run away from the tiger instead of towards it). Would you conclude from that observation that the monkeys *don't* have "free will" (whatever that means)?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!