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.'"
Forgive me for saying so, but it seems like you had a preordained conclusion and you're just, well, twisting the article just so to support it. Actually, saying your twisting it is overstating the case, because you're really just stating it supports your case without demonstrating how.
If I'm wrong and you actually have some connection aside from what looks to be personal prejudice against people with disabilities, feel free to post it.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
"Thanks to the notion of dysfunction, every zipperhead in this country can tap himself with a Freudian wand and go from failed frog to misunderstood prince."
- Dennis Miller
That's the thing. Being "average" has become almost a crime in Western society. But by having some sort of "disorder", being average becomes OK because "look at all you have had to overcome just to live a 'normal' life!" Also, you can get the sympathy from others - the "aaawwwwwe" factor. A LOT of folks confuse pity with "love".
We worship the outstanding soo much, that everyone tries to become outstanding in some way - even if it means eating bull anuses on TV to become famous. I mean, why the fuck is Paris Hilton, Kato Katlin, etc... famous? These people are nothings (maybe nothing with money). At least your Joe Average-Sixpack who raise a decent family has contributed more to society than all of those people combined.
Likewise, gravity doesn't force us to fall, it just feels that way.
Seriously dude, there is a reason the above mentioned disorders are classified as as such -because something is wrong (ie out of order; or if you prefer disordered) with the workings of the brain. For you to just jump up and say, "you know, I think these people really do have a choice." Is not just enlightened (nor does it follow from the article in any coherent way) but it is also insensitive and maybe even mean -it serves only to shift responsibility to people who should rightly be considered victims.
Every day of my life I want to fall back on these things as an excuse of why not to try to hard, to just take it easy. But I know if I do that, things always just get worse. Imagine having a headache EVERY day of your life and wanting to live one adrenaline rush to another to ease the pain. It destroys your life...
When I treat compulsions as choices, I become more able to fight them. The article just made me feel like had a choice, even if one of the choices was not as easy... I guess people could take it however they want, though.
Funnypics
It seems to me that, for the average person, this would play a small part in actually making choices...most incorrect choices tend to be made due to incomplete information, selfishness (including refusing to hear others opinions or accept advice), or denial of what is known or true.
Sure, these neurons may be involved in the process of making judgements, but if the person does not understand or refuses to accept the choice, he is setting himself up for failure before the brain even gets to this step.
I agree with some of the other posters that this discovery may be misused as an excuse for poor choices and behaviors that the individual has an inkling may be incorrect. But, I hope we come to our senses and start taking personal responsibility for our lives, instead of making biological and societal excuses for everything that "goes wrong".
Reading some of the /. comments on this story, I have to say that it's always interesting to see religious men trying too hard to associate Man with the divine as though we stand above and seperate from the natural world, but equally it's interesting to watch atheists try to find mankind wholly within nature as well. For as much as we want to call Man an animal (subject to an animal's exigencies and vicissitudes) we must admit that he is a curious sort of animal able to escape those forms of nature and create new configurations of need and choice.
I don't really have a point. I just find the whole matter of human will and spirit interesting.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
The fallancy here is that the word "choice" hasn't been defined sufficiently. Your post gives me the impression that you are assuming that to make a "choice" cannot be a physical phenomena. This will force those who believe in reductionism to come to a, possibly incorrect, conclusion that none of our actions are a matter of "choice".
I think would be possible to find a good definition of "choice" which does not assuming it must be a non-physical phenomena, a definition that would be much more useful.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thus if we reduce all of our actions and decisions to physical phenomena, we're probably going to find that none of our actions are a matter of "choice."
I can't believe modern people have a difficulty grasping this.
How the heck our ability to make "choice" is prevented by it being dictated by the state of our own brain. Apparently most people contribute "choice" to our "ghost/soul" and thus the moment they find that (shocking) we're thinking with our brain, they automatically assume that our brain dictates to our soul what choices to make (therefore "we can't make anything on our own, we can't change, we're not responsible" and other nonsense).
Shocking news people - you ARE that brain. And other shocking news, you see with your eyes, you hear with your ears and smell with your nose. You are what your body is, and your body can make its own free choices which are predisposed by the state it's in.
If we couldn't base our choices on our body/brain state, then we'd simply have no information or mechanism to make any choices whatsoever.
Mere uncertainty or chaos doesn't imply choice. Nobody knows exactly how many stars are in the Milky Way (uncertainty) or whether the stock market will be up or down tomorrow, but that doesn't mean we have any choice in those matters.
In any matter of choice, what is it that is doing the choosing? Choices may well be "mere" physical phenomena, but can we identify with that physical state, or not?
When asked if I believe in free will, my response is, "Free from what?"
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!