Please make more, almost all of these videos are of outstanding quality (in terms of video production but also information and style). This channel deserves much more views.

Very interesting video! The neuroscience videos on this channel are very good!

What if it’s not boredom that’s making them skip, but a mild anxiety? Would that mean the experiment is directly causing the precursor? My intuition says it would but I’d love to hear thoughts!

Even though us homo sapiens sapiens can discuss volition vs inherent programmed reactions we still are subject to them. Most ethologists consider other animals behaviour to be preprogrammed reactions, lacking consciousness,as in volition. As if humans are not just another phenotype subject to similar behaviour programs even whilst being capable of discussing volition. This brings into question our acceptance of our nature as just another phenotype of dna, and our responsibilities for all other phenotypes.

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree more, although the homo sapiens sapiens phenotype is, at times, preprogrammed to do unexpected things that bear striking resemblance to hidden markov chains, albeith and notwithstanding a bit further off from statistical information stored within and further away towards complete randomness. Lorem ipsum dolor and q.e.d.!

Great

This is very interesting study. However, I am not sure if such boredom-induced action can be said to unrelated to external stimuli. The “stimulus” here is “the fact that the dots haven’t moved for X seconds”. The lack of stimulus is still an external stimulus, no?

Thank you! I just had an argument with someone who wasn’t even willing to discuss free will.

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

why would you discuss when the answer is so obvious

@TheAngiepangie424

3 жыл бұрын

user73o1u 81716 oh is it? Please explain what neuroscientists and philosophers are still studying.

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheAngiepangie424 the extension of whatever their beliefs (i.e. studying what you not believe is rare)

Why did you change the title?

If it weren't for the implications of strong emergence, I'd be pretty much cemented to the idea that the frontal cortex is acting as the expediter of our unconscious mind in this situation, and that free will does not in fact exist.

This is another fascinating video. Has Serious Science ever considered doing a group discussion? Get Chomsky, Friston and Haggard together to meet minds!

Treating responses to boredom as fundamentally different from other stimulus responses doesn't really make sense to me; extended *lack* of stimulus (causing boredom) is still just a form of stimulus in the end. I'm curious as to what other scenarios result in this measurable "readiness potential".

Well, it always boils down to that conclusion, now doesn't it? (Which, BTW, isn't "philosophical", at all...). Yes, our speaker told us about something scientific here - most of which clustered around the magic word, "biomarker". I know that prophecies are out of fashion these days, but I'd like to make one, anyway: that, five years from now, cognitive scientists will still be talking about biomarkers; then, fifty years from now, they will still be talking about biomarkers; then, five hundred years from now...

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

it's more of a phenomenological description, the term biomarker I guess is just the fields operatioal definition that has a cool/trendy vibe, what is meant is probably biomarker ...'of free will' or 'consciousness'. Author makes it seem like more, but it's just another piece in a enormous puzzle

@thstroyur

3 жыл бұрын

​@@userou-ig1ze There's not much of a puzzle here, tho: 'biomarker' is simply a compact way of saying 'correlates of consciousness'. The problem is that cognitive science doesn't really deal with 'consciousness', only with 'correlates of consciousness' - yet, as you noticed, authors like this one make it seem like more than just their 'naturalism of the gaps'; SMH...

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

@@thstroyur sure, but let's not forget, almost all of science deals 'just' with correlations. We call motor cortex that because it correlates well with motor activity (and other things). They haven't found out how it works, they just found what they think is some biological manifestation of what some call consciousness. I disagree this science is completely useless. They just worked out some constraints based on experiments. Time will tell if that was right, but if it is and easily accessible that could have profound implications on its own. That said, the somewhat overused word biomarker seems a bit silly indeed ^^

@thstroyur

3 жыл бұрын

@@userou-ig1ze ​The problem is that the _claim_ made (either explicitly or implicitly) is that neuroscience ultimately will lead to a full comprehension of consciousness. I don't maintain, BTW, that "this science is completely useless"; what I assert is that the contention that studying the correlates of consciousness (which I have no difficulty imagining we will learn more and more about) will vault the gap; this is based off physicalist presuppositions that don't stand to scrutiny. For one: how does one guarantee the correlations are one-to-one with the _qualia_ , as opposed to just postulating they are (free-will implications)? Speaking of _qualia_ - here's a thought experiment: suppose a monochromatic (B&W) world, and two subjects: one sees W and perceives W', same for B and B', and for the other, W->W'' and B->B''. Describe to me a scientific experiment able to potentially falsify the hypothesis: W'=W'', B'=B''.

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

@@thstroyur Half of the words you use I don't know. Can you put that in layman's language?!

Who is the feeler, the knower, the subjective experiencer? Neuroscientists would do well to answer this question first before designing such experiments. To say that electrical activity in "circuits" of neurons is a feeler, a "we" or "I" is a joke. Thought and memory are knowledge entities ontologically distinct from the sense/motor-data flowing through these "wires" (neurons). To reduce these entities to electrical signals is a subversion of common sense and a blot on human intellect. There is a fundamental, irreducible conscious personality--a first principle--connected to the brain and the senses. But those committed to the materialist ideology (rather than the truth) would never admit it.

For the nineteenth time in seven hundred years, science gets all dressed up in khaki pants and solar topee, sets off into the jungle in yet another expedition against the dreaded theology monster.

@rahulnarwar7140

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that theology has been a much hindrance to scientific progress, but I hold doubts if all beings are capable of acting as rational individuals all by themselves. In present age with ability to expose children to different views it isn't necessary to push anti theology narratives for those capable of doing it will do so themselves.

@TheDavidlloydjones

3 жыл бұрын

@@rahulnarwar7140 Rahul, I think the point of my light "all dressed up in khaki pants and solar topee" was that I don't take the absolute victory o rationalism for granted. As far as "narratives" is concerned, I think everything we do to make more rationalism and sound knowledge available is worthwhile.

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

theology being free will here?

@TheDavidlloydjones

3 жыл бұрын

@@userou-ig1ze Uh no. That would be science in the notion here...

we are better off/more humane without the notion of free will (Buddhism/yoga style). people get so ridiculously emotional about it, and I did too, until I could let go of it (my brain knew it didn't make much sense).

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

'my brain knew it'?

@drzeworyj

3 жыл бұрын

@@userou-ig1ze yup. or do you think 'you' exist biologically beyond your brain and body? a sense of self is an illusion. I worded it this way because while I consciously didn't initially want to get rid of the notion of free will at the ego level, at the same it made perfect sense to me in terms of science and my previous observations (so yeah, my brain).

@userou-ig1ze

3 жыл бұрын

@@drzeworyj so, if you lose your arm and were asked: do you think you are still yourself, you answer no? Your leg? Your torso? Everything but your brain? Everything you think is your brain, therefore saying that is a self evident / somewhat of a pleonasm. Unfortunately for us there is no escaping this reality, in a sense 'we *are* our brains', there's nothing you can percieve or conceive outside of it, therefore your 'birdseye view' sounds great but amounts to the same thing in the end. If you want to be picky, you have to include all of the CNS in what I call 'brain' here

This research is interesting but nowhere close to explaining Consciousness, and people like Searle are totally off the mark. You are studying the neurophysiological and neurobiological correlations of actions in the brain,fine,but you will never be able to objectify consciousness ,therefore be humble,do not be like Searle.