Re: Making your mind up

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:43:03 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:


[…]

As it happens, I have been reading Yuval Noah Harari's _Homo Deus_ and
yesterday read his take on free will.  He considers it a modern myth
disproved by science. One example he gives is "robo-rats", rats in a
laboratory which have electrodes implanted in the pleasure centers of
their brain, which scientists can stimulate to make the rats do what the
scientists want them to do. The rats turn this way and that not of their
own choice, but according to the choices of the people pressing buttons.
Now, imagine you are one of those rats. You turn left. Why? Because you
*chose* to turn left. "What does it matter whether the neurons are
firing because they are stimulated by other neurons or by transplanted
electrodes connected to Professor Talwar's remote control? If you ask
the rat about it, she might well tell you, 'Sure I have free will! Look,
I want to turn left -- and I turn left. I want to climb a ladder -- and
I climb a ladder. Doesn't that prove I have free will?'" [pp. 333-334]

Most brain research that I'm aware of - including the Lbet experiments
- show a considerable difference in brain activity between trivial
decisions and important decisions. I think it's safe to say that 'Turn
left or tun right' is well into the trivial category.

You and he also seem to be making the assumption that the decision
process in rats can be directly transposed into humans which isnot
necessarily the case - there are distinct difference between rats and
primates, including humans. See my response to Arkalen below. 

>
References he cites are S.K. Talwar et al., 'Rat navigation guided by
remote control', Nature 417 (2002); Ben Harder, 'Scientists drive rats
by remote control', Nat. Geographic 1 May 2012; Tom Clarke, 'Here come
the ratbots: Desire drives remote-controlled rodents', Nature 2 May
2002; D. Graham-Rowe, 'Robo-rat controlled by brain electrodes', New
Scientist 1 May 2002.  Most or all of those are available online; I did
not bother copying links, nor have I read them myself.
>
The book on the whole is well-written, thought-provoking, and
deliberately provocative; there is stuff in there for everybody to
disagree with. Or in some cases, maybe, to hate the conclusions even as
they agree with them.