Could free will = PK ?

[davidsmith73]

This is just a hypothesis of mine (not really mine since its been proposed in various forms even by the famous neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles).

Its apparent that if PK does exist then experiments show that it functions by affecting probability distributions (see PEAR web site for the kind of experiments I mean). The phenomena of free will in terms of volitional movement or volitional action on bodily function has always seemed to rely on deterministic explanations which usually go along the lines of this:

The feeling of free will comes after the time when the movement is initiated so the feeling of free will is an illusion. The whole process is actually determined before you think you consciously act on free will.

The famous experiment by Benjamin Libet and replications of it are support of this hypothesis. In this experiment he asked participants to indicate (I think just through verbal communication) when they felt they had "decided" to move their finger. Simultaneously, he recorded brain activity in the motor cortex which is an indication of the "readiness to move". The motor cortex activity occurred about a third of a second before the participants indicated their act of will. Thus it is usually concluded that the feeling of free will is an illusionary after effect whereas the actual movement is determined before this feeling is generated.

However, PK has also been shown to apparently act on probabilistic events in the past (see Helmut Schmidt experiments in the 70's-90's). So Libets experiment might be explainable in terms of a PK effect (will) acting on the target system (motor cortex) in the past in order to produce the desired result (movement of the finger) at the same time as the act of will.

So how does PK act on the brain ? Experiments have suggested that PK acts on probablistic events. As it happens, all neurons are ultimately dependent on inherently probabilistic processes in order to produce and impluse. They all contain things called ion channels along their membranes. These channels control the amount of electric charge that passes through the membrane and sets up the chain of events that leads to the neuron firing. When the neuron is lying there silent, not doing much, the channels along its membrane fluctate between several structural states – open, closed and inactive - and do so in a probabilistic manner. For a neuron to fire spontaneously, a certain number of channels must be open at the same time in order for enough ions to flow across the membrane and set up the chain of event leading to the action potential. PK could conceivably alter the number of channels in the open state along the membrane simply by affecting the probablistic distribution of all states.

In the above sense, in the process of generation of movement of a limb by free will it is not necessary for PK to target the limb tissue in any way. It need only target a poulation of neurons in the brain that are necessary to initiate the chain of events that lead the movement of the limb.

Where my hypothesis has difficulty is how the correct neurons are targeted for PK effects and which are not. This may be resolved once we have a better understnading of how PK works on more simple systems like a micro-REG. What the data on micro-REG experiments suggest so far however is that the desired result of a PK effort is not dependent on the complexity of the system that is being affected. What seems more important is the consciousness feedback of the result itself.

Schmidt experiments:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/pk-tests.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html

PEAR
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

First of all, it would be good to define PK, particularly regarding its source and interface to the brain.

What sort of an experiment could you devise that would distinguish between PK and something else as the mechanism for triggering movement?

Why does a baby have to learn how to move, to talk, to think?

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
First of all, it would be good to define PK, particularly regarding its source and interface to the brain.

What sort of an experiment could you devise that would distinguish between PK and something else as the mechanism for triggering movement?


I think it would be extremely hard to devise an experiment to distinguish between a deterministic explanation of volitional movement and the above PK one. Let me think on it :(


Why does a baby have to learn how to move, to talk, to think?



To develop the circuits down stream from the PK effect which would be necessary for the move complex movement to occur more easily. After all, a baby can excersise some movement right ? I suppose we will have to assume about whether they feel "will" in the same sense as we do because we can't remember our feelings at that age.

However, substitute a baby for someone who has damage to their spine.

Neurology tells us that the development and refinement of the nervous system is use or activity-dependent. If PK is continually affecting the correct parts of the brain and subsequently activating the correct downstream circuits in the spinal cord then you have a model for use-dependent development of volitional action.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So the baby's mind is sort of floating inside his brain, trying to use PK to affect the firing of neurons, but the neurons aren't cooperating. In a very young baby, many of the neurons probably aren't even there. But let's take arm movement: Those neurons are there in some form or other. Why don't they work to full capacity? It can't be because the mind hasn't practiced PK enough, because the mind has no memory to remember the results of practicing. So it must be that the neurons themselves need practice. This makes sense if most of the motor work is done by the neurons, with the mind just acting as an upstream trigger. But if it's just an upstream trigger, how does it cause complex muscle movements, such as playing the piano?

Now let's take calculus. Suppose I'm about 10 now, with most of my brain developed. Why can't I do calculus? Presumably because I haven't learned the facts about calculus. Does my mind wait until I have before trying to PK me into doing calculus? Or is it PKing me all the time, with no results until the relevant facts are learned?

Just wondering.

~~ Paul

[BNiles]

David,
You said:
The famous experiment by Benjamin Libet and replications of it are support of this hypothesis. In this experiment he asked participants to indicate (I think just through verbal communication) when they felt they had "decided" to move their finger. Simultaneously, he recorded brain activity in the motor cortex which is an indication of the "readiness to move". The motor cortex activity occurred about a third of a second before the participants indicated their act of will. Thus it is usually concluded that the feeling of free will is an illusionary after effect whereas the actual movement is determined before this feeling is generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If a machine is connected with electrodes to my brain, and I decide to move my finger and tell you at the same time. The electrodes will beat my vocal cords every time. Neurons fire electrically at the speed of light, but vocal cords are much slower and only react after a second group of neurons tell it to.

I submit that the decision and the action are simultaneous unless choose to be delayed by the subject...i.e. subject decides to move his finger, but not until 2 sec have passed.

[Ladewig]

First of all, it would be good to define PK, particularly regarding its source and interface to the brain.


I'd like to hear this definition as well. I was not able to find one on the PEAR site yu linked to.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BNiles
David,
You said:
The famous experiment by Benjamin Libet and replications of it are support of this hypothesis. In this experiment he asked participants to indicate (I think just through verbal communication) when they felt they had "decided" to move their finger. Simultaneously, he recorded brain activity in the motor cortex which is an indication of the "readiness to move". The motor cortex activity occurred about a third of a second before the participants indicated their act of will. Thus it is usually concluded that the feeling of free will is an illusionary after effect whereas the actual movement is determined before this feeling is generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If a machine is connected with electrodes to my brain, and I decide to move my finger and tell you at the same time. The electrodes will beat my vocal cords every time. Neurons fire electrically at the speed of light, but vocal cords are much slower and only react after a second group of neurons tell it to.

I submit that the decision and the action are simultaneous unless choose to be delayed by the subject...i.e. subject decides to move his finger, but not until 2 sec have passed.

So are you saying that the electrodes were recording motor commands that were being sent to the vocal chords ?

Yes, thats a good thought. I'll have to find a copy of the experiment to see what their methods were exactly. Perhaps they got around this somehow.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Ladewig



I'd like to hear this definition as well. I was not able to find one on the PEAR site yu linked to.

PEAR define their PK effect as a correlation. The correlation is between a pre-stated intention to produce a desired skew in the probability distribution with a significant departure in the stated direction.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


So are you saying that the electrodes were recording motor commands that were being sent to the vocal chords ?

Yes, thats a good thought. I'll have to find a copy of the experiment to see what their methods were exactly. Perhaps they got around this somehow.

Not only the motor commands for the vocal cords, but the motor commands to the activity selected as well...i.e. move a finger.

Example:
Subject will decide to move his finger, and then say when he feels he experiences free will. The key is and then . In the subjects mind he says, "OK finger...move. Now ...tell the researcher that I felt free will." Of course the electrode will register 1st. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:PEAR define their PK effect as a correlation. The correlation is between a pre-stated intention to produce a desired skew in the probability distribution with a significant departure in the stated direction.
So what about all them thar RNG experiments where they find post hoc correlations? That must have something to do with the idea that you can effect things with PK retroactively. It's like a retroactive pre-stated intention kind of thing.

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BNiles


Not only the motor commands for the vocal cords, but the motor commands to the activity selected as well...i.e. move a finger.

Example:
Subject will decide to move his finger, and then say when he feels he experiences free will. The key is and then . In the subjects mind he says, "OK finger...move. Now ...tell the researcher that I felt free will." Of course the electrode will register 1st. :)

The question is how long before the vocal utterance or finger movement the electrodes register. Its possible to estimate the speed by which commands would reach the finger or vocal chords i think.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David said:
So what about all them thar RNG experiments where they find post hoc correlations? That must have something to do with the idea that you can effect things with PK retroactively. It's like a retroactive pre-stated intention kind of thing.

~~ Paul

I'm not sure I understand you

[thaiboxerken]

Yet another case of the mundane being classified by believers as being paranormal. Does the unsanity ever end?

[BNiles]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


The question is how long before the vocal utterance or finger movement the electrodes register. Its possible to estimate the speed by which commands would reach the finger or vocal chords i think.

I don't think I'm following this experiment very well. If the test is to measure the time between the brain firing a command, and the command being physically executed, then its well known that the electrodes will register the neuron activity 1st. But to then ask the subject when they felt their own free will to execute the command, and have them be accurate to within fractions of a second is not only immeasurable, it's ridiculous.

If I’m missing something from this experiment, please let me know. :confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David, you said that PEAR defines PK as a correlation between a prestated intention and the result. But all their RNG experiments use post hoc correlation.

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David, you said that PEAR defines PK as a correlation between a prestated intention and the result. But all their RNG experiments use post hoc correlation.

~~ Paul

I don't understand what you mean by "post hoc correlation" ?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They look for correlations between the RNGs and events after the events occur.

~~ Paul

[roger]

Originally posted by BNiles
I don't think I'm following this experiment very well. If the test is to measure the time between the brain firing a command, and the command being physically executed, then its well known that the electrodes will register the neuron activity 1st. But to then ask the subject when they felt their own free will to execute the command, and have them be accurate to within fractions of a second is not only immeasurable, it's ridiculous.


BNiles,

I don't know about this experiment, but I recall Dennett recounts a similar experiment in Consciousness Explained.

In that experiment a person is put in a room with a slide projector, given a remote control for the projector, and has their are wired up for "monitoring purposes." At least that is what they are told. In reality the remote control does not control the projector at all, and the 'monitor' wires actually advance the slides.

Subjects report a great deal of confusion, because the slide advances while they are still thinking about advancing the slide, but haven't yet decided to advance it. It feels like the machine is reading their mind. They end up pushing the button twice, etc.

IIRC, Dennett proposes two readings of this: the decision to advance the slide is made below the level of consciousness, and then this decision is reported to the person's brain, giving the 'illusion' of making the decision.

-OR-

Other experiments have already revealed that the brain reorders perceptions in time, as perceptions coming through different nerve pathways take a noticably different time to arrive. For example if you see yourself stub your toe, the sight appears well before the pain is reported. You experience them happening simultaneously becuuase the mind reorders the timing so that they appear to arrive at the same time (I made up that example, Dennett provides real examples).

In any case, the participants reported that their perceptions seemed _very_ unusual, and that the slide projector was reading their mind, and not responding to their free will.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
They look for correlations between the RNGs and events after the events occur.

They have to. They don't have a positive hypothesis, so they have no idea what to look for. They cannot predict anything else but a "statistical anomaly".

How they can design experiments if they don't know what they are looking for is beyond me. It is interesting, however, to observe the move from down-and-dirty experiments about ectoplasm and levitation to aloof experiments that show less and less "significance" the tighter the controls get.

Go figure.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
They look for correlations between the RNGs and events after the events occur.

~~ Paul

I think most experiments do this, as you really can't look for correlations before the experiment. However, I look at what they are doing as using whatever results that come about to support their predetermined conclusions. They are torturing data to make it say what they want it to say.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David said:
So what about all them thar RNG experiments where they find post hoc correlations? That must have something to do with the idea that you can effect things with PK retroactively. It's like a retroactive pre-stated intention kind of thing.

~~ Paul

That's not always the case.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by roger


I don't know about this experiment, but I recall Dennett recounts a similar experiment in Consciousness Explained.

In that experiment a person is put in a room with a slide projector, given a remote control for the projector, and has their are wired up for "monitoring purposes." At least that is what they are told. In reality the remote control does not control the projector at all, and the 'monitor' wires actually advance the slides.

Subjects report a great deal of confusion, because the slide advances while they are still thinking about advancing the slide, but haven't yet decided to advance it. It feels like the machine is reading their mind. They end up pushing the button twice, etc.

IIRC, Dennett proposes two readings of this: the decision to advance the slide is made below the level of consciousness, and then this decision is reported to the person's brain, giving the 'illusion' of making the decision.

-OR-

Other experiments have already revealed that the brain reorders perceptions in time, as perceptions coming through different nerve pathways take a noticably different time to arrive. For example if you see yourself stub your toe, the sight appears well before the pain is reported. You experience them happening simultaneously becuuase the mind reorders the timing so that they appear to arrive at the same time (I made up that example, Dennett provides real examples).

In any case, the participants reported that their perceptions seemed _very_ unusual, and that the slide projector was reading their mind, and not responding to their free will.


What a great experiment ! So, just to clarify the second explanation, does Dennet think that the perception of will is re-timed so that it coincides with the remote button press ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I think most experiments do this, as you really can't look for correlations before the experiment.

I'm genuinely surprised. You've said something intelligent

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


That's not always the case.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Yea, that convinces me. Try picking a specific page to reference instead of trying to burden us with the research.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I'm genuinely surprised. You've said something intelligent

Everything I've said is intelligent, you just don't happen to agree because many things I say don't fit into your view of the world being a place full of "psi" energies and other nonsense.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


They have to. They don't have a positive hypothesis, so they have no idea what to look for. They cannot predict anything else but a "statistical anomaly".




They are looking for a correlation between a pre-stated intention to change the REG output in a certain direction and a significant REG deviation in the intended direction. Thats the criteria for their anomaly.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by roger
In that experiment a person is put in a room with a slide projector, given a remote control for the projector, and has their are wired up for "monitoring purposes." At least that is what they are told. In reality the remote control does not control the projector at all, and the 'monitor' wires actually advance the slides.

This makes a little more sense now, but I still think there is a major delay between an electrical signal shooting down a wire into an electrical appliance vs. the millions of nerve endings and muscle fibers required to push a button. The same electrical signal but with a million fold "resistors". Muscle fibers just can't move that fast.

I think we quickly forget that thoughts happen at the speed of light (literally), but a person physically reacting to their thoughts doesn't. Even though we assume we can react simultaneously.

Before I can move my fingers to type a thought...I have to think it.
Before I can move my lips to voice a thought...I have to think it.

I just don't see how this is ground breaking knowledge, or paranormal in any way.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

What a great experiment ! So, just to clarify the second explanation, does Dennet think that the perception of will is re-timed so that it coincides with the remote button press ?
Dennett thinks that "the question's presuppositions disqualify it".

The reference is to an experiment by W. Grey Walter, in 1963.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BNiles


This makes a little more sense now, but I still think there is a major delay between an electrical signal shooting down a wire into an electrical appliance vs. the millions of nerve endings and muscle fibers required to push a button. The same electrical signal but with a million fold "resistors". Muscle fibers just can't move that fast.

I think we quickly forget that thoughts happen at the speed of light (literally), but a person physically reacting to their thoughts doesn't. Even though we assume we can react simultaneously.

Before I can move my fingers to type a thought...I have to think it.
Before I can move my lips to voice a thought...I have to think it.

I just don't see how this is ground breaking knowledge, or paranormal in any way.

The fact that the participants were consciously aware that their percieved conscious decision to move occured after the motor cortex was active is the most interesting bit.