What is CTD?

[Burning ghost]

We have no volition.

Basically what is consciously experienced happens after the matter of fact and all unconscious substrates happen after the matter of environmental fact. The confusion seems to be the position in which consciousness sits. Consciousness is fronted by inner and outer motion as if one is the driving force and the other is the passenger. This is a false view and the reversal is false too. The inner machinations no more drive the outer environment than the outer environment drives the inner world. The fallacy is in the distinction (which is purely an illusion of consciousness.)

The fact that I wake up in the morning is due to th eoxygen in the air, th ecoding of DNA and unbelievably complex nature of an apparently self-contained biological system. The truth is that we're no more than sacks of bacteria, our DNA "functions" by symbiotic relations with viruses, morphs due to biochemical markers instigated by a vast entwined hierarchy of brain systems. Within the DNA of each cell the morphological position dictates the biochemical exposure, all of which subsides under the organisms consumption and exposure to numerous factors.

Often people assume their stomachs are "inside" them? This is nonsense. We are more like some kind of torn donut shaped sack within which complex species of bacteria reside and rule over our conscious experiences. We are neurologically wired to abide by the law of bacterium and further more, over the species history, we've accommodated actual viruses and they've spliced onto our feeble DNA.

To assume you will th emovement of your hand independent of any biological force is like saying rain chooses to fall from the sky. The only reason this illusion of authorship exists is because we possess memories. Memories are nothing more than information stored to make sure we don't keep on doing the same thing over and over. In less complex biological organisms this function is not needed yet at higher forms of biological complexity mobile creatures require a memory in order to not
constantly investigate the same space over and over and over. Conscoiusness is nothing other than a complex shifting between bits of memory in order to be more efficient and waste less time doing something already done. Because consciousness is essentially part of the exploratory function (hence why memory exists in the first place) it is wired to look for different explanations and this after the fact process is called "story telling". We the very same commands and due to exploratory functions see them differently - meaning things are as they are and memory is ordered causally, and deterministically, whilst the exploratory function is subdued and out of habit chaotically sees the same things as something slightly different even though on such a macro scale there is as good as no difference. This is why we have a sense of authorship. It is merely a repercussion of a biological locomotive exploratory system. The memory is sequenced as if moving and consciousness explores the sequence of memory as if it is something new, when in fact it is just a sequence of commands carried out.

As an aside to the AI folk who believe in a disembodied consciousness:

As for people suggesting AI consciousness can exist without a body they are foolish. If such a thing was possible then we'd see nature herself would have produced biological organisms without locomotion and yet still possess brains. In fact there is an instance of a sea anemone that does grow a brain to move and then once it's settled into its new position on another rock is simple dissolves and eats its brain having no further use of it. Those that rant about AI consciousness PLEASE show me ONE organism with a brain that has no locomotion and then I'll begin to believe in the possibility of a disembodied consciousness!

[Togo1]

• A. You consciously caught the tennis ball? …or,
  B. You were conscious of catching the tennis ball?

I vote B, …what say you?

Generally B, unless you're in the early stages of learning to catch, or consciously trying to change the way you do it.

The problem is that even with B, there is still a time delay, which you claim makes catching the ball impossible.

The delay occurs in conscious process, and in unconscious processing. If that delay makes conscious processing impossible, it would make unconscious processing equally impossible.

Not so.

There is no such thing as “married bachelors”, only unmarried bachelors.
There is no such thing as “conscious processing”, only unconscious processing.

Nonsense. You're entire premise for CTD is that consciousness is a process which can be measured by experiment. If it isn't, then you haven't demonstrated a CTD.

“Conscious processing” is chronologically self-contradicting (i.e. impossible!). One cannot be ‘conscious-of-X’ BEFORE the existence of X.

Then how do we catch tennis balls unconsciously? There's still a time delay for the unconscious catching of tennis balls.

Since we do, in point of fact, successfully process information, with a time delay, you must be incorrect.

We don’t consciously process anything! We are only conscious of what has processed. …a huge difference!

We unconsciously process information, and there is still a time delay when we do that.

Each time I'm making the same point, and each time you're just restating your case. Can you possibly bring yourself to address what I'm actually saying?

Take the case of unconscious processing - the catching of a tennis ball. This involves a time delay between reality and the processing. You've claimed that a time delay makes catching a ball chronologically impossible. Why is unconscious processing necessary to catch a ball not chronologically impossible?

-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 9:07 pm to add the following --

We have no volition.
<snip>

I'm not seeing there's anything in your post that would suggest we don't have volition. Why can't, to take one of your arguments, volition be entirely biological?

The argument you're putting forward seems to be something like this:

P1 We do not have X Y or Z feature
P2 <implied> Volition would require X Y or Z
C1 Thus, we do not have volition.

Surely this relies very heavily on having a very specific and detailed account of the volition that you believe we don't have?

[RJG]

There's still a time delay for the unconscious catching of tennis balls.

We unconsciously process information, and there is still a time delay when we do that.

Yes, agreed, but this time delay between unconscious processes has NO RELEVANCE to CTD.

CTD is not about the time delay from one unconscious process to another unconscious process, nor is it about the time delay from one conscious event to another conscious event.

CTD is the time delay from an event happening in reality to the conscious realization of that event. That’s it, that’s all!

Take the case of unconscious processing - the catching of a tennis ball. This involves a time delay between reality and the [unconscious] processing.

Yes, agreed. [...missing word added by RJG].

You've claimed that a time delay makes catching a ball chronologically impossible.

Not so. I've never claimed this. These are 'your' words.

Why is unconscious processing necessary to catch a ball not chronologically impossible?

Why is catching a ball “chronologically impossible”???


Togo, it appears obvious that you have lost sight of the simple meaning of CTD. You are over-thinking, over-complicating the matter. Please slowly and carefully re-read the OP, or maybe just this part may help:

To help better understand -- Imagine watching a “live-broadcasted” sporting event on TV. We believe that what we see (on the tv) is actually happening in ‘real-time’, but due to “network transmission delays” of up to 7 seconds, our ‘present’ view actually consists of ‘past’ events. While we may see the batter on TV going through his warm-up swings, but back at Fenway Park, in so-called ‘real-time’, he has already hit a home run, ...we just don’t know it yet!

We view live sporting events through the ‘time-delayed’ view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the ‘time-delayed’ window of consciousness. ...this being our ‘only’ view of reality.

[Togo1]

Take the case of unconscious processing - the catching of a tennis ball. This involves a time delay between reality and the [unconscious] processing.

Yes, agreed. [...missing word added by RJG].

We view live sporting events through the ‘time-delayed’ view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the ‘time-delayed’ window of consciousness. ...this being our ‘only’ view of reality.

Ok, so why does the time delay for conscious processing mean it can't possibly be effective, but the time delay for unconscious processing make apparently no difference to our ability to relate to the world? What's the difference between the two time delays?

[RJG]

We view live sporting events through the ‘time-delayed’ view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the ‘time-delayed’ window of consciousness. ...this being our ‘only’ view of reality.

Ok, so why does the time delay for conscious processing mean it can't possibly be effective…

I assume you mean “causative” when saying “effective”. Here are some reasons for the impossibility of “conscious causation”:

• 1- If CTD exists, then consciousness FOLLOWS X. If Conscious Causation exists, then consciousness must PRECEDE X. One is not possible if the other is true. These are mutually exclusive.
  
  2- If CTD exists, then ‘everything’ one is conscious of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. If it has already happened, then it has already been ‘caused’. If it has already been caused, then it is too late to ‘cause’ it.
  
  3- If CTD exists, then EVERYTHING one is conscious of, has already happened. If "everything" means ‘everything’, then there is ‘nothing’ left to cause.

…but the time delay for unconscious processing make apparently no difference to our ability to relate to the world?

Correct. We can’t view reality, or “relate to the world” through unconscious processes. We can only view reality through our (time-delayed!) window of consciousness (i.e. through our ‘conscious’ experiences), …this is our ONLY view of reality (and of the "world"!).

[Togo1]

Nope, you're still not getting it.

To catch a tennis ball, we must, at some level, be able to track the ball's location. However, the unconscious processes that track the ball's location, and cause us to move our hand to intercept, do so through a time delay.

If a time delay is such a problem for conscious processes, as you claim, why is it no problem for unconscious processes?

[RJG]

To catch a tennis ball, we must, at some level, be able to track the ball's location. However, the unconscious processes that track the ball's location, and cause us to move our hand to intercept, do so through a time delay.

Yes, of course. Time delays exist between sequential events/steps/processes regardless if the scenario is from ‘unconscious-to-unconscious’, or ‘unconscious-to-conscious’. And because these are sequential events, one happens AFTER the other. …agreed?

If a time delay is such a problem for conscious processes, as you claim, why is it no problem for unconscious processes?

Both scenarios behave the same. There is no chronological inconsistency or "problem". The unconscious-to-conscious time delay (i.e. event ‘X’ to the ‘consciousness-of-event X’) is called CTD. One still happens AFTER the other. The ‘consciousness-of-X’ always happens AFTER X, ...agreed?

The only “problem” is with our heavily indoctrinated belief that consciousness could ever be ‘causal’; i.e. that 'consciousness-of-X' could ever happen BEFORE 'X'.

In other words, that which comes AFTER cannot cause that which came BEFORE.

For if CTD exists, then EVERYTHING one is conscious of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. If it has already happened, then it has already been ‘caused’. If it has already been caused, then it is too late to ‘cause’ it.

If CTD exists, then 'conscious causation' (aka "free-will", conscious-control, mental causation) is impossible.

[Burning ghost]

Tell me this task is solved by conscious volition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgf3uiCZMHo

What happens is the person, if using both hands, would assume that he had consciously solved the puzzle. The communication between the hemispheres is happening outside of the brain. The task is performed and the left hemisphere (the speaking person) assumes authorship even though the hemispheres have literally been severed from each other.

What this shows us is that the hemispheres fight for control and that the left hemisphere always assumes control.

In regards to CTD we see two separate functions attending to one task. The left attempts to solve the puzzle and the right infers and solves the problem, but the left assumes it solved the problem (even though it quite clearly had no idea how to attend to the task and struggled with it.)

There are numerous other experiments that show the delusion of volition from the left hemisphere. Consciousness merely piggybacks on the biological workings and declares itself as the dictator when it is nothing more than an observer of bodily functions writing its own peculiar story to legitimize itself as the primary actor.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 12:28 am to add the following --

Nope, you're still not getting it.

To catch a tennis ball, we must, at some level, be able to track the ball's location. However, the unconscious processes that track the ball's location, and cause us to move our hand to intercept, do so through a time delay.

If a time delay is such a problem for conscious processes, as you claim, why is it no problem for unconscious processes?

We weren't born with the ability to play baseball, wield a bat nor throw/catch a ball. Over time the mechanics is perfected and the predictions are refined. It is very much a problem for unconscious processes, but over time and with more instances from which to compute, the physical action improves. This is why babies don't just stand up and start dancing or sprinting around the room. I think you seem to be forgetting that it takes a long, long time to learn how to physically interact in the world (you don't remember this because it was a purely unconscious process.) In adulthood, or later years even, we apply volition to actions and make up stories for how we did this or that. It is a fallacy. We did nothing other than make up a story for a bunch of physiological events.

[Togo1]

To catch a tennis ball, we must, at some level, be able to track the ball's location. However, the unconscious processes that track the ball's location, and cause us to move our hand to intercept, do so through a time delay.

Yes, of course. Time delays exist between sequential events/steps/processes regardless if the scenario is from ‘unconscious-to-unconscious’, or ‘unconscious-to-conscious’.

But I'm not talking about unconcious to unconscious, nor am I talking about unconcious to conscious. I'm talking about real event to unconcious.

In situation A you have a real event and then you have concious processing of that event. As you say, there is a time gap between them. You're claiming that because of that time gap, conscious decision making is impossible.

In situation B you have a real event then you have unconscious processing of that event. Again, there is a time gap between them. Following your reasoning from A, unconscious decision making should also be impossible. But it's not, is it?

And because these are sequential events, one happens AFTER the other. …agreed?

Goodness no.

Event X starts at time 0, and ends at time 10
Event Y starts at time 1 and ends at time 10.

These are sequential events, one starts after the other, but it's not true to say that one happens after the other. In order to demonstrate one happens after the other it would be necessary to show not only that there is some kind of gap, but that one event ends before the other begins.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 7:42 am to add the following --

Tell me this task is solved by conscious volition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgf3uiCZMHo

In part, yes it is.

What happens is the person, if using both hands, would assume that he had consciously solved the puzzle.

Well, yes and no. The person would assume that they had consciously directed the soling of the puzzle, even if they hadn't consciously willed the movement of each finger. And they'd be right.

The communication between the hemispheres is happening outside of the brain. The task is performed and the left hemisphere (the speaking person) assumes authorship even though the hemispheres have literally been severed from each other.

Well, sort of, the communication is taking place through the lower brain, around the area of the hippocampus. What some such split-brain patients have reported is a feeling of satisfaction or disatisfaction, that the other hemisphere can interpret as being 'hot' or' cold' with regards to selecting an appropriate solution.

In regards to CTD we see two separate functions attending to one task. The left attempts to solve the puzzle and the right infers and solves the problem, but the left assumes it solved the problem (even though it quite clearly had no idea how to attend to the task and struggled with it.)

In the CTD experiments that RJG is citing, there isn't really a 'puzzle' in that sense. The task is to press a button. For three hours straight. One of the problems with the experiment is that it is incredibly dull.

In regards to CTD we see two separate functions attending to one task. The left attempts to solve the puzzle and the right infers and There are numerous other experiments that show the delusion of volition from the left hemisphere.

Well, not really no. There are numerous other experiments from abnormal psychology, showing the effects of brain lesions. In these cases, yes, you get some abnormality. But do you have any examples of this happening in normal people?

Consciousness merely piggybacks on the biological workings and declares itself as the dictator when it is nothing more than an observer of bodily functions writing its own peculiar story to legitimize itself as the primary actor.

So then how does it effect the performance characteristics of the task? If, as you say, consciousness has no effect on the task, why does the task performance change according to the level of conscious involvement?

And if conscious processing is such an irrelevence, why does it effect whether the task is carried out?

I think you seem to be forgetting that it takes a long, long time to learn how to physically interact in the world (you don't remember this because it was a purely unconscious process.)

No, if anything learning is very much a conscious process. That's why the process of learning a task are so different from the process of carrying out a learned task. Haggard has done some interesting work in this area, linking conscious processing to task learning at the level of neuronal circuits.

[Burning ghost]

Togo -

Well, yes and no. The person would assume that they had consciously directed the soling of the puzzle, even if they hadn't consciously willed the movement of each finger. And they'd be right.

I didn't ask what the person thought. The point is the actions taken by the other hemisphere are led by the other hemisphere and are in complete control of the left side of the body (not the conscious self on the left). So if you had split brain and I threw a ball to you and you caught it with your left hand it is not YOU that made the decision to catch the ball at all, but you'll "feel" like you did. That is just the simple truth of the matter, sorry

Well, not really no. There are numerous other experiments from abnormal psychology, showing the effects of brain lesions. In these cases, yes, you get some abnormality. But do you have any examples of this happening in normal people?

No, that is false. The hemispheres are not communicating within the brain (the corpus callosum has been severed completely - yet both hemispheres are completely intact and undamaged; there are no brain lesions.) The left hemisphere is incapable of completing the task independently because the "large picture" function of the right hemisphere is specifically attuned toward such things where the left hemisphere is attuned to details. When the task is complete the person says they finished the task and the right hemisphere does not communicate "inside" the head, it communicates out there. It sees the problem as the right hand attends to it and then, if allowed (left hand is free) it solves the task.

Such other tasks show the same thing like when the right hemisphere is prompted by words flashed up on a screen that the left hemisphere is unaware of. The subject will then pick out from a choice of pictures in response to a question. They will pick an answer that relates to the word shown to the right hemisphere and make up a plausible story even though to us it is obvious that other choices would've made much more sense.

I would add that split brain patients are no different than a "normal person". You wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a day-to-day basis.

In the CTD experiments that RJG is citing, there isn't really a 'puzzle' in that sense. The task is to press a button. For three hours straight. One of the problems with the experiment is that it is incredibly dull.

That's his business!

So then how does it effect the performance characteristics of the task? If, as you say, consciousness has no effect on the task, why does the task performance change according to the level of conscious involvement?

And if conscious processing is such an irrelevence, why does it effect whether the task is carried out?

We're talking about split brain here then? We are effectively talking about two brains in one head here and each has different attunements to the environment and different cognitive capacities. The right can solve the task easily and the left cannot. Much like if you were trying to bake a cake having three year old "helping" would be a hindrance rather than of any practical use, other than as a means of practice against a certain buffeting of chaos (which is likely the primary function of conscious, it is a free-wheeling out of control useless macro level Brownian motion that thinks it is doing something be being led along by more capable forces acting against its make believe contribution!)

Here is another experiment that shows has physiologically the task is being set to with exactly the same mechanical principles in every case, but the dumb-dumb consciousness thinks its "strategy" was the reason for success! haha! Silly monkeys!

Boo!! Cannot find the clip. Was basically some people trying to catch a rc helicopter when it cut its engine and telling us how they managed to do it. Set up with cameras the people had their eye movements tracked and body position. They all acted out the exact same mechanical procedure yet all came up with weird and wonderful reasons for how they moved around the room to anticipate where the helicopter would fall (basically they were all talking complete **** and believed every word they uttered.)

No, if anything learning is very much a conscious process. That's why the process of learning a task are so different from the process of carrying out a learned task. Haggard has done some interesting work in this area, linking conscious processing to task learning at the level of neuronal circuits.

All I can find right now is this: wexler.free.fr/library/files/haggard%20 ... nition.pdf

That doesn't really say anything one way or the other, other than to say that there are processes associated to feeling of volition. Please cite the paper you are referring to if you can. I would be VERY VERY interested to read it.

Thanks

[RJG]

Tell me this task is solved by conscious volition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgf3uiCZMHo

What happens is the person, if using both hands, would assume that he had consciously solved the puzzle. The communication between the hemispheres is happening outside of the brain. The task is performed and the left hemisphere (the speaking person) assumes authorship even though the hemispheres have literally been severed from each other.

What this shows us is that the hemispheres fight for control and that the left hemisphere always assumes control.

In regards to CTD we see two separate functions attending to one task. The left attempts to solve the puzzle and the right infers and solves the problem, but the left assumes it solved the problem (even though it quite clearly had no idea how to attend to the task and struggled with it.)

There are numerous other experiments that show the delusion of volition from the left hemisphere. Consciousness merely piggybacks on the biological workings and declares itself as the dictator when it is nothing more than an observer of bodily functions writing its own peculiar story to legitimize itself as the primary actor.

Wow, ...very interesting stuff, ...thanks BG.

But I'm not talking about unconscious to unconscious, nor am I talking about unconscious to conscious. I'm talking about real event to unconscious.

Is this "real event" conscious, or unconscious? In other words, are you conscious of this "real event" or not? If you are conscious of this real event, then what came first - the 'consciousness'-of-this event, -or- the 'event' itself? Hopefully you recognize that consciousness-of-X can only come AFTER X. The amount of time 'after' is called CTD.

In situation A you have a real event and then you have conscious processing of that event. As you say, there is a time gap between them.

Yes, but, all this time gap (CTD) does, is just establish a BEFORE/AFTER relationship of the two events. That's it. We don't really care how long this time gap is, all we just want to know is the chronological relationship between these two events.

You're claiming that because of that time gap, conscious decision making is impossible.

Close. I'm claiming that -- if 'something' comes AFTER 'something else', then this 'something' can't come BEFORE the 'something else' (...so as to then be able to 'cause' this 'something else').

In other words, if the 'consciousness-of-X' comes AFTER 'X', then the 'consciousness-of-X' CANNOT be the causer of 'X'. ...this is pretty simple and straightforward logic, wouldn't you agree?

And because of this chronological relationship -- EVERY-'THING/EVENT' that we are 'conscious' of, has ALREADY HAPPENED. We therefore cannot consciously cause anything!

In situation B you have a real event then you have unconscious processing of that event. Again, there is a time gap between them. Following your reasoning from A, unconscious decision making should also be impossible. But it's not, is it?

The same impossibility applies! It doesn't matter if the events are conscious or unconscious, or pink or purple, if one event occurs AFTER the other, then it can't occur BEFORE. ...just simple logic, that's all.

Togo, again, you are over-thinking all this. It is really much simpler than you are alluding to.

[Burning ghost]

RJG -

This should amuse you too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHP_LPkyRk

[Togo1]

Togo -

Well, yes and no. The person would assume that they had consciously directed the soling of the puzzle, even if they hadn't consciously willed the movement of each finger. And they'd be right.

I didn't ask what the person thought.

You stated what you assumed the person thought.

The point is the actions taken by the other hemisphere are led by the other hemisphere and are in complete control of the left side of the body (not the conscious self on the left). So if you had split brain and I threw a ball to you and you caught it with your left hand it is not YOU that made the decision to catch the ball at all, but you'll "feel" like you did.

And I'd be right. Unless "me" suddenly stopped being my entire body over which I exercise control via various systems, and started being just one side, for reasons that haven't been spelled out. Consciousness is an activity that spread across the brain. If you cut the brain in two, then it becomes much less effective on the right hemisphere, and you get distortions. You might feel you were exercising a guidance and control process over something that wasn't actually benefiting from it. That doesn't mean that it wasn't me that did it. Both hemispheres are me.

Well, not really no. There are numerous other experiments from abnormal psychology, showing the effects of brain lesions. In these cases, yes, you get some abnormality. But do you have any examples of this happening in normal people?

No, that is false. The hemispheres are not communicating within the brain (the corpus callosum has been severed completely - yet both hemispheres are completely intact and undamaged; there are no brain lesions.)

Severing the corpus callosum is a brain lesion.

And the corpus callosum runs between the hemispheres, but both hemisphere are still connected to the lower brain, which isn't bisected. Split brain patients appear to exchange some information between the hemispheres, via the lower brain.

When the task is complete the person says they finished the task and the right hemisphere does not communicate "inside" the head, it communicates out there.

Emotions still work fairly well, and patients are generally able to tell if the non-dominant side of the brain is frustrated, or can't find what it is looking for, or if it 'feels satisfied' by the work done by the dominant side. Some patients have been able to solve tasks presented only to the non-dominant side by trial and error - picking various objects until one 'feels' right.

I would add that split brain patients are no different than a "normal person". You wouldn't be able to tell the difference on a day-to-day basis.

Hmm, but the problem isn't whether they can sucessfully navigate tea and crumpets down at the cafe' royale, but rather whether a conclusion made of a split brain person, such as 'consciousness only thinks it's the author of the solution, but isn't really', would still be true of a non-split brain person. Despite their social aptitude, it's possible that having a large connecting peice in their brain tissue severed might just effect how their consciousness works.

It's also worth noting that their performance on all these tasks, as well as showing the characteristics we're talking about, is also signficantly poorer overall than normal patients. Whatever they may have on the 'silent' hemisphere of their brain, it isn't equivalent to normal functioning.

In the CTD experiments that RJG is citing, there isn't really a 'puzzle' in that sense. The task is to press a button. For three hours straight. One of the problems with the experiment is that it is incredibly dull.

That's his business!

Well, it's a problem. See, you don't pick up any results for the first hour, since there are some fairly steep practice effects to get rid of. So by that time, you're claiming to measure conscious awareness, by using a task that most people will have gotten bored of and be doing largely automatically by that stage.

So then how does it effect the performance characteristics of the task? If, as you say, consciousness has no effect on the task, why does the task performance change according to the level of conscious involvement?

And if conscious processing is such an irrelevence, why does it effect whether the task is carried out?

We're talking about split brain here then?

No, normal people with intact brains. The effect of conscious thought on tasks is measureable, changing both the speed at which the task is carried out, and also the methodology by which it is performed, a brain scanner can pick it up the signs of conscious processing, and it consumes energy. If it does nothing, why does the result change?

Here is another experiment that shows has physiologically the task is being set to with exactly the same mechanical principles in every case, but the dumb-dumb consciousness thinks its "strategy" was the reason for success! haha! Silly monkeys!

I would argue they aren't wrong. In each case, they worked out a strategy and carried out a task. As it happens, they all did more or less the same thing to catch the helicopter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their movements weren't being consciously guided, merely that in this particular task, consciousness didn't end up making a contribution that changed the task much. By the same token, you could argue that all cars do more or less the same process of internal combustion, and thus the driver is largely irrelevent. And if you're testing a car going in a straight line, you might be right. But it's not logically valid to try and conclude from that that drivers don't do anything.

[Burning ghost]

Just lost my entire post

to sum up ...

The hemispheres answer the same questions differently and have distinct personality differences that include tastes and wants (just like the differences we have in personality.) Note: I am not you!

Gazzaniga knows his ****. They communicate OUTSIDE of the brain. There is nothing I know of to suggest the hemispheres "communicate" via the lower brain in anything like the capacity that they do between through the corpus callosum. If anything the hemispheres act to inhibit the functions of the lower brain not use it as a medium through which to communicate to each other. I am well aware of top down and bottom up though and if you have anything you can cite about this please do so (Would REALLY appreciate if you could cite paper by Haggard?)

Yes, cutting the corpus callosum is a brain lesion, my mistake, I was replying to what I assumed you meant as lesion of cortex.

No idea what nonsense RJG is rambling about with buttons and such. I do know that in an MRI scanner I can with 100% accuracy tell you whether you'd press the button in your left hand or right hand a full 6 seconds before you believe you make the choice. That is a beyond any dispute.

[Togo1]

Just lost my entire post

Ouch, hate it when that happens!

The hemispheres answer the same questions differently and have distinct personality differences that include tastes and wants (just like the differences we have in personality.)

My understanding was that the evidence for this was quite scanty. Do you have a reference?

Gazzaniga knows his ****. They communicate OUTSIDE of the brain.

They do as well, yes. I'm not sure what difference this makes to this discussion though.

I do know that in an MRI scanner I can with 100% accuracy tell you whether you'd press the button in your left hand or right hand a full 6 seconds before you believe you make the choice. That is a beyond any dispute.

No, it doesn't. The accuracy is actually quite poor, although still signicant. It's often been predicted that better technology would improve the accuracy, but as far as I know that hasn't happened.

Instead what's happened is that the same trace has been traced further and further back. Originally it was 350 milliseconds, then 6 seconds, and some recent studies have claimed lead times of 11 or even 13 seconds.

But this poses a problem. Does anyone really believe that consciousness operates 13 seconds, or even seconds, behind unconscious decision making? If you're wedded to the idea that what is detected 6 seconds before the button press is a decision, then how on earth would that work in practice? If people's conscious view of themselves were really 6 seconds delayed from their actual decisions, wouldn't it be really obvious, just watching them talk, or doing simple tasks?

And then there's the problem that you get exactly the same trace when the button isn't pressed. When you ask the subject to think about which button to press, but not to actually press it. Which suggests that the trace being detected isn't a decison, but rather something preparatory to that.