
Unconscious brain activity predicts decisions 11 seconds before action - laurex
https://qz.com/1569158/neuroscientists-read-unconscious-brain-activity-to-predict-decisions/
======
wildermuthn
Michael Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory of consciousness (AST) provides an
interesting perspective on this study.  Although the study is limited and
predicting a decision only implies a correlation rather than a causation, it
is worth thinking about how brain activity and conscious action are related. 

AST distinguishes between neuronal activity (attention) versus conscious
experience (awareness), and postulates that awareness is both a model of
attention and a director of attention.  Essentially, consciousness as a
simulation that has the startling ability to influence the simulator itself. 
Example: we experience seeing an apple (awareness) and consciously focus upon
it, which amplifies the neuronal activity for sensing and processing vision
(attention).  Due to this amplification, we then gain a sharper experience of
noticing more details about the apple.  Awareness both models attention and
directs it. 

In terms of predicting decisions based on brain scanning, it would be easy to
see how as a person’s awareness focuses attention on a particular image, even
without quite realizing it, that the brain patterns of such attention would be
clearly amplified. 

This study seems to suggest that our conscious feeling of making a decision is
a false experience.  That we are simply watching a pre-ordained movie and are
being given a false sense of agency.  In AST, even though our consciousness is
a synthesized model of our brain activity, and even though decisions may be
made in neurons not part of that modeling, there is little meaningful
difference between the model we experience of making a decision and the brain
activity of the decision itself.  Although there will always be a lag between a
model of activity and the activity itself, we generally experience no lag. 

it would be interesting to see in what edge-cases lag would really matter.  I
believe there are some odd experiments with buttons and blinking lights where
the decision to press a button is experienced after the experience of seeing
the light from pressing the button. 

All the same, if AST is on target, then conscious agency is real, and this
paper doesn’t have anything to say on the matter, even if the headline is
highly suggestive that it does. 

~~~
PButtNutter
Where can I learn more about this? 

~~~
wildermuthn
“Consciousness and the Social Brain,” by Graziano is a great place to start. 

------
ozy
I would want a study that focuses on the opposite: what is the lowest bar a
person trying to deliberaty foil such a system can reach.  My bet: around
50-150ms. 

------
satori99
Hasn't this been known since Benjamin Libet's experiments in the 1970's? 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet)

Or am I missing something here? 

~~~
anongraddebt
It's primarily the significance of the amount of time before the action (or
whatever).  Prior to this new study, arguments purporting to show that the
relevant notion of free will was undermined by experiments such as Libet's
were unsuccessful.  Al Mele (FSU) wrote the definitive work on this issue in
"Effective Intentions" (2010, Oxford University Press).  Mele convincingly
showed that the ~500ms time delay in Libet style experiments was not long
enough for the skeptical argument to go through successfully.  In the last part
of the book Mele commented on the implications of any studies of this type
(perhaps heading off arguments based on future experiments such as this one). 
For sake of length I won't quote the semi-formalized version of Mele's
argument in the last part of the book, but rather the analogy he uses to
elucidate it:

"Consider an analogy.  Max struck a log with his red ax, thereby causing the
log to split.  If Max’s ax had been green, it would have split the log just as
well.  But he was under strict instructions to split wood only with red axes,
and he was committed to following the instructions.  If his ax had been green,
he would not have used it; in fact, he would have looked for a red ax and
split the log later, after he found one.  In this scenario, the fact that the
ax is red is causally relevant to Max’s splitting the log when he does and
therefore to the actual log splitting action he performed, an action that has
a specific location in time.  Similarly, in the imagined experiment, the fact
that at t, Sam made a conscious proximal decision to press seems to be
causally relevant to his pressing when he does and therefore to the actual
pressing action he performs.  I should add that although we do know that, other
things equal, red and green axes split wood equally well, we do not know how
effective unconscious decisions are.  Nor do we know whether unconscious
deciding (as distinct from unconscious nonactional intention acquisition) is
something that actually happens.  Also, for all we know, if there are instances
of unconscious deciding, they are far too rare for there to be more than a
glimmer of a chance that if Sam had not made a conscious proximal decision to
press at t, he would have made an unconscious one." 

\----

It is worth pointing out that Mele is famous for remaining agnostic about free
will (and certain fundamental questions surrounding it). 

------
xenophon
Thought I'd share one of my favorite short stories (written by Ted Chiang,
most recently of Arrival fame) that bears on this:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a](https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a)

~~~
vagab0nd
Wait.  This device can be fooled easily: At any point in time, I can look at
the LED.  If it's off, I press the button exactly 1 second later.  If it's on, I
do nothing. 

What am I missing? 

~~~
vfinn
You're simply missing the fact that _by definition_ there won't be any case
where you see the LED being turned off 1 second before you push the button.  If
you see the LED being turned off, you won't be pushing it the second later. 

------
almost_usual
It’s interesting how many comments immediately defend the evidence of “free
will”.  I’m not saying this article comes close at all to invalidating “free
will” but it begs the question how will humanity react if we do invalidate it
one day?  Seems on the same scale as “the world is round” or “Earth revolves
around the sun”. 

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
Why would you assume that "Free Will" is something that can be
proven/disproven?  Something that is in the domain of science? 

To clarify the question, what kind of scientific experiment would you even
imagine that would even resemble something producing evidence for or against
free will? 

(These experiments talked about in this topic do not at all fit it: they just
show that there are conscious and subconscious parts of our experience of life
and our experience of the process of choice.  In what world would that be
related to the degree of "free-ness" of that choice is beyond me.  I thought we
all knew already that there are conscious and subconscious parts of the brain
and that many of activities of "I" are subconscious.) 

~~~
nur0n
One way is to show that, given a state of the universe, it is possible to
determine the next state.  From what I understand, this does not seem to be the
case. 

~~~
shrimp_emoji
I think it can't be the case because the brain is a chaotic system.  But hiding
behind chaotic behavior to preserve "free will" is farcical, isn't it?  We
can't know how the pendulum[0] will swing next, so we can say that it's got
free will? 

0:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-c...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-
compound-pendulum.gif)

~~~
DangitBobby
It's not "farcical".  If you could prove that physical states are
deterministic, you could prove that there is no free will.  That statement
makes no claims whatsoever about what it means that physical states are not
known to be deterministic.  In other words, it could have been useful as proof
negative of free will, but not as proof positive.  And that's okay. 

~~~
incompatible
Wheter "free will" exists or not seems like a technicality, tied to whether
the Universe is deterministic or not.  Whether or not it's deterministic, a
brain must still go through its thought processes to come up with any
decision.  The only difference that non-determinism makes is that the decision
may randomly go one way or the other based on low-level fluctuations.  Thinking
and decision making still occurs even if the Universe is deterministic. 

~~~
DangitBobby
It sounds like we agree. 

To be clear, I think that free will--by definition--cannot exist in a purely
deterministic universe.  Any semblance of free will in such a universe would be
purely illusory.  It also cannot exist in a universe where events can only ever
be some combination of random events and determined events.  Randomness is also
_not_ free will. 

Free Will would have to be some other special category of events that is
neither determined not random.  We don't have a word or phrase to describe what
these events would be like other than "Free Will."  However, lacking the
vocabulary and math to describe it does not make it non-existent. 

~~~
incompatible
I think this is some kind of supernatural "free will", and no mechanism has
been found for such a thing in science.  It's associated with mind–body
duality, souls, homunculi inside the body, that kind of thing. 

~~~
DangitBobby
It doesn't have to be super natural either, though.  By the nature of it's
existence, the universe proves that there can be chains of events spawned that
completely undermine our current treatment of causality.  A realistic model
must include at least one of the following:

1) Events with no cause such as the beginning of the universe or broader
multiverse, depending on your beliefs or 2) Infinite regressions of causal
chains if you believe that the universe or God (or a god) has always existed
or 3) Some combination of the above. 

In all of these, somehow there can be uncaused effects, but in 1) and 3) some
causal chains can just begin existing, like free will would require. 

~~~
incompatible
If uncausal events were so common, wouldn't they have been discovered in
laboratory conditions by now?  They'd be messing up experiments everywhere. 

~~~
DangitBobby
You might even say that such events would be experimentally indistinguishable
from random events.  Or practically identical. 

------
benj111
If I were to make a decision such as this, I would make a snap preliminary
decision, then review it to see if there were glaring errors.  That seems to
fit with the results. 

The results don't seem to be stating anything new or non obvious to me.  Am I
missing something? 

~~~
jpalomaki
The key thing is this "the researchers were able to predict which pattern
participants would choose up to 11 seconds before they consciously made the
decision"

So this goes into the question of "free will".  Is your conscious mind making
the decisions or is just trying to justify the decisions made by the
unconscious mind. 

~~~
TaupeRanger
It doesn't tell us anything about free will other than the fact that the
process of decision making happens prior to our conscious awareness, which we
already knew. 

~~~
rightbyte
Ye, it's is kinda obvious that the decision is made before you "know it".  How
would it otherwise work. 

------
edoo
It seems pretty obvious that when confronted with a choice you generally take
an immediate biased opinion and then spend some time reviewing the
alternatives just in case.  It wasn't 11 seconds until they made the decision,
it was 11 seconds until the decision was confirmed and vocalized.  It sounds
like 'basic' image focus detection. 

------
Invictus0
The researchers don't know if the choice was made in the first second or in
the final second: it doesn't make sense to say that the brain activity
predicted the choice 11 seconds beforehand. 

------
trixie_
Maybe we just experience our brain making decisions.  Everything else might be
‘unconscious’. 

Implying that our conscious experience of the world has no control over our
brains. 

Otherwise conscious/unconscious implies some sort of duality in your head. 
Like the homunculus..

~~~
csomar
More like experience a "subset of the environment".  We can barely handle more
than a few digits at a time, a particularly small square of vision, or a
particular song.  We can focus our mental effort at really only one thing (the
other has to be learned/unconscious so that it can go parallel). 

I think the question becomes: Why are we conscious in the first place? 

~~~
trixie_
Unless there is something special going on.. experience seems to be a property
of matter itself. 

Which could mean everything is aware to some extent.  People, dogs, rocks,
etc.. But because of our big complicated brains that can hold memories and all
that - we are aware of being aware. 

------
onemoresoop
If feels pretty obvious to me to think that internal mood has something to do
with decision making.  It could take a couple of seconds for a reaction to cook
up in order to become a decision. 

------
naasking
Sure, and seeing some elecrical patterns in DRAM circuitry will predict
changes before they show up on your monitor too.  That's just how computers
work. 

Similarly, unconscious activity is just how consciousness and choice work. 
That doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist.  It's a complete
misunderstanding of the concept. 

~~~
jacobmoe
No one thinks that computers have free will.  Not yet anyway.  The idea that the
conscious mind isn't the one making decisions seems to have implications for
free will.  Can you explain why it's misunderstanding of the concept? 

~~~
jules
I find that the intuitive idea of free will doesn't make all that much sense
anyway.  Leave aside the discussion of whether people have free will in this
universe, how would a universe in which people actually have what most people
call free free will even work? 

~~~
pault
Assuming that "free will" doesn't include manipulating the laws of physics,
pretty much like the one we live in?  I can see where people are coming from
when they say there is no such thing as free will, but it sounds like they are
saying the no one has the ability to consciously override their impulses.  I
don't smash the skull of everyone that makes me angry, for example. 

~~~
demiurgical
but why is bifurcation required?  is the one stopping the impulses any
different than the impulses engine? 

the reason you don't smash all of the skulls is as causal and determined as
the impulses afaict. 

to me it seems that life is just sufficiently complex self contained units
that are completely bound by deterministic laws.  we have a sense of self
referential capalbility which may give the illusion of free will but I'd say
that it's not your decision to stop the impulses of smashing skulls rather it
is the inescapable result of your unique determined state or rather process
that your brain has been configure d for based on life experience and genes. 

~~~
naasking
You're assuming free will is mutually exclusive with determinism.  This is
probably not the case.  See Compatibilism, which enjoys majority support among
philosophers and studies of lay people. 

~~~
posterboy
This works as an assumption, and is rather useless in practice, because we
cannot determine the deterministic state to its full extent, even in thought
experiment, without limiting the degrees of freedom converging to zero, to
then say, well I had free will after all, when I didn't know any better.  I
really don't get it. 

I mean, support for Compatibalism is in effect not the support of determinism
that it claims to be.  It's just an effort of philosophers to safe free will,
out of free will, which means, to me, out of ignorance.  So the only real
insight is that we are sufficiently ignorant.  How is that still sold as a
positive thing? 

That still didn't come out right. 

I was trying to say, that Compatibilism is a meta argument.  If it isn't then
because it _determined_ free will as a deterministic fact.  I understand that
philosophy is rather complicated, and at the very least I doubt that, if
Compatibilism is true, that many people understand it sufficiently to be in
the position to support it, other than as an educated guess. 

~~~
naasking
I think the problem is that most people misunderstand philosophical inquiry. 
The free will debate is about _defining what free will_ means such that it can
serve as one factor to ground moral responsibility and how we employ our moral
reasoning. 

Long ago, some philosophers suggested that we cannot be held morally
responsible for factors that our outside of our control, and further, that any
effects that follow from factors outside of our control, are thus also outside
of our control.  Determinism is the quintessential example.  Numerous arguments
have since been presented that debunk this need for control, the ability to do
otherwise, etc.  These properties simply aren't necessary for moral
responsibility. 

Furthermore, studies in experimental philosophy have shown that lay people
actually employ Compatibilist moral reasoning, debunking the long held
assumption that people are incompatibilists because of religious upbringing. 

So I disagree that Compatibilism is some sort of meta-argument, as it fits
squarely in the expected domain of discourse for free will.  It is precisely
fulfilling the philosophical research program of identifying that which is
necessary to make sense of choice in our moral language. 

~~~
pault
Now I know what other people feel like when they listen to programmers talk. 
:D

Do you know of any materials that present the debate in a form that a ten year
old could understand? 

------
zappo2938
Are the action potentials spinning up like a turbo in a car engine? 

------
pvaldes
11 entire seconds is a life for brain activity.  Superslow. 

------
justanotherjoe
I don't think this paper is related to free will, or if they even claimed it
is.  It's just sensational title. 

The choice is completely non-consequential, it's picking between 2 patterns. 
The brain choose based on it's initial biases.  It's like when you are turning
off your brain watching youtube videos, it's likely that you will open another
video after that instead of going back to your work because there is a strong
pre-existing brain activity related to whatever you're watching. 

What I'm saying is it isn't like some directive from the subconscious that you
cannot go against, it's more like one room is filled with sweets and the other
is filled with nothing.  The choice is still taken at the moment. 

~~~
nabla9
This is just one of the many studies.  You can detect the choice from the brain
up to seven seconds before when people are asked to push a button any time
they feel the urge. 
[https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.h...](https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html)

> The choice is still taken at the moment. 

There is no reason to expect that 'the moment' is the same as when we become
aware of it.  It's questionable if we can make make any choices within two or
three seconds.  We just have behaviour that feels like it's our own volition. 

~~~
coldtea
> _You can detect the choice from the brain up to seven seconds before when
> people are asked to push a button any time they feel the urge. (...)  There
> is no reason to expect that 'the moment' is the same as when we become aware
> of it.  It's questionable if we can make make any choices within two or three
> seconds.  We just have behaviour that feels like it's our own volition._ 

Of course it's our own volition. 

Do you see anybody else there telling the person what to do?  Is there some
"eternal soul" that should have been informed to make the final decision? 

The misleading dichotomy here is that the conscious urge is something
different from the "choice from the brain up". 

Whereas the conscious urge is just a later manifestation of the "brain up"
process.  It's just a nicer UI output we give ourselves of the choice process. 

It's still our brains, that is us (there's no third party involved), that
makes the decision, based on our past experience, knowledge, preferences,
memories, etc as wired in our brains. 

Whether we do it at the conscious layer or we do it at the lower level and
then project it at the conscious layer doesn't make it any less of "our own
volition". 

To me it's like saying "the computer didn't make this picture, because the
picture was already created in the memory as a structure before it was send to
the screen". 

~~~
Barrin92
>Do you see anybody else there telling the person what to do?  Is there some
"eternal soul" that should have been informed to make the final decision? 

Obviously not, but commonly when people refer to so called 'free will', they
don't just mean to imply that you, as a physical entity carry out things by
your own volition, it is taken to mean that you consciously deliberate on your
choices and have some insight into your own decision making. 

These experiments suggests that the actual decision making happens at a much
more secluded, black box like level. 

Free will, in a meaningful sense, is taken to mean 'rational control', not
just 'that guy over there acts in some way because his brain commands him to',
because that's true almost by definition if you exclude religious
explanations. 

~~~
root_axis
I don't see how any of that negates the idea of rational control in the sense
that we commonly understand it.  The series of physical events in the brain
that lead to a decision are not subject to an out of band process that can
override the final conclusion; it doesn't seem surprising that there is a
delay between the unconscious processes that underpin our rational thoughts
and the eventual culmination of a decision, IMO the _opposite_ would actually
be the surprising result (i.e. our conscious mind is not a supervenient
product of our unconscious brain and supporting biological processes)

------
your-nanny
choice can be predicted with eye tracking.  so what. 

------
JumpCrisscross
N=14.  This is a preliminary study, not something you should change behaviour
or beliefs nor cast policy based on. 

~~~
taneq
Even N=1 would be interesting.  Not everything has to use a cohort of thousands
- when you're demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon, a single case will
suffice. 

~~~
bluesign
Oh thats not like this, if you give me N=1000, i can probably prove anything
for N=10 (considering bad intentions)

So basically for big N's, study is much trustworthy. 

~~~
eeZah7Ux
Give N=7.5 billion find me N=1 person that is 300 years old, or one that can
fly. 

------
chiefalchemist
> "In, other words, if any pre-existing brain activity matches one of your
> choices, then your brain will be more likely to pick that option as it gets
> boosted by the pre-existing brain activity.”" 

We have biases.  Sometime we are aware of them.  Sometimes, evidently, in
trivial situations, we don't notice such patterns. 

"Be mindful of your biases" just took on a wider scope. 

------
bluesign
\- They are showing 2 images. 

\- maximum duration to choose is 20 seconds. 

So basically if you look one of them 10 seconds, seconds one 10 seconds.  And
make your choice.  They can see your choice when they go back in your brain
activity 11 seconds before. 

(If they can with MRI can see how much you like something while you are
looking)

So basically nothing much value here. 

(PS: when i see 'upto 11 seconds', this sounds like marketing talk)

~~~
gus_massa
I understood that they show both images simultaneously.  Can someone look at
the research paper? 

(I also don't like the "up to 11 seconds".)