Bypassing the Will [Archive] - SomaSimple Discussion Lists

Diane

04-03-2006, 05:00 AM

Really, really interesting. Barrett, right up your alley. This part was intriguing:
For many years now, social psychologists have been busily documenting all of the complex, higher mental processes that are capable of occurring nonconsciously. Yet we still know little of how these effects occur, how they develop, and why so much in the way of complex, higher mental processes should take place outside of conscious awareness and control. Without some consideration of these issues, automatic behavior, judgment, and goal pursuit will continue to seem somewhat magical and mysterious to many people.1
There are two aspects of these phenomena that seem particularly magical. One is the profound dissociation between these varied psychological and behavioral responses to one’s environment, on the one hand, and one’s intentions and awareness of them on the other. People are behaving, interacting, and pursuing goals, all apparently without meaning to or knowing they are doing so. How is this possible? The second mysterious feature of these effects is that the same verbal or pictorial stimuli produce all of them. All it takes, it seems, is to activate the relevant concept in some manner – achievement or rudeness or cooperation or slowness, and so on – then, its activation and effect immediately spreads and projects to evaluations and approach-avoidance tendencies, to putting motivations and goals into play, and to create trait-like behavior tendencies in the...
(Footnote:1 In fact, early on Thorndike (1913, p. 105) did attack the ideomotor-action principle as “magical thinking”, and his criticism effectively stifled scientific research on ideomotor action for the next 60 years (see Knuf et al., 2001, p. 780).)

nari

05-03-2006, 01:35 AM

OK, another ignorant question. Is there any way of saving these files?

Nari

PS It's OK - I found out.

Barrett Dorko

08-03-2006, 05:36 PM

I’ve read this document slowly over the course for the past few days and feel that it represents the best argument in favor of the nature of ideomotion I’ve ever seen. Anyone asking the very common question, “If this is me moving why is it I’m unaware of the plan to do so or the willful effort not to do it, or – most importantly - the customary sense of conscious control of movement I ordinarily have?”

The short answer is: “Because most of what you’ve described is an illusion. Fully expressed ideomotion confuses us because it lays that illusion of conscious, willful movement bare. The neuroscience described within this article supports very well what I’ve just said.” Of course, this realization is also quite disquieting (if not downright scary) to many therapists who have spent their careers unaware of the illusions to which I’m referring. I think the reasons for this fear are obvious, and we all know that with fear comes resistance and that ignorance breeds fear. Reading this article is the only way out, as far as I can see. Too bad therapists read so little.

I picked out a few lines from Bypassing the Will I’d like to list here. I hope they generate some discussion:

…many of the wellsprings of behavior appear to be opaque to conscious access.

Nonconscious control of social behavior (is) behavior induced to occur by environmental factors and not by the individual’s conscious awareness and intentions.

…we have imperfect at best conscious access to the basic brain/mind processes that help govern our own behavior…(and) complex social behavior tendencies can be triggered nonconsciously.

One reason why these effects seem magical is our fundamental belief in our own free will…

There’s a good deal more, but that’s a start.

nari

08-03-2006, 10:55 PM

There is a great deal of relevant information and proposals in this paper.

Sarbin and Coe, way back in 1972, ask:

"{This} aspect of the hypnotic situation creates surprise and puzzlement. How can we account for the apparent magnitude of response to such a benign stimulus? How can only a verbal response bring about so dramatic a change as analgesia to the surgeon'e scalpel?....The tendency is to onterpret these exaggerated responses as being almost magical.."
(Their italics)
Indeed.

and, way back in 1962, Neisser wrote:

It is worth noting that, anatomically, the human cerebrum appears to be the sort of diffuse system in which multiple processes would be at home. In this respect it differs from the nervous system of lower animals. Our hypothesis thus leads us to the radical suggestion that the critical difference between the thinking of humans and of lower animals lies not in the existence of consciousness but in the capacity for complex processes outside of it. - Bargh's italics.

Barrett...it's simple.
All you have to do is spend an extra 10 minutes explaining to the students that free will is an illusion. Once they get that concept...the the concept of ideomotion follows logically. You've got it made. ;)

Could we sell this concept of free-will-illusion??

Nari

Barrett Dorko

08-03-2006, 11:26 PM

Nari,

I agree. Of course, there's nothing in the course brochure about that so they might wonder if they've wandered into the wrong class. This, I think, is fixable.

I can't help but wonder how I might put this in a way that doesn't sound Orwellian. I mean, it sounds Orwellian to me, and I know it isn't.

Is it?

nari

08-03-2006, 11:51 PM

I think our main obstacle would be the impression that we are playing at being philosophers and not concentrating on tools to take back to put in the box. A concept of nonconscious actions doesn't sit well in a tool box; it tends to escape.

When people go shopping, they want to bring home items to use. Visible, tactile, pretty items, with promises of happiness and success. Expensive items with labels which often tell one how to use or apply.

Concepts tend to be rather invisible and nontactile, although they can be pretty; and they require some thought as to how to construct a method.

That is the challenge.

Nari

Diane

09-03-2006, 01:02 AM

Could we sell this concept of free-will-illusion?? I think we could if we package it differently. Not untruthfully, just differently.

It could fit in under evolutionary reasoning, I think. After having learned about:
1. embryonic movement, and;
2. headless vertebrates that can swim,
I am more than ever convinced that my explanation is on the right track.

The gist is this; even without a head, movement is still possible because the spinal cord is programmed to locomote. Cats that are decerebrate can "walk" on treadmills, chickens that are beheaded can run and flap their wings, etc. (at least until they bleed out). Why? it just evolved that way. The cord is CNS, but it is older and more "primitive," i.e. more "non-consciously" motor outflow than the prefrontals of the cerebral cortex, where we sustain our "sense of self" (Sagan, Up From Dragons).

In the organism known as human, development unfolds according to genetic sequencing through time, and with tim-ing. It has to do things this way, in a certain order, because of environmental constraints such as space. Progressive neotony (http://www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=2&id=8) is therefore our lot, to be ever less mature at birth, because of ever greater amounts of development that need to be expressed. There just isn't enough room to get it done prior to birth, or women would have to have bony pelvises a metre wide. Evolution constrains the physicality of the early embryonic environment/mother therefore as much as it tries to develop greater capacity/bigger brains. Solution? Out into the world sooner and more helplessly for longer and longer periods.

My point? Embryonic movement still exists from the cord, but now it gets layered under social conditioning, which is trowled over it by a combination of a baby anxious to bond with mom in order to survive, and a brain still busy growing/myelinating. Psychologic layers develop and mix in with movement layers. (This is the stuff upon which body psychotherapy theory, psychoanalysis etc. is built. I'm not saying we need to go there, only that in physical life, motor use of body and self awareness all develop together.)

By the time a child is developed/myelinated enough to have self awareness and motor skills, these have been mashed in with socialization, that "external locus of control" thing we've all heard of. Moseley says, get back/give back the internal locus of control. Well, yes, but then put it where? I say, which part of which of the nervous systems through which we have evolved will be the best place to put that internal locus of motor control? The human one isn't likely to be our best bet.

Barrett says, put the internal locus of motor control out into the farthest possible place of non-consciousness, and I would absolutely agree. This must also be the earliest place from which motor outflow starts, the cord/brainstem, also the first part of the neurotube to close, the start of where the body begins to build itself. That's where ideomotion starts in most of the people I observe doing it. They just seem to start from there all on their own. Coincidence? I think not.

What did that part do in early vertebrates? It moved the spine. Why? To move the creature through space. Toward food/away from danger. That's all. Totally unsocialized. In the beginning was the spinal cord and its housing. Arms and legs came later, much much later and ended up, .. well, appended. That's why they are called "appendages." And new parts of the nervous system have been "appended" as well, first to run them (quadruped), then to tweak their functions; mammal, then primate. Then that last bit that is self-aware of being human, and has been socialized to the max.

I think by adding evolutionary and developmental common sense factoids to one's explanations, it bypasses the discomfort people/patients might have with the "illusion" explanation. It's based on nature, it's simple, and it makes sense. "Own your inner creatures" could be a theme. How about, "your brain is a committee"?

I give patients "the brain is a committee" info packet quite often, about how the brain is made of lots of creature parts that have kept the heart beating and the lungs breathing for you since they first formed embryonically, before you were born, that do the same thing in every creature alive right now sharing the planet with you, that have always done the same jobs since creatures have been multi-cellular. Brains all work the same, human brains and creature brains, but the creature parts have had way more practice. The human part of us is built up on top of parts of the brain we inherited from other animals with backbones. The part we think of as "self", is really just the newest upstart member of the brain committee. The old parts that keep you alive will take over if they feel they must, if they feel your/their existance is under threat. They will bend you to their will, like it or not, so you might as well learn to get along with them, because they are part of you for life, keeping you alive in fact, and they are graciously putting up with you sharing their same brain. So it's ok to let those parts move you sometimes; it helps you if you let them have movement to "flush out the pipes", clear the alarm bells, lay in new "wiring" through movement. When it's your turn to use this body to do something human/purposeful again, it is much less likely that you'll hurt/run out of steam before your project is done. Learn to share the system, and your physical existance will be so much more comfortable; besides, moving in a nonconscious unplanned way is pleasant, and watching it happen from inside yourself, is fun.

What do you think? Think this take would sell?

Jon Newman

09-03-2006, 05:12 AM

Warning: minor psych babble ahead.

Hi Barrett,
Most people attending your course will understandably be pre-contemplators as it pertains to free will being an illusion. While apathy likely accounts for some of the attrition of interest in your material once students leave the hotel, I think "resistance" behavior commonly encountered when discussing alternatives (to whatever) with pre-contemplators explains a lot also. The lack of a reasonable environment to practice would take care of most of the rest (in my opinion). I think that Nick's idea for the "International Institute for the Manual Management of Pain" might have a better time getting off the ground for a couple of reasons. Beyond the attraction of a certification, it would attract contemplators instead of pre-contemplators. That you have moved as many people as you have from pre-contemplation to contemplation is amazing to me. It is no small task.

Regarding the Orwellian thing: The University of Wisconsin will be starting a new program in Neuroscience and Public Policy (http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2241). I think they will fully consider the implications of all the "lines" you pulled from the "Bypassing free will" article.

My thoughts are that those who govern us are going to understand this. However, only a despot would, among other things, actively encourage ignorance (especially in the arts and sciences) of those it governs. Thus it is the combination of these things (ignorance and a despot) that would render the free will issue Orwellian.

Regardless, I can't believe you're worried about your typical audience thinking something would sound Orwellian. I think if they could make that kind of association they're more likely to get something out of your material in the first place.

Barrett Dorko

09-03-2006, 03:28 PM

Jon,

As you know I sometimes ask my classes "Anybody ever heard of Patrick Wall?" Typically there's little or no response, but twice now a young man in the class has smiled and, relieved that he finally knew the answer to one of my questions, has said, "He's a goalie. Used to play for the Colorado Avalanche."

Obviously I need to work on my pronunciation because both of these guys thought I said "Patrick Roy" (pronounced "Wah") and went immediately to their intimate knowledge of the National Hockey League. I try hard not to actually laugh out loud - but I'm only human. I suppose this kid will find what he said pretty funny himself one day though that might take a couple of decades and some intense therapy.

What I'm getting at is our culture's increasing lack of appreciation for the lessons great literature has offered over the years, Orwell included, and I agree that this would help me communicate with my classes. I try to make up for this with references to popular culture but even that can fall flat. So I try something else and end up sounding like the embodiment of a Jeopardy board complete with all the answers. For some reason people find this disconcerting as well. Go figure.

What you've said explains why so few nod their heads when I say that modern practice has become Kafkaesque. I'm thinking of trying "Huxlian" in Florida next week. Think that will help?

Please, what exactly is a "pre-contemplator" and where's the reference? When I call somebody this next week I want to be able to pretend I actually know what I'm talking about.

EricM

09-03-2006, 04:22 PM

Stages of Change
Five stages of change have been conceptualized for a variety of problem behaviors. The five stages of change are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.
Precontemplation is the stage at which there is no intention to change behavior in the foreseeable future. Many individuals in this stage are unaware or underaware of their problems.
Contemplation is the stage in which people are aware that a problem exists and are seriously thinking about overcoming it but have not yet made a commitment to take action.
Preparation is a stage that combines intention and behavioral criteria. Individuals in this stage are intending to take action in the next month and have unsuccessfully taken action in the past year.
Action is the stage in which individuals modify their behavior, experiences, or environment in order to overcome their problems. Action involves the most overt behavioral changes and requires considerable commitment of time and energy.
Maintenance is the stage in which people work to prevent relapse and consolidate the gains attained during action. For addictive behaviors this stage extends from six months to an indeterminate period past the initial action

This is a fairly good reference Transtheoretical Model (http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/detailedoverview.htm)

eric

Jon Newman

09-03-2006, 08:22 PM

Thanks Eric. Of course this is only my interpretation of events--using a particular language for describing things. "Pre-contemplator" means people in the pre-contemplation stage. The MFR contingent we've had here for example. While it would seem that people attending a course on pain management would be contemplators at least, some of the material you present requires a deeper understanding of pain than most have actually contemplated. Since it appears that many do not actually prepare for the course as recommended, pre-contemplation seems to be an apt description despite their presence at your course. Very ironic.

Jon Newman

10-03-2006, 05:09 AM

The following selections are from an informative book titled "Motivational Interviewing" written by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick.

Precontemplation is the earliest stage of change. People in precontemplation are either unaware of problem behavior or are unwilling or discouraged when it comes to changing it. They engage in little activity that could shift their view of problem behavior and can be rather defensive about the targeted problem behavior. Precontemplators are not convinced that the negative aspects of the current or problem behavior outweigh the positive.

They go on to describe four patterns although they wisely acknowledge that people rarely exist in just one pattern.

Reluctant precontemplators are those who, through lack of knowledge or perhaps inertia, do not want to consider change. For these clients, the information or the effect of their problem behavior has not become fully conscious. Rather than being actively resistant, they are actually more passively reluctant to change. It may be that they are fearful of change, or perhaps they are comfortable where they are and don't want to risk the potential discomfort of change.

I chuckled when reading this because the problem of not acknowledging nonconscious movement may be due to information that has yet to become fully conscious.

Unlike reluctant precontemplators, rebellious precontemplators often have a great deal of knowledge about the problem behavior. In fact, they often have a heavy investment in the behavior...It is easy to recognize the a rebellious precontemplator; they often argue with the clinician, demonstrate either verbally or nonverbally that they don't want to be there, and provide a host of reasons that they are not going to change.

Not exactly sociopaths but probably just as annoying.

Lack of energy and investment, by contrast, is the hallmark of the resigned precontemplator. These clients have given up on the possibility of change and seem overwhelmed by the problem.

Hopelessness seems to be a good characteristic to describe these folks.

While the resigned precontemplator often feels that they have none of the answers to their problems, the rationalizing precontemplator often appears to have all the answers. It is easy to identify the rationalizing client in a session: it is when the clinician begins to feel as though he or she is in a debate, or a session of "point counterpoint." Although it may feel like rebellion, the resistance of the rationalizing client lies much more in their thinking than in their emotions.

Sound like anyone at any of your courses? I'm sure you have examples from literature that would serve as more interesting archetypes than those described above. Examples that might end up being worthy of the Aventis prize.

nari

10-03-2006, 05:30 AM

The course I did years ago on MI was interesting, and had some of the statements jon listed, but nothing about precontemplation.

The need to change is drastically different from the desire to change, of course, and the CAM enthusiasts cannot see a reason to change; ergo, they are unlikely to. And a heck of a lot of PTs who cannot see a need to change, as well; and I see that as a result of their thinking, not debating for the fun of it or to put down the person advocating change.

Nari

Jon Newman

10-03-2006, 05:38 AM

So as not to get too far off the topic, here is a link to a free will quotathon (http://www.naturalism.org/celebrities.htm)

Diane

10-03-2006, 07:15 AM

Wow Jon, do you dig into this so deep out of free will or because something compels you? Just kidding, it's great whatever the reason. Such a lot of food for thought.

What do we do when entire professions are precontemplative? How do professions deal with each other if they are each institutionalized into a different type of precontemplation? I had fun going through the list and assigning a major designation to four health care groups that easily sprang to mind, including the one we mostly belong to. It's a "J" thing..

Barrett Dorko

10-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Jon,

I’ve got the perfect pre-contemplator for you.

The first student to arrive at my course in Madison Wisconsin was a fifty-ish OT who gave me a “Duchenne smile” after she sat down primly in the second row near the door (note: Duchenne described a smile that didn’t reach the eyes of the smiler and felt it indicated something less than authentic pleasure).

After arranging her belongings carefully this woman opened the course manual to the first page and began to read. I walked by her a few minutes later and she said this: “You’re very theoretical.” I hadn’t heard my writing described precisely in this manner before but felt immediately that from this therapist it wasn’t a compliment – not at all. Her voice bordered on contempt and I sensed her disappointment. Class had yet to begin.

I ask every class how an emphasis on strict postural correction is working to resolve the painful problems they see and ordinarily I get a shrug and a shake of the head. Not this woman. “Very well,” she said authoritatively and actually loud enough for everyone to hear. My sympathetics dialed themselves up a notch.

I did pretty well avoiding her withering look of disapproval most of the day but was (I thought) trapped later into approaching her to use as a model for my lecture on touch and sensation because the massage therapist in front of her asked me not to touch her (more about that later). I would have skipped past her but there was a big supporting post right there and I was stuck. She looked at me and said firmly, “Don’t touch my hair.” I will admit that she was certainly well-coifed, but I hadn’t been warned not to do this in my memory – and I’ve approached a lot of women with hair over the years.

She didn’t stop there. Oh no. She went on to say that she was “Completely unhypnotizable” and that therefore I shouldn’t expect her to react to Simple Contact as everyone else in the class had. I became the poster boy for flop sweat.

My question: Was I unconsciously driven to approach this woman? Deep down did I feel I needed to learn a lesson about trusting my instincts? Shouldn’t the Duchenne smile have warned me: “Danger! Will Robinson. Danger! Danger!” (Reference “Lost in Space” circa 1970)?

Jon Newman

10-03-2006, 03:38 PM

Hi Barrett,

I thought the "Pan-American" smile was the inauthentic one with "Duchenne" being genuine (according to Martin Seligman). Unfortunately I'm not skilled at recognizing the difference which clearly would be more advantageous than knowing the difference.

While I don't know why you approached her, I would argue that you couldn't have done differently had time been rewound to that moment (ceteris paribus).

Sticking with Miller and Rollnick for help, they begin a chapter (3) with a description of the "righting reflex"

Human beings seem to have a built-in desire to set things right. The strength of this inclination varies from person to person and from one context to another. There are entire cultural and religious traditions, such as Buddhism, in which detachment from this desire to meddle is encouraged. Yet it is common, when we see something awry, to want to fix it. When people perceive a discrepency between how things are and how they outght to be, they tend to be motivated to reduce that discrepency if it seems possible to do so.

They open that chapter with a lovely quote from Henri J. M Nouwen; "Anyone who willingly enters into the pain of a stranger is truly a remarkable person."

Barrett Dorko

10-03-2006, 04:51 PM

Jon,

I may have that thing about the smile backwards but I don't think so. Can't remember where I read it but Duchenne was describing neurologic disorders so I would give him the edge here.

I agree that I did what I was compelled to do despite having every reason to avoid it. I was trying to "set things right" when I approached the massage therapist in front of the pre-contemplator because earlier the MT had told me somewhat angrily that dowsing rods moved because of "an alteration in gravity caused by the electromagnetic changes in the atmosphere above the underground water." She hadn't much cared for my explanation using ideomotion and said so. Then she didn't want me to touch her - fearful, I suppose, of my ability to transfer some of my "bad energy" into her brain.

Steve Hill, who calls himself "Shill" on Rehab Edge was there watching all of this and could confirm it in case anyone's interested.

I'm going to memorize that last quote for my next class and use it when I talk about how being therapists can make us better people. It's perfect.

EricM

10-03-2006, 05:45 PM

Barrett perhpas you need to add the following to the course brochure:
"Come to the workshop prepared to touch others and be touched by others on the legs, arms, trunk and head." Maybe she needed a little more priming, as if the title of the workshop isn't enough.

Eric

Barrett Dorko

13-03-2006, 03:20 PM

I'd hate to see this thread die because I feel it has direct and profound implications for our manual handling - what so many brilliant thinkers have said about consciousness and the supposed notion of "free" will has everything to do with movement therapy and manual care.

I did some reading, and Schopenhauer understood that desire was present prior to thought, thus his admonition, “You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want” makes perfect sense.

Can we gain access to what another wants or desires to do as opposed to what they allow themselves to do? Well, sure. Just touch them and use your hand as an organ of perception and not as an agent of your own will. Don't search for tenderness or reaction or the quality of density or the circadian rhythms normally assessed, focus on sensing their unrequited movement and give them permission to proceed with that.

In my experience, this is irresistible and ideomotion is the result. Remember, there's no touching in poker precisely because it would reveal too much.

Barrett Dorko

13-03-2006, 09:09 PM

I've come across some more:

Nobelaureate Eric R. Candel speaks of how Libet discovered in 1986 that our decision to do something precedes that same person’s awareness of the decision itself. In other words, before we feel the urge to act the action itself has already been decided upon. I carry Libet’s text Mind Time with me when I teach. What follows is a quote from Candel.

These experiments led to the radical insight that by observing another person's brain activity, one can predict what someone is going to do before he is aware that he has made the decision to do it. This finding has caused philosophers of mind to ask: If the choice is determined in the brain unconsciously before we decide to act, where is free will?

Are these choices predetermined? Is our experience of freely willing our actions only an illusion, a rationalization after the fact for what has happened? Freud, Helmholtz and Libet would disagree and argue that the choice is freely made but that it happens without our awareness. According to their view, the unconscious inference of Helmholtz also applies to decision-making.

They would argue that the choice is made freely, but not consciously. Libet for example proposes that the process of initiating a voluntary action occurs in an unconscious part of the brain, but that just before the action is initiated, consciousness is recruited to approve or veto the action. In the 200 milliseconds before a finger is lifted, consciousness determines whether it moves or not.

Is the desire to move palpable? Well, of course; it will be present in the form of an isotonic, which is easily palpated though commonly misinterpreted. I don’t personally bother looking for this. Since the people I deal with are alive (even the students ha,ha) I figure that they are full of decisions to move that have not been fully expressed.

Anyone seated in a chair for more than a few minutes, facing forward, will undoubtedly be withholding some sort of angular motion that would normally have been expressed were it not for the cultural constraints that surround them. Theoretically, the people in the front of the class will be withholding more motion than those in the back - ceteris paribus. All I have to do to demonstrate ideomotion that’s easily seen is to land on the head of a person in the front row after about a half hour’s lecture. See what I mean?

This isn’t a “trick” of some sort, it’s just a display of what Libet discovered: the decision about what we want to do next has already been made, all that’s required now is some awareness and permission. The right therapist’s hands can provide what is required for both with ease.

Diane

14-03-2006, 12:06 AM

This morning I saw three people, two middle-age women, and one older man, age 78. One was a book editor (lots of sitting) who, although she could easily walk 6 km 3xweek, had tried running and developed a swollen knee. The other woman had a hip dysplasia when a baby, was in a cast for a long time, gets around fine but has chronic hip pain, a slight limp, and tendency to stand on her "good" leg and externally rotate the cranky one (in supine too Barrett..). She does video editing. The man is a psychiatrist, still working, used to run for a whole hour once a week, but his legs began to hurt and he started to walk and ride a stationary bike instead.

I did a variety of things with them but all three practiced ideomotor movement with SC. The women got it instantly. The guy went into flexion and stayed there, vibrating sort of, but not letting himself move. It was a good jumping off point for all of them to explore sensations of stretchiness or not-stretchiness, warmth, softening and the rest. The psychiatrist got a bit snarled up, I think, in his own version of self-hypnosis, as he explained after.. but I told him there was no need to default to anything technical. At least he made it to a sense of freedom from pain, and when he walked out of the treatment room he looked like he'd gained about 2 inches in height. What I got from this morning was that the women were far less inhibited about going to this new experiential place and moving around in it, but not to let an apparent therapeutic failure disuade me, because he actually felt a lot going on even if it didn't look like it at the time.

As I continue to work with the challenge, it gets easier and easier to introduce it to more and more diverse people, and let them be with themselves in whatever way they need to be, moving or not.

Barrett Dorko

14-03-2006, 12:47 AM

Diane,

Sounds very much like my own practice. I've learned that the really good stuff is not typically seen at all by the therapist, just sensed by the patient. If the patient grew from cool to warm and will do the movement in your absence, time is now on their side and you've already succeeded.

I was thinking: Before I get out of my recliner, Buckeye can apparantly tell whether I'm headed toward the kitchen or the bathroom and she prepares to follow me toward one and not the other. How do you suppose she knows this? How do I telegraph my intention? Why is it so obvious to her eyes alone?

I think most people can relate similar stories about their pets. Think there might be a lesson for manual therapists seeking to sense their patient's ideomotion here?

nari

14-03-2006, 01:19 AM

Not just dogs sense this; cats do also.
My cat Rupert knows where I am going if I get up from sitting - if it's to the kitchen only, he follows. If it is through the kitchen towards the front door, he doesn't bother. If I am cross about something, he finds me.

Animals are a heck of a lot smarter than we are led to believe; probably stems back to the long-standing perceptions that we are the supreme species.

I have no idea how they do this; I suspect we haven't worked that one out yet.

Nari

Jon Newman

14-03-2006, 04:02 AM

The following selection if from A fear of mechanism (http://www.naturalism.org/fearof.htm), an essay written by Thomas Clark.

In reaching such conclusions, Spence and Frith’s paper combines with Gomes’, Claxton’s, and McCrone’s contributions to create a formidable rebuttal to mentalistic and dualist theories of free will. Gomes digs very deeply and forcefully into Libet’s data, recognizing that ‘the dualist thesis (Libet’s) is of course not a solution to the dilemma’ of how to reconcile naturalism with our sense of voluntary agency. Having cut the libertarian knot, Gomes sets out the compatibilist alternative in its methodological context:

(F)rom the third person perspective – which is anyway the proper perspective for explanation – there is not so much difficulty in considering choice, decision and action as part of the natural world…All we need to suppose is that there is, in human beings, a decision system that can represent actions and action sequences before their performance, that can select among them, and the output of which is not fully determined by its input, but also by its internal state, by its representations of aims to be achieved, by internal criteria that affect its activity (moral and other personal values), and also by a certain degree of randomness (which gives the arbitrary character that our choices often have).

Given this brain-based decision making system, the next compatibilist move is to identify with it. As Gomes goes on to say:

If the ‘I’ is such a system as we have roughly described above, we can consider this intuition [that I act freely] to be essentially correct. It all depends on the concept we have of the self, of the ‘I’. When we see our actions as determined by ourselves, this [intuition of freedom] can be considered to be right. It is when we consider our self to be pure spontaneity – a being that is not subject to causality – that we are in illusion.

I find myself in agreement with these statements. There is also an interesting lecture worth listening to that has something to say about decision making. Go to page 7 and check out

Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain
Monday, November 24, 2003
Paul W. Glimcher, Ph.D., New York University
Total Running Time: 01:14:11

Neuroscience lectures (http://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp?c=16&s=1)

Matthias is credited in bringing this series to my attention. Thanks Matthias.

Barrett Dorko

14-03-2006, 04:54 AM

Jon,

Given this, is it accurate to say that this "decision system" presents the conscious mind with a few choices and then the action takes place?

Is there some representation of these choices before the final one is made?

Jon Newman

14-03-2006, 06:22 AM

Hi Barrett,

My opinion (informed by others and hopefully I've understood accurately) is that sometimes some (but not all) of the possible alternatives of the "decision system" contribute to the formation of our conscious thoughts and the final decision is initiated non-consciously.

For an example of this, check out the video I mentioned in my previous post. "Fast forward" the video to about minute 23 and watch at least to about minute 32. Here he'll describe how students played a "work or shirk" game and how they explained their decision making. It had little to do with what was actually going on.

Barrett Dorko

14-03-2006, 04:30 PM

Jon,

I watched this video in the Cleveland airport while on my way to Tallahassee today, even though I would much rather have been reading the new People magazine in my briefcase. I consider this to be the epitome of dedication and certainly hope I get some credit for it.

A couple of things stood out for me. The researcher pointed out that, when asked, the students playing the game that appeared to require careful decisions on their part would come up with explanations for their actions that made sense to them but in fact had nothing to do with reality. As it turns out, their behavior was perfectly predicted using the "Nash Equilibrium." In other words, we know what they are going to do before they do it and they never become aware of the predictability of their behavior because it is unconsciously driven. Pretty cool.

Question: Is this the same John Nash played by Russell Crowe in the movie A Beautiful Mind? I noticed that this work won the video's Nash the Nobel prize. The one I just watched I mean.

So, what does this imply about our patient's behavior? How about our's?

Jon Newman

14-03-2006, 08:44 PM

"Nash equilibrium" versus "Oscar secrets"--You are dedicated.

I've not seen A Beautiful Mind but from what I've read it is "based on" the life John Nash of Nash equilibrium fame.

The behavioral implications are intriguing to me (if not sometimes disconcertedly revealing). I'd like to hear what others think.

christophb

14-03-2006, 09:19 PM

Very interesting thread, I have spent the greater part of this morning thinking about the implications to patients and therapists, I have the time to do so partly because of some "no shows." So I wonder, is the no show patient playing the work or shirk game? Does it matter what the payout is, how does this change for a passive treatment vs active? What about treatment meeting some expected ideal vs unexpected (getting US and massage vs SC)?

And I was just handed a notice from a clinic manager trying to figure out why referrals are down this week vs the last 2 weeks, and an answer is expected by the afternoon. Is this even possible to figure out? How can I predict the behavior of referral sources?

Chris

Barrett Dorko

15-03-2006, 01:40 AM

Chris,

Possible answers:

1) Our referral base isn’t sufficiently aware of my dedication to the patient and my passion for learning.

2) Our company's management hasn’t sufficiently promoted our services.

3) The Kafkaesque nature of modern medical management.

4) My receptionist is having “relationship” problems and she’s not been very nice on the phone.

5) Spring Break

6) March Madness

7) Barrett has really screwed up my practice.

8) Unconsciously, I am driving people away in order to have more time to think.

Just trying to help.

christophb

15-03-2006, 01:43 AM

Barrett, I think you hit the nail on the head with #8:D

Chris

Diane

15-03-2006, 02:54 AM

(Chris, don't think too hard or you'll weaken the "team." :D)

EricM

15-03-2006, 03:43 AM

Jon, I think, or I should say, I think I thought, that if you could hear what I think, you wouldn't be practicing physio anymore, you'd be on the road competing for audiences with Barrett.:D :D

How does the deja vu phenomenom fit into this? Can some of this unconscious brain activity occasionally slip into conscious awareness earlier than usual thus surprising the individual into thinking they were reliving a particular moment? Am I not following?

Eric

Jon Newman

15-03-2006, 05:13 AM

Hi Eric,

Didn't we already have this conversation? It seems so familiar.

Regarding being on the road: I appreciate the sentiment but if it is true that we are free to do what we want but not want what we want, what does that suggest about me not being on the road currently? I prefer to travel via cyberspace from Querencia, WI. Besides, I don't know any Oscar secrets (among plenty of other things) thus putting me at a distinct disadvantage.

EricM

15-03-2006, 06:20 AM

Jon, exactly.
Just as long as your not hearing voices.

we are free to do what we want but not want what we want

So we are not responsible for our behaviour. The following is from Does Neuroscience Refute Free Will? (http://www.mises.org/story/1943)

You thought you decided to read this article because it seemed interesting. But no, you have [had] no clue, and that thought was really just some illusion generated by your brain to mask its cluelessness.

I think I'm starting to get it, then again, that could just be an illusion.

Eric

Baecker

15-03-2006, 06:58 AM

hi i am new reading quite a bit on this forum, this is my first reply. english is not my first language so bear with me.

ok can someone please explain in the simplest of words why we don't have a free will?

Jon Newman

15-03-2006, 07:04 AM

Hi Eric,

I disagree that we are not responsible (assuming the presence of rationality). We are just not free of causation. There is a difference.

Jon Newman

15-03-2006, 07:13 AM

Hi Baecker,

I don't know that I can fulfill your request. I had to read more than a few simple words to understand why we don't seem to have free will. I once tried to explain (in simple terms) to some friends why we don't have free will. Now I'm not allowed to talk about it. What languages are you comfortable with? Someone may have a reference for you.

EricM

15-03-2006, 07:20 AM

I understand what you mean. I haven't read these yet but they might help further the discussion. Compatibilism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/) and Free Will (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/)

Baecker, welcome to the forum. Where are you from? I wish I could provide the simple answer you are looking for. The simplest explanation might be because neuroscience says so. Maybe someone else can be more clear.

Eric

Baecker

15-03-2006, 09:21 AM

hi,
thanks for the reply actually i seen this quote here from Diane which says
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." - Albert Einstein

i mean my level of understanding english is pretty good, just some times i cannot express myself in the way of my native language which is german.

bernard

15-03-2006, 09:26 AM

I disagree that we are not responsible (assuming the presence of rationality). We are just not free of causation. There is a difference.

I'll throw some stones in the pond but it's not because we have a delayed consciouness of our will that we do not have a free will.
Take your guns!

Baecker

15-03-2006, 10:39 AM

me again just read something in german about the issue i try to translate it as good as possible:this is about flaws in the libet experiment i out it in a nut shell (i like KISS):

"the point of time of consciousness of an action was wrongly equaled to the point of time of the decision."

so basically saying neuro science cannot say that we do not have a free will.

Forschungszentrum Jülich/
C. u. O. Vogt-Institut für Hirnforschung, Heinrich-Heine-Universitنt Düsseldorf
Prof. Dr. Karl Zilles

what do you guys mean we don't have a free will? what the meaning of free will? don't give 1000's of qoutes from some philosophers, already plenty of stuff to read on this forum :).

Jon Newman

15-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Hi Bernard,

Could you clarify your statement. I think I agree with you. However, consciousness is very important to maintain the illusion of free will.

Baecker, I still think your best bet is to have a discussion with someone proficient in German but I'll give it a shot. Human behavior is a result of the interaction of a person's genes with their environment over time. We cannot cause something to happen without ourselves being caused also.

Diane

15-03-2006, 05:00 PM

Hi Baecker,
Just want to add a welcome. :)
(Maybe I should take out that quote if it is discouraging to people whose first language is not English. I put it there as a reminder to understand concepts better, in any language... but maybe that isn't how it came across.)

My understanding (more metaphorically) of the issue of delayed conscious awareness is based on evolution mostly. The brain developed from the neck up through the animal kingdom, new layers added themselves on to old ones. (Up From Dragons: The evolution of Human Intelligence; Skoyles and Sagan).

The brainstem/cerebellar areas seem to be the ones in charge of lifesupport and movement (away from threat/toward food, even symbolic threat/food, whatever is coming in through the senses gets to the cerebellum as fast as it gets anywhere). The cerebellum even contributes to patterning the action of thought somehow, but I haven't got there yet.

Anyway, it makes sense to me that the locus of "initiation" is the hindbrain, and the news travels to the conscious awareness part of the brain which receives it about the same time as the effector/muscular system does, or maybe even a few nanoseconds later. Then it takes another few nanoseconds for the news to develop itself into an "image" (Damasio) that can register itself as a conscious thought that can be formulated by and actually retained by the frontals/prefrontals. Meanwhile the body is busy getting ready for the action. The conscious part of the brain can intervene to inhibit the action, based on its own input regarding appropriateness, but the motor system is reved and ready to go, and perfectly readable by another. Including another animal.

Does this make any sense to anyone besides me? This explanation? (I like to play the role of my own grandmother, and explain things to myself.)

bernard

15-03-2006, 05:17 PM

Does this make any sense to anyone besides me?

I could be your grandfather and it was perfectly clear.
I'll add that a delayed consciousness is a another way to rearrange commonly the things, just in time, for us. We are synchronising past events.

christophb

15-03-2006, 06:26 PM

but the motor system is reved and ready to go, and perfectly readable by another. Including another animal.

The whole martial art aspect of tai chi is hinged around these observations. Ideally you read another’s intention and react on it before they mobilize the intention of attack into action. The part where my head explodes is that there should also be some delay in my processing and reaction.

Chris

Diane

15-03-2006, 06:56 PM

The part where my head explodes is that there should also be some delay in my processing and reaction. Ah, Grasshopper.. not if you let your non-conscious brain do the processing and reacting. :)

In fact, is that not what martial arts are all about? Learning to get out of the way, then practicing getting out of the way of, the faster and more fluid reactions of the nonconscious awareness mechanisms? There is time to "think" about it later.

christophb

15-03-2006, 07:18 PM

Ah yes, of course... consistent with my training. See what happens when you go on thinking about stuff. A very common account of tai chi masters who acquire great skill is they just stop trying and let go, when people go to "do" something to them they get bounced off and it seems like the master did nothing. I'm gonna go up to the mountains now and meditate in a cave.

Chris

Barrett Dorko

15-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Chris,

From "Without Volition" on my site.

"An especially interesting discussion of how good we can become at sensing another's intention to move can be found in Jeremy Campbell's book Winston Churchill's Afternoon Nap. It has to do with avoiding a blow in boxing despite the fact that it is commonly delivered faster than it should be possible to do so."

Despite the delay - and that isn't going anywhere - your sensitivity to your instinctive preservation and your sense of another's predation has grown through practice. Perhaps even more importantly, your attitude toward the fight itself has changed from fear to invitation.

As William James said over 100 years ago, "The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes. "

You are growing increasingly aware of your unconscious and, to me, this is a hallmark of maturity and mental health. Many disciplines take us in this direction; but they are all of them disciplines, not hobbies.

Jon Newman

16-03-2006, 03:26 AM

Barrett, your James quote reminded me of a quote I heard listening to a "movie therapy" podcast (about "A beautiful mind" of all things). It is attributed to Dr. Brian Blount.

"How we live our lives in the present is how we gain control over the future"

Earlier you asked about behavioral implications in the absence of contra-causal free will. I think these quotes capture the implication nicely.

bernard

16-03-2006, 08:08 AM

I saw last week a "hidden camera" TV emission.
They put a large cardboard box at the exit of an hypermarket: people was concentrated to their purchases. I had had seen such movies but I was concentrated to their reactions. The box contained a child with a large "alien" hand and when a walker was close to the box, the hand went out quickly. Simply amazing to see the components of the reaction.

The first one is purely muscular and it is of course a "fly" but face reflects nothing. The boby jumps back but no emotion is seen at this stage.
Then comes the facial emotion : fear.
the third step is often a scream but sometimes a smile that happens ever a bit later.The third step is our free will, we regain control and we have some choice to do. But it is clear that we are engaged by prior action of the body.

Jon Newman

16-03-2006, 03:16 PM

Hi Bernard,

I'm trying to understand your position on free will but my inability to understand French is getting in the way. If we are to have free will (libertarian/contra-causal) there must be a part of us that is responsible for decisions but is completely immune from causation. My current understanding is that this is not the case. I think that this is also your opinion. The part of your post that lead to my confusion was this

The third step is our free will...

If it is true that we don't have free will then none of these steps can demonstrate that we do.

bernard

16-03-2006, 06:52 PM

Jon,

the third step is often a scream but sometimes a smile that happens, ever, a bit later.
This step shows an alternative. Some choose to be driven by reflexes and scream and some others override this behaviour because they choose it. The normal behaviour is fly but some walkers used their cortices and thought that a better choice was possible in such circumstances.

By the way our choices are limited but they exist and of course a choice is driven by the event that may cause it.

Jon Newman

16-03-2006, 07:08 PM

Hi Bernard,

I agree that we have more choices once we are past our reflexic responses. However, the choices are made non-consciously. At least that is my understanding of how things work. Also those choices are typically the result of prior learning (implicit or explicit) and thus not free of causation.

Diane

16-03-2006, 09:53 PM

the choices are made non-consciously Jon, I think Bernard means that the one thing available to us that we CAN freely choose (with conscious awareness) is how we will frame that which has already happened. Five seconds ago or five years ago or five decades ago.
(Am I on the right track Bernard?)

Jon Newman

17-03-2006, 06:02 AM

I've attached a contra-Wegner paper to try to bring some balance and potentially learn something.

bernard

17-03-2006, 07:41 AM

Yes Diane, it's my point of view and as Albert would say it; "All things are relative."
In my example, as observers, we see the surprised person having a delayed consciousness about his moves but the surprised walker experienced a continuous and synchronous consciousness of these events.

The delay is mandatory and pleasurable for us.
Another visible exemple of the problem: A man is standing at 300 m, looking at a mirror and you're looking at him with binoculars. he is speaking : you (observer) are hearing a delayed speech with mouth moves and you may conclude that sound is delayed for the speaker, too. Wrong, the speaker is "hearing" a synchronous voice within the mirror.

But this known "problem" brings a "time window" where actions are done but we aren't yet aware of them.

Jon Newman

17-03-2006, 08:31 PM

In the contra-wegner paper, Jing Zhu states:

For an angent, the relation between his thoughts and actions may not be that a conscious thought about action causes the intended action, but rather that the agent does something to bridge the gaps between the thought and the action, making the action occur to implement the thought.

But what is that something and who is this agent? This sounds like an appeal for a homunculus. Not the motor/sensory variety but more of an Eraser Head variety.

bernard

17-03-2006, 09:52 PM

Jon,

I haven't any clue about your asking but I loved the conclusion: " I willed this". This statement fits my view and excludes another paradox involved by Libet: The problem of time origin t=0. :confused:

nari

17-03-2006, 09:53 PM

It does sound that way.

Makes me think of my graphics program (Painter 6) where, amongst all the zillions of choices between art materials, strokes, floaters, masking, etc, there is one button: Eraser. Interestingly, there are three grades of erasement: small, moderate, large.
In seconds there is active, chosen obliteration. OK, that involves a will.......or does it? Sometimes I think "that bit of cloud HAS to go" but I don't know why; something informs me it's not right.

Or one can bleach, s,m,l. Just in case erasing is not needed, but just a dulling effect.

Brains have nothing to do with computers, I know. The analogy is interesting to contemplate.

Nari

Jon Newman

17-03-2006, 11:53 PM

Bernard, I don't see willing to be signficantly different from sufficient wanting (conscious or not).

Barrett Dorko

18-03-2006, 02:05 AM

Jon,

Your new Avatar, which I assume is a self-portrait, is emblematic of the internal professional life many of my students seem to express, especially on this last trip. I encountered more barely veiled hostility and depression to the point of inertness than I can ever recall seeing before. Not unlike Kafka's actual life, so much of what our colleagues experience in the clinic is full of confusion, fear and despair. They literally have no idea what might be wrong with their patients and cast about wildly for anything, no matter how senseless, if they can be convinced that it might "work." In fact, when I refuse to say that what I propose they do "works" any better than anything else many simply reject the ideas themselves, and then me - they go out looking for a promise of power from the latest guru. I know he's not far away, not these days.

Not that I'm frustrated or anything this week.

Kafka was famous for standing naked in front of an open window in the winter, letting a cold blast of wind blow across his body until he felt compelled to write. Then he sat down and simply wrote some of the greatest and most influential stuff known to the twentieth century. I'm a writer as well and know something about the rituals we might individually create and depend upon.My own are a little tamer, but no less important for the unleashing of the unconscious and then for the employment of a willful movement of the hands in the service of our instinct. It's a sort of paradox I seek each day.

Is this writing very different than the employment of our hands when pursuing the effects of Simple Contact followed by ideomotion? I think not.

After all, Kafka sat down and wrote one day:

You don't even need to leave your room,
just sit at your table and wait.
Be still, be silent, be solitary.
The world will give itself up to you completely, utterly.
It has no choice.
It will roll in ecstacy at your feet

I assume, of course, that he was talking about great writing, but this reminds me of what I try to teach, though this week I failed for the most part. Okay, I failed terribly, and after the last class raced from the room today I sat at a table and assumed the position Kafka drew himself in.

I was hoping it would help.

Jon Newman

18-03-2006, 03:10 AM

Hi Barrett,

As is typical, I run across things recently discussed on these forums and I've learned that it is unlikely pure serendipity that accounts for that. In this instance I came across an email for an online magazine that happened to be featuring a review of a new book on Kafka. This picture (the avatar) was featured in the article (and elsewhere, so I'm hoping it is public domain). I immediately identified with it and imagined it to be a PT who just finished writing a progress note that supposedly captured the most potent aspects of therapy.

I'll keep my day job. I assume this position more than enough already.

nari

18-03-2006, 03:41 AM

jon

I love it. On the positive side, however, it need not be interpreted as depicting exhaustion or unhappiness. It is an excellent relaxation position; and somehow reminds me of Chalupa's comment:

What's needed to obtain optimal brain performance - is a 24 hour period of absolute solitude.

That quote has caught on in the nontabloid media here; some journalists are even recommending to 'enforce' a day of complete solitude for everyone...not at the same time, of course.

It has a Kafkaesque tone to it, and also Rousseauesque.

Nari

EricM

19-03-2006, 12:14 AM

I think these papers are relevant to this topic. I haven't read them yet, so I can't provide you with a review, but they do look interesting.

Eric

Baecker

19-03-2006, 10:04 AM

if i put honey on my bread or jam or meat, is this my free will?

if you say no why isn't it my free will to decide?

according to prof. karl zilles we do have a free will.

nari

19-03-2006, 11:14 AM

Baecker,

There is strong evidence that free will is an illusion, and what we think is our conscious behaviour, including the decision to put honey on a slice of bread, is not made consciously. The 'hardware' of the brain, ie the unconscious, is the real culprit; or so it appears with countless experiments.

The unconscious receives everything. Have you ever wondered "why did I do/say that"? after realising you have done it? Or said it?

People with frontal lobe damage and intact people who have been 'primed' to behave in a certain way, behave in a very similar way. In neither case is the conscious involved. There's lots of work been done to show our decision making is not conscious.

Have you read John Bragh's paper at the start of the thread? I would certainly understand it is not easy if English is your second language.:)

Nari

ian s

19-03-2006, 12:55 PM

So Guy Claxton was right ! It necessary to employ the tortoise mind to solve creative problems !

Jon Newman

19-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Hi Baecker,

I think free will hinges on the concept that our consciousness is causal but consciousness itself is somehow uncaused. It doesn't make any sense at all, not to me.

I believe we have will but it is not free.

I would be interested in the reference where Zilles argues for the existence of free will.

Jon Newman

19-03-2006, 09:55 PM

The following was written by Ian Stevens, who is quite possibly the most tolerant internet user in the word.

the exhaustion and unknowing is rampant and something is amiss...I think
that the obsession with evidence and many psycho cultural factors are to
blame .
It is not only therapists but many medics who know that something is
seriously amiss with the way medicine and therapy is currently practiced .
Dealing with uncertainty is the problem as people are increasingly reduced
to commodities and the way you deal with a commodity is to do something on it not interact with it .
I have the new iasp book narrative, pain and suffering -----many of the
chapters describe what is amiss and more importantly offer solutions . There are great neurobiological chapters but the best are by the great humanists--Cassells,Morris,Loeser and Arther Frank.
What people fail to realise is that there is more to reasoning than a
'proven' technique and that for the main part in pain it is the emotional
suffering that we interact with . For the 'suffering ' it is a different
ball game altogether and this is for the main part is the failure of the
biomedical approach . Knowing about neuroscience may help e.g. How Physical pain may interact with psychological pain : evidence for a mutual
neurobiological basis of emotions and pain --Gundel H , Tolle R (ch 7) .
As stated elsewhere a return to the forgotten aspects of traditional care
may be the best bet -- consistent attention from someone trusted, a healthy regard for a persons story and ability to interpret it and lastly acceptable (to the person ) and understandable intervention ...I think we have got the equation wrong.

http://www.ampainsoc.org/pub/bulletin/fal05/reso1.htm

I think your post is perfectly germane to this topic Ian. Thanks.