http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27045-futurepredicting-neurons-discovered-in-the-brain.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.VPDV3S6IZdg

interesting article. If they have identified the neurons that make the predictions, the next step is to identify how they do it. Is the other monkey sending out some sort of signal that the 'predicting' monkey is receiving and interpreting correctly in some (presently at least) undetectable manner?

A good find. thanks for posting.

Fascinating.

As Spock would no doubt say.

ARTICLE: "During the experiment, the team recorded brain activity from single cells in the monkeys' anterior cingulate – an area thought to play a role in decision-making. They discovered that the activity of a specific set of neurons was associated with the monkey's own decision in each game."

COMMENT: No surprise here, of course. The "decision-making" of a monkey or human will always be "associated" with a specific set of neurons. But lets remember that according to standard neuroscience there is no freewill, so no real decision-making. Thus, in standard neuroscience the brain plays the ENTIRE ROLE in the decision-making process.

ARTICLE: "But anticipating your opponent's action, on the basis of previous behaviour, is the key to receiving the greatest reward in the prisoner's dilemma. Haroush and Williams found another set of neurons within the same area that were responsible for predicting what the monkeys' opponent was intending on doing – before they did it.

COMMENT: Here there is a problem because by introducing "intention" the authors are introducing mind as a causative agent, which is denied by neuroscience. The key here is the claim that a set of neurons was "responsible for predicting behavior." The brain is a physical system that responds to the environment by representing environmental input through neural networks. Corresponding behavior then follows from the activities of neural networks associated with that input. According to neuroscience, ALL human (and monkey) cognitive functioning is based upon this general mechanistic model. Thus, when a monkey can "predict" the behavior of another monkey in any context, it only means that the monkey's behavior is associated with, or linked to, some brain stimulus that was formed in a complex way by the physical observations of the other monkey, which observations were encoded in the brain of the "predicting" monkey.

In neuroscience, consciousness and intent are beside the point, and are only mental epiphenomena of the underlying mechanistic neural system. That is the standard view of classic neuroscience. "Mind-reading" implies that there is something going on outside this neural system, that is "paranormal," and involves the mind as a separate functional aspect of cognition. According to neuroscience, if humans or monkeys appear to read minds, it is only because of the complexity of the underlying physical mechanisms.

ARTICLE: "In fact, when the team looked back at the results, in 79 per cent of trials, the activity of the neurons in one monkey predicted the subsequent move of the other monkey."

COMMENT: This is confused. Again, according to basic neuroscience, the activity of the neurons in any monkey are complex representations of visual input that mechanistically produce behavior. Neurons do not predict anything. They merely operate mechanistically to produce behavior.

ARTICLE: "The researchers say that unlike mirror neurons – which are thought to be active when people and other animals observe an action or perform the same action as another – these neurons try to predict the intentions of others."

COMMENT: Again, this is counter to basic neuroscience. Neurons are not little people with minds trying to predict the minds of other little people-neurons. Neurons do not reach out past their physical processes to assess minds (intentions) of others.

ARTICLE: "To confirm their findings, the team repeated the experiment with the same monkeys but had them play against a computer rather than a companion. This time the monkeys were less likely to cooperate or reciprocate a past offer of cooperation from their opponent."

COMMENT: O.K. now it gets more interesting. This suggests that neuroscience is not the whole story here, and that indeed mind might be playing a separate role in monkey interaction. If the behavioral output resulting from interaction with a computer is relevantly different from the behavior output resulting from interaction with another monkey, under properly controlled experiment, arguably there is a mental component (mind-reading?) in the later that is not present in the former.

Finally, this article is a good example of the confusion that results when the social sciences try to explain their experimental data by combining mental phenomena and processes with brain processes, with their associated terminology. The bottom line is the question as to what is going on between the monkeys during the experimental communications. Is it purely a physical process to be ultimately explained solely by brain processes, or is there a causal element of mind-mind communication that transcends physical processes. I personally vote for the later because it is the only way to account for freewill.

Good summary, Henry.

There's no "future prediction" going on here.
What is going on is that areas of brains that we're not always consciously aware of make evaluations (and sometimes "decisions") before we're consciously aware of them.
And other areas of the brain make guesses in the same way -- they're educated guesses based on experience and "logic rules" in our brains, but they're still guesses.

The only place we disagree is on the "mind-mind communication" part, but that's ok...and I think you will admit that there's not enough evidence yet to be at all certain about that :)

KOLOB: "What is going on is that areas of brains that we're not always consciously aware of make evaluations (and sometimes "decisions") before we're consciously aware of them."

COMMENT: You should have also put "evaluations" in quotes. According to neuroscience, the brain is an entirely mechanistic process, so "evaluations" would be algorithmic "decision-making" processes, not any sort of mental weighing of alternatives. Of course, as humans (an other animals) we do appear to mentally weigh alternatives, and appear to freely choose. The question is whether there is any room in neuroscience to take this seriously. And the answer is NO! And it is precisely that which I find unsatisfactory.

KOLOB: "And other areas of the brain make guesses in the same way -- they're educated guesses based on experience and "logic rules" in our brains, but they're still guesses."

COMMENT: The brain does not make guesses, and certainly not "educated guesses" unless you are dangerously using metaphor here. That would require a role for mind. At best, there might be some randomness to brain responses. Otherwise, the brain is entirely deterministic, according to neuroscience. Now, no doubt brain processes are complex, and include learning networks. However, when one path is taken as opposed to another, there is always an underlying causal mechanism, making "guessing" an inappropriate metaphor.

KOLOB: "The only place we disagree is on the "mind-mind communication" part, but that's ok...and I think you will admit that there's not enough evidence yet to be at all certain about that :)"

COMMENT: Well, first, I appreciate your conciliatory attitude in your entire response. Second, "certainty" is almost always elusive in neuroscience. However, for me, what is important is the fact that we DO have evidence for mental causation, in fact, quite a bit of it. This evidence undermines materialism, and the idea of the causal closure of the physical. If you are a materialist (which from your posts you undoubtedly are) this evidence must be explained; i.e. it must be shown to ultimately be physical. Note, that it is not enough to merely show that mental processes always have a neurological correlation. It is causation that is the issue, not correlation.

The "did Jesus exist" threads had me considering the role of outliers in the advancement of knowledge. Historical knowledge at a certain point doesn't progress, but scientific knowledge certainly does.

This leads me to Rupert Sheldrake and what he has to offer on the subject of the OP. His hypotheses, and indeed his very being, are kind of outlawed out of main-line science. Is this just? Is this good for science?

A good, brief take on the man and his ideas:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/07/14/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

ifi-, could you briefly state why Sheldrake's hypothesis should or should not be taken seriously and receive more attention and funding?

Sheldrake offers ideas that might fill in the gaps Bemis (and myself) find unsatisfactory.

Hi Human: I am still fighting my flu bug. What is up with that? I must admit, the "Happy" post by Beth helped my attitude immensely.

HUMAN: "The "did Jesus exist" threads had me considering the role of outliers in the advancement of knowledge. Historical knowledge at a certain point doesn't progress, but scientific knowledge certainly does."

COMMENT: Well, that is an interesting point. Einstein was certainly an "outlier" and look what we got from him! In history (briefly), as you say, there seems to be little space for someone to present a novel idea that can be anything other than speculation; and usually, I would assume, an idea that goes against the grain of not only mainstream academics, but of mainstream evidence as well. Science, on the other hand, is much more open, and the world much more "mysterious" such that outliers, particularly people like Sheldrake, should be paid attention to. Of course, with respect to consciousness and mind, outliers in science include anyone that opposes materialism. This is rather shocking since materialism has been severely undermined by modern science itself.

HUMAN: "This leads me to Rupert Sheldrake and what he has to offer on the subject of the OP. His hypotheses, and indeed his very being, are kind of outlawed out of main-line science. Is this just? Is this good for science?"

COMMENT: Of course not, on both points. It is outrageous. I read Sheldrake's book, A New Science of Life, many years ago, and need to revisit it based upon where I am today. As I recollect, I found the theory of morphic resonance interesting, but far too speculative to provide any real answers. Moreover, it is hard to understand how morphic fields retain and transfer information, and how that information is stored in humans and animals. A field implies some sort of structure; but of what? Is there an underlying subatomic particle? And how do such fields relate to the fields of Quantum Field Theory?

That said, as the article states, science has to start with and acknowledgment the limitations of materialism and the science method generally (as per Horgan's very popular book, The End of Science), and realize that there is something fundamental that is missing; call it mind, consciousness, or some sort of field. Only then can science move in new directions, as proposed by Sheldrake. What is interesting is that some very prominent people have made this same point, directly or indirectly; people like Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp; not to mention the founders of QM; Planck, Schrodinger, etc.

HUMAN: "Sheldrake offers ideas that might fill in the gaps Bemis (and myself) find unsatisfactory."

COMMENT: Yes, might. But remember that much of the resistance to such ideas is not just that they are anti-materialist. In addition, they are very difficult to test, if testable at all. Look at all the problems and controversy over psi experimentation. Science engages in the fallacy that everything in reality must be explainable within a materialist paradigm partly because that is all that science has as a reliable tool to acquire knowledge, or so they say.

By the way, Sheldrake did a TV special, as I recall, regarding this book, Dogs That Know When There Owners Are Coming Home. It was very interesting and enlightening, as was his book. It is this type of evidence that the scientific community needs to pay attention to. Animals can tell us a lot about mind, maybe because their mental capacities have not been superseded by language.

Beth's link to the kids doing Zeppelin was a showstopper. That made me very happy, along with the call for more arts funding.

And I really hope you haven't something worse than a flu. Please get better.

Can't get to the computer (on phone) so I'll only link to Sheldrake again to give those unfamiliar with him another look. I think experiments can be devised to test his ideas more extensively, but some have gone to some lengths to prevent this. The uproar over his infamous 'banned' TED talk is just a tiny example:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

And for the kids, here's Sheldrake with Joe Rogan:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZklRSn92ek4

Get well, Henry.

Human

Were the monkeys playing chess? That would have lit up those "predictive neurons"!!


Oh, BTW, I knew you were going to post this a week ago. :-)

Would soon be scientifically feasible.

I'll repeat my post on that one (somebody gave it high praise labeling it "Buzz Killer") for the I-Know-in-my-Heart-of-Hearts-the-National-Enquirer-is-True crowd...

Mormon gullibility runs deep, and RFM offers treatment.

(copy-and-paste begins)

So I barely got the letters c-r-e typed in after New Scientist, and it [Google] prompted me with "credible."

Here were a few links...

http://www.quora.com/Is-New-Scientist-credible

"The (banned site) community doesn't think so."

One source: "By any fair measure they're very credible. I work in media relations for a science institution and in my experience if you compare them against other science media outlets who are trying to be both entertaining and accurate, their reporters are some of the best.

"You do have to take into account that it's a magazine and not a scientific journal, but if you don't find their writing credible, then you have a very high bar for credibility."

Damn right I do. That's why I managed to avoid baptism as a youngster... From an Anonymous:

"Among professors I've known, New Scientist is 'semi respectable'. NS is easily influenced by hype, they've made some grating errors (a list of which would be a fun Quora question in itself)"

I elected not to register to read Quora because what I saw left its credibility in doubt with me.

Some others:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-new-scientist-credible.478718/

"I would not trust anything I read in New Scientist. I have seen them get major things wrong too many times.

"I don't think of "the vast majority of the articles are credible" type reasoning as being valid because you don't know whether you're looking at one of the credible articles or one of the nonsense articles. I guess if you really have the patience to fact check every single thing you read there it can be worth it. I am not that patient, I will prefer to follow news sources where acting as the publication's factchecker is not necessary."

Q: "Okay. What are some example articles that New Scientist got wrong?"

A: "Naming an issue on evolution "Darwin was Wrong" issue was a incredibly bad call, giving creationists just what they where hunting for. The issue did not of course support creationsm and topics were among other things horizontal gene transfer, which Darwin never discussed, making the selection of title purely a sensationalistic ploy.

Biologist P. Z. Myers discusses it in detail here (link)

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-scientist-sheds-its-last-once-of.html

Sorry, but I'm not buying this one either. Unfortunately, bunk sells... De-bunking doesn't...

In the nearly 20 years I've been on-line, I've decided British tabloids are on par with the Deseret News in the credibility department.

(end copy-and-paste)

Make that "often worse than the D-News in the credibility department."

From the comments section of the Blogspot article:

"I don't understand why you think this is new. I wrote a letter to New Scientist over ten years ago, complaining about an inaccurate column, and the letter I got back from them explicitly said that they were more interested in entertaining than in scientific accuracy. I've dipped into New Scientist on and off since then and every issue I've looked at has had the same entertainment over accuracy bias.

"New Scientist has never, ever, had any credibility. Complaining about them losing credibility is like complaining that Fox News is becoming biased."

Based on the New Scientist's track record, who the hell knows what the Harvard researcher's were reporting in the first place?

/voice of reason off



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2015 01:18PM by SL Cabbie.

Predicting the future is largely what the entire brain is about. I don't get why this should be controversial. The point of having a brain is to guide behavior from sensory input not only in order to respond to the immediate world but also preparing for the future. When you see something scary that is your brain very quickly making a future prediction that is then quickly putting your entire body in red alert for the appropriate fight or flight response. And in a natural setting this will indeed save your life.

It's part of the most primitive of nervous systems, it's the essence of the limbic system so there should not be surprising to find more advanced versions of it in the cortex. Calculating what will happen in the world around you so that you can respond more quickly and adequately to threats and oppertunity is the very point of nervous systems in the first place.

Indeed the sensory overall picture your brain presents is to a large degree a prediction of how it should look some half a second into the future, which is the time it takes to process all that sensory data into a coherent picture. And mechanisms have evolved to reduce the problems of living half a second in the past. This is what is exploited by magicians for example. We see the world as it was predicted by our brains half-a-second ago, not as it actually was half a second ago and even less as it actually is in this exact moment in time. And sleight-of-hand moves are designed to fool our fancy visual half-a-second-into-the-future-predicting software rather than fooling our eyes.

BREFOTS: "Predicting the future is largely what the entire brain is about."

COMMENT: The brain does not predict anything. That implies that there is a homunculus (a little creature in the brain) that is making predictions. People make predictions, brains do not. To some extent this may be semantics, but to say that the brain makes predictions can only mean that the brain has developed neural networks to respond in certain ways based upon brain states that have been developed through neurological learning processes. What worked in the past for the organism is instantiated in a neural network that dictates future behavior. There is nobody in the brain that is predicting, "If I do this, such-and-such will follow."

BREFOTS: "Calculating what will happen in the world around you so that you can respond more quickly and adequately to threats and oppertunity is the very point of nervous systems in the first place."

COMMENT: "Calculating" environmental input ("the world around you") in the present, and "calculating" appropriate behavioral output based upon neural mechanisms formed from past input, is not the same as making predictions.

BEFOTS: "Indeed the sensory overall picture your brain presents is to a large degree a prediction of how it should look some half a second into the future, which is the time it takes to process all that sensory data into a coherent picture."

COMMENT: What picture? Do you mean conscious experience? Are you suggesting that conscious experience is the brain's predictions as to the future?

According to the neuroscience model, the brain is a causal, deterministic, mechanism. It serves the future only because of the brain states and causal mechanisms that have been developed from past input. There are no neurons that represent "the future." That is physically not possible under a strict neuroscience model, since there is no causal mechanism for the future to enter the brain, absent paranormal phenomena. The fact that human beings can ponder the future mentally, as the future, is an interesting mystery. Now, there is likely an underlying neural mechanism for that pondering, but such mechanisms themselves cannot represent the future.

Cognition is a huge element in the brain's function.

That process allows us to interact with out environment, and, wonder-of-wonders, it has survival value.

I think you've tried to discount this before, however. I haven't bothered to reply because I'd probably have trouble minding my manners. Dysfunctional upbringing, probably... I was raised around too many batcrap crazy Mormons... BTW, that's why I wound up a refugee in the English department. I had to learn what people were saying and who the sane sorts were, and who has looney tubes playing twenty-four seven between their ears.

Cognition allows us to "grapple with the future" and make choices that permit our survival.