But when someone is under some chemical influence that changes his mood it will also change the way it reacts to a specific situation. So the state of your brain does affect your choice. And according the state of you brain you'll see things differently. Although I do believe too that you can alter the state of your brain via positive or negative thinking. It's a circle :). So in my opinion the state of your brain doesn't DETERMINE your behavior, it only INFLUENCES it.

In my opinion, the statement should be amended by replacing the words "determines" and "dictates" with "influences". We are largely in control of our behavior, through the executive functions of the cerebrum. This kind of thinking would no doubt be attractive to defence lawyers and their clients, though! Taken to the extreme, it could be used to excuse any kind of behavior! Obviously, genetics, drug interactions, neurotransmitters, hormones, fatigue, stress, sleep deprivation and neural connections will influence behavior, but it is equally apparent that our behavior over a lifetime affects many of these factors. Habituation will affect neural connections, using/abusing drugs including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine will affect the neurotransmitter balance, not getting enough (or getting irregular) sleep can also have immense effects on brain state. All of these are things we choose to do. So in effect, what I am suggesting is that in many cases, our behavior dictates/determines/affects/influences our brain state, which in turn can influence/affect our future behavior.

The consciousness is the functional and executional work of the juglary of the neurons prompted by genes and mediated by the synapses and such other cell dynamics and activation.

Ron, thanks for reply-- you intuited the heart of my question, which is about free will. I'm not suggesting choices don't make a difference, but I'm wondering if moment-by-moment behavior is better described as an output of a system rather than a "choice."

I know the computer analogy is imperfect, but a computer's response to any stimulus is determined by the program(s) it is currently running. A complex program can inspect its own performance and make adjustments as it goes along-- i.e. the "machine learning," used in everything from online shopping recommendations to aircraft autopilot systems-- but in a particular instant any output is limited to/determined by the state of the program in its current form. I'm wondering if human behavior can be described in similar terms.

If I raise my voice at a friend in a moment of anger, then later feel terribly about it, the remorse I feel will shape my future behavior. So learning is absolutely critical, and I'm not at all suggesting that we just write off all our actions as inevitable, i.e., "I guess that's just the way I am." If we did that it would dramatically reduce our ability to learn from mistakes. But what I am suggesting is that, in that moment, I could not have done otherwise, i.e. my angry shouting was a product of a brain state. I realize this is a slippery slope morally, ethically, etc. but I'm very curious to know if from a *neurophysiological* perspective this is reasonable/logical.

Also, to your comment about defense lawyers, this extremely mechanistic view of behavior does not preclude the necessity or usefulness of punishment. If a violent murder is the result of someone's brain state, locking them away for life may be the most responsible thing we can do. But it does certainly blur the line between illness and criminality.

Interesting comments. But in that moment of anger, I have at least two choices: 1) Let my "brain state" determine my response, and blast my friend, or 2) Take a deep breath, think ,"Is this something that will negatively affect me over the long term, or is it a momentary annoyance?", and if it is just a passing issue that will not affect me in 5 or 10 years, let it go.

Choice rules brain state. If it was the other way around, free choice would not exist!

But is the ability to take that deep breath truly a choice? I'm arguing that whether or not you pause for a moment to consider the impact of your actions is also governed by the present makeup of your hardware/software (sorry to invoke that flawed analogy again).

Here's someone much smarter and more experienced than I making a similar argument: http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

At this point I'm just interested in the scientific consensus on this. Is this a fringe theory that isn't going anywhere, or is this something the field is really beginning to consider?

Thanks for being willing to discuss with me!

All the comments are perfectly true The brain can be taped in many ways in words and scientific terminology and still much will remain to be explained about the brain functions and their inferences.

Interesting! Thank you for pulling together those quotes from distinguished physicists.

The topic that Respected William Somerville is really worth and the discourse to forward further added nine to-think scientifically along multi-discipline of neuro-science, psychology, anthropology, physics and of course the chemistry and philosophically too. The topic is quite serious and worth to bring the best brains together. Our moment to moment behavior depends on the particular state of mind which no doubt is under the reins of brain and the conditional behavior. There are times when we repent on our actions and later think that I aught not have done so. But there is hardly time left at that particular moment to perceive and have regard of all those bearings. The discussion has added a thinking process by Respected Ron Scott and Respected Brian Flanagan.

Folks, I haven't figured out how to get ResearchGate to notify me when a new comment is added to a thread I started (if anyone knows how, please point it out to me!). I appreciate all the thoughtful responses and the excellent links!

I agree with the statement because your present brain state is the product of everything you have learned and experienced up to that point and since the brain controls mostly everything, it would have to control what you do...the choices you make are only made available to you if you have been taught that choice which is just another way of thinking before...However, it is important to note that there are some innate "choices" of the brain which need not be taught like the choice to eat or not, however that is a more visceral way of thinking...as you experience more then it turns into...of course I should eat...now how much...or what shall I eat...or is this the right time to eat?...our states grow just as we do

I have a question to Ron Scott, you wrote; " We are largely in control of our behavior, through the executive functions of the cerebrum."... Would you please define "we or I "... In William Somerville's question, you don't have to ask this, but when someone says "we have control..." I have to ask, what is or where is this "we"...

That's a very philosophically tough question, Alev. You have to ask yourself what the self consists of.

Alev, Anders has beaten me to the response. I can't do better. Can science define "self"? or is it, as Anders has said, a philosophical question?

The physical functions the and the inferences that brain draws to execute in action is time dependent. In similar situations a person may respond differently. With a friend a person will tolerate prangs and would like that but with an unknown person he may not keep that cool.

I don't have the time to read all the comments but I think this discussion are quite valuable with regard to a discussion on free will I started recently. So just posting here to have it back on top of the group! :)

The state of brain defines behavior. the mind is a representative of brain state.there are several parameters like, time, place, season, body condition whether ill or healthy, the company one is having at that particular point. All these factors make or contribute to the outward behavior. The topic started if the state of mind governs behavior. This is not as simple as it may look like. the parameters and the relativity of their intensity and the functional variability will make the behavior. Besides there is a term 'mood'. Depending upon the mood of an individual the behavior may change from sober to aggression., and other sorts of responses may emerge.,

but Umeshdetta, one can choose his/her mood! One can choose to look at the glass as half empty or half full. Two men looked out through prison bars/One saw mud, the other, stars. It comes down to a chicken or egg situation. Which came first, the choice, or the state of mind? I know that in any given situation, I have at least two choices of response. My choice will either make me have a more optimistic outlook, or a more pessimistic outlook. This has been demonstrated. If people practice an "attitude of gratitude", their outlook on life improves. Their mental state changes for the better. This has also been demonstrated in survival situations. One's ability to survive is dependant, to a large extent, on one's initial response to the situation. Choose the "I'm going to die!" response, and it will likely happen. Choose the "What do I need to do to survive?" response, and survival becomes much more likely.

But when someone is under some chemical influence that changes his mood it will also change the way it reacts to a specific situation. So the state of your brain does affect your choice. And according the state of you brain you'll see things differently. Although I do believe too that you can alter the state of your brain via positive or negative thinking. It's a circle :). So in my opinion the state of your brain doesn't DETERMINE your behavior, it only INFLUENCES it.

Stephanie I think in William's question 'one's physical brain state' does not exclude chemical influence. There is constant supply of blood and oxygen in brain.

@ Anirud : I was replying to Ron!

Sorry Stephanie. I think our day to day behaviour is mostly autonomic responses. Behaviour is largely dependent on autonomic nervous system. I have also defined mind as the function of autonomic nervous system and electromagnetic energy facilitates autonomic responses. This definition of mind can help study our mind scientifically.

Anirudh, I must respectfully disagree. If our behavior was mostly autonomic responses, we would be mere robots. Or, worse, we would be as one in a coma. In that condition, it is true that the behavior is only autonomic responses. But in a conscious individual, much behavior is governed by the executive function of the frontal cortex--the decision-making part of the brain. Sure, the breathing, heartbeat, digestion, excretion (if you want to call those "behaviors") are ANS controlled. But reactions to situations are largely controlled by personal choice, though some of those choices may be habituated through repetition.

Ron, I too submit most respectfully that we should not make any statement in haste. This is a very delicate topic. C.T. Morgan and R.A. King writes in Introduction to Psychology: "Life in Western Society is complex and often tension- filled. Hour by hour, day by day, the autonomic nervous system is mobilized help us deal with the interpersonal and impersonal stresses we encounter. ........Can't we somehow reverse the autonomic mobilization that may be the basis of psychosomatic disorders". What does this mean? I don't say that behaviour solely depends on ANS. But definitely largely depends on ANS.

Let me put it another way. Choose a negative emotion such as anger. Either your anger controls you, or you control your anger. If it is mostly ANS controlling our response, everyone would be controlled by their anger. Yet we know that many perhaps most) people control their anger and avoid giving in to rage and producing negative behaviors that might hurt others or ourselves. There is a higher control center, the frontal cortex, which allows us to predict the outcome of our behavior and choose to behave differently. Those with frontal cortex lesions, etc, have reduced executive function (free will).

"Why we behave the way we behave" for this answer lies in autonomic responses. We should not make the discussion complicated. We should try to make the things more simplified. Thanks.

I think there is an assumption in the question that did not get proper discussion, so, if I may, allow me to air it, and then you can decide whether or not you want to discuss it.

The assumption is one of "STATE" that the brain at any one point can be reduced to a single state. This assumes that there is some STATE MACHINE that is equivalent to the Brain. That we can, it is supposed make up a set of rules, that take us from state to state and thus, predict the output of the brain.

While this seems relatively benign on the surface, it is in fact an extension of the Laplacian fallacy, that you should be able to design a perfect equation to describe any shift from one state to the next, and therefore that you only need to know the starting point, and the influences, and you can predict the end point.

This is a Newtonian View, and is intuitively obvious, so we tend to accept it as true, without thinking about the fact, that we do not live in a Newtonian Universe, we live in a Quantum Universe. At the heart of all Quantum Physics is the notion that we cannot predict from first cases, because there is always information that is hidden from us, a concept called, Uncertainty by Heisenberg. What this means for the STATE argument, is that we will never be able to resolve a STATE for the brain, and therefore not all the implications will be covered by the rule sets we form. I think it was Goedel that told us that AXIOMATIC systems, and a State Machine is an Axiomatic systems MUST be incomplete.

Instead of looking for a Brain STATE we have to understand the nature of self-organizing systems that gradually increase certainty until it becomes detectable. The certainty in much of the Neural Networks of the Brain, is opaque to our science, we simply cannot detect it, and therefore cannot define and map a STATE.

I came late to the discussion so I might have to do some pick-up.

Ron Scott: "Can Science Define Self?"

My short answer is Yes, and No.

We are beginning to realize a theory of self, that takes into account the mechanisms in the brain, But the best model of self that I have been able to create places self as a feedback signal from modelling and logging functions, which is hardly how it feels.

What I think happened was that at some point, some species became omnivorous/scavengers, and the most successful of these adopted a scheme called "Mirror Neurons" where they could activate the same "Action oriented" neurons while watching something else do something, and store a rote memory of how to do it. (Mimickry). This however created a dilemna how could the organism tell what it had done from what it had learned to Mimick? The solution to the problem became a need to define "Attribution" . Self-aware organisms need this attribution mechanism, in order to be able to separate their own actions from what they have observed. As an interesting feedback loop, an organism with self-awareness can look into the mirror and recognize themselves.

Current Science has noted that Attribution requires a log of actions, perhaps episodal memory based, and a model of self, probably connected with orbital prefrontal lobe. My addition is the meta-cognitive "Self-Signal" that can be used to connect any action to the Attribution System, so that the log indicates a high probability that the action was performed by the self. Because meta-cognitive signals are applied to the basic awareness log after the fact, (processing latency being a factor) It turns out that the "Self" signal is recognized during the consciousness stages, and is often associated with the illusion of will. Because the "Self" Meta-cognitive signal is a derived signal, and associated more or less because of timing with the illusion of will, there is a subjective link in our minds between self and will.

So yes, science has a theory of self, but no, it doesn't look at all like it feels.

Ron Scott "Those with frontal cortex lesions, have reduced executive functions (free will)"

Ah, so you attribute free will to executive functions.

There is a theory, that in fact there are no executive functions per se in the frontal lobe that it is just a specialized form of memory. I do not subscribe to that theory because I have clearly recognized that any function can be reduced to memory activation. But my distributed processing system requires access to the Declarative memory system as well, or if not to its archive in the cortex. There is however, I think reason to believe that the Declarative memory system can double for the executive functions, if they are disabled for a while by freezing. The question becomes, one of flexibility, declarative memory not being considered all that flexible and the archive image of the declarative memory in the cortex being some 2 years out of date due to archival latency.

I think that the model of executive function only being in the frontal lobes, is outdated, and needs to be revisited, especially since it assumes some central processing system that is clearly not available in the current understanding of the brain.

Your mileage may vary

We are deviating from the topic. Isn't it?

Are we?

We were discussing that STATE of mind, from which decisions come, does not the decision making apparatus fall under the topic since it is impacted by the STATE? What is executive function but decisions?

@Stephanie. I agree that chemicals (not naturally present) can affect the state of mind, and decrease one's ability to make wise decisions. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, many illicit drugs and some prescription and OTC drugs interfere with normal brain chemistry and can affect our decision-making to the point that it may appear that we acted as a result of the chemicals in our system, rather than out of free will. But at some point in time, a free will choice was made to begin using the chemical in question. Some are very addictive, and that makes it very difficult to simply say "No" to using them. At that point, it may indeed seem as though brain state determines choice, and that free will does not exist (for such a person). Example: a person who uses caffeine may truly not have a choice about feeling grumpy until they have had a cup or two of coffee in the morning. From my point of view, the best way to ensure continued free will is to avoid, if possible, any outside chemical that can interfere with proper brain function.

I need the journalls about my thesis. Lance Hemmings , Donald P McManus .Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology. The diagnostic value and molecular characterisation of an Echinococcus multilocularis antigen gene clone Volume 44, Issue 1, January 1991, Pages 53-61.

and the other is Norbert Müller, Bruno Gottstein , Monique Vogel, Karin Flury, Thomas Seebeck

Application of a recombinant Echinococcus multilocularis antigen in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for immunodiagnosis of human alveolar echinococcosis .Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology.Volume 36, Issue 2, September 1989, Pages 151-159

please even if u have one of them do u sent my e-mail adress? thank u

@ Ayse : you need to post this as a separate question because it has nothing to do with the subject!!

@ Ron : Actually I did not implies that being on chemical influence eliminate free-will but thinking of it in some extents he must really diminish it. As I said earlier I don't believe in the state of the brain in DETERMINING anything though. It has a big influences but you're still 'in control'. For instance personally I know exactely how I am normally, and exactely how alcohol alters my behaviour, so that I know exactely when to stop (I barely drink nowadays) or when to go home to avoid doing anything silly in the rare cases I would have drunk too much. And as far as chemical, alcohol etc are concerned you got the free will to take them or not in a first place, they don't magically jumped into your body :) so I totally agree with you on the fact that if these alters our choices in a negative way we should most definitely avoid them! Speaking about that, a really annoying thing in nowadays society is the way people use it as an excuse to escape their responsabilities : it's not my fault I was drunk, it's not my fault I'm addicted to it, it's not my fault I'm like that and will never be able to change... Really?!?!?! Is it not just the easy way for doing whatever they want?

What is proper brain function, anyway? Who determines "proper?"

It's hard to say chat is 'proper' but it's easy to see when things go obviously wrong so there is some kind of average standard midline.

Today, anything 2 standard deviations from the norm in the way of behavior is considered an illness.

It is easy to point at someone who is addicted and say "This is your fault", perhaps it was, I have heard of people addicted as a "JOKE" or as a marketing ploy.

One of the things that seems important in a chemical dependency is that there are actually character changes that make it easier for the person to get addicted even easier, even after they have been "Clean" for a while. This is why addiction therapy now recommends a complete life change after therapy, new freinds new location, and there is still a high level of recividism. Recent research into the Nucleus Accumbens notes that it is critical to blocking unproductive behavior, and it is also the target of drugs such as cocaine. By creating a burst or cascade reaction, of dopamine the cocaine molecule, essentially overwhelms the signal of how productive you are being, and convinces you that it is more productive to do cocaine than to work.

What an interesting discussion!

I would say that any addiction (not only towards chemical substances) reduces free will. We know already that addiction preference is encoded in our genome. Also known fact is that virtually different addictions lead to the development of a behavior pattern - "addictive behavior". Also a very well established fact is that different addictions (even not connected to introduction of substances like sex or food addictions) would lead to similar pathological changes in the CNS. So under the influence of such imperative motivation as the subject of addiction the options of an addicted person to counteract the drive are limited - first by his/her genome and second by the addiction which changes physically his/her nervous system. In this sense the "free will" is not completely free. Of course the addicted can and must try to overcome this strong drive but without external support it is very unlikely that he/she can handle this uneven fight.

It is easy to call, repetitive behaviors addictions. It is easy to show that if people did not repeat their negative outcome actions that they would be healthier, but I still want to say that addiction is a complex process, and that it doesn't help to blur the distinction between a mismanaged need, and an addiction.

Freinds of mine, who have mismanaged needs for starch and carbohydrates, have been in the past convinced that they were addicted to them, despite the fact that we can see that not only does the body, have drives to maximize food intake especially carbohydrates, but that the assumption that becoming overweight has only to do with overeating, especially of carbo's has been shown false, time and again.

One of the things I like about Abraham Masslows "Heirarchy of Needs" has to do with the idea, that some needs, which were evolved first, are stronger than others that were evolved later. Pleasure is a great motivator, Pain is a great motivator, as are hunger, Hate and Passion. These Libdo's as they are called, existed in the cold-blooded vertebrates, and were carried on into the warm blooded ones, virtually unchanged. What is important is that cold-blooded muscles do not have spindle cells amplifying their inputs, and so the intensity of the signal has to be much higher. Further cold muscles require quite a bit more energy to move at first until they warm from exertion. As a result, the earliest libido's that take care of the body needs, simply overwhelm the later needs.

Addictions often take advantage of this discrepancy in the strength of the signals to overcome the higher functions, that would normally edit the results to something reasonable. But, it is just as easy to sell carbo-hydrates for hungry people as it is to sell protein, but if you sell carbo-hydrates, more are needed, and the person will need more medicine later in life, so our marketing guru's alwasy destroy the purported protein content of food, in order to increase its carbo-content. My freinds who are now convinced they are addicted to carbos, are merely reacting to relative cost/availability, rather than to their nutritional needs, because the body, just fills the hole, and doesn't limit carbo content of the food it eats.

There are 2 ambiguous definitions in the original question that makes it impossible to answer. First, what defines a "state?" Is this the pattern of firing of many neurons? Activation of a group of brain regions? Alpha, gamma, theta band activity? The second is the definition of the "moment." What is the unit of time that we are discussing here? Milliseconds, seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, or years? The other problem is that the present is inherently linked to past, which speaks to Stephanie's point regarding alcohol consumption and behavior. The physical alcoholic state is preceded by the behavior of drinking the alcohol, which was in itself preceded by a different physical brain state. That being said, there may have been previous other events, stressors, etc. that led to the drinking in the first place. Perhaps, alcoholism runs in the family and had been passed down for generations? In the end, we end up with a problem of infinite regress, with no meaningful scientific outcome of the discussion. I'm not sure I see where this is going...

What is the source of electric current in brain which electroencephalogram records?

AKS to answer your above question, the source of electrical current in the brain, is the ION channel in every nerve cell that moves charged particles through the cell membrane. These in gross, create charge displacements that are read as changes in the resistance of the skin above them, which in turn are what is actually read in EEG records. So in short it is not currents per se that are read by the EEG, just changes in resistance that indicate charge displacements (micro-currents) at the cellular level.

S. Lee Hong to answer your first question would be to blow my own contention that you can't actually define a state, but it does show how the Newtonian Assumption of a "State" is misapplied. The whole idea of State, is what has driven the mapping attempts of brain scientists, who hope to figure out where all the functions of the brain are located, and then, by utilization of this map, do things like only excise the areas necessary to remove an illness. That this has failed a number of times, has simply made them more sophisticated until they map the individuals neural processes with a SOM interpreter, and the connections between the areas with DSI, and at last begin to approach the ability to map signals to actions.

Your second question is more interesting.

What is the term of the "Moment" that we need to discuss to describe the activities of the brain. Part of the problem with this discussion is that we are talking about a "Massively Parallel" processor, where the so called State of every neuron could potentially, (if it were not for uncertainty) be mapped at the smallest practical level. As we work back from Action, we can see that the systems involved have different terms. So while we talk of 500+ Milliseconds as being the amount of time required to detect that we have made a decision, We can see that some systems such as the Short Term Memory have terms of 3 seconds between update rehearsals. It was quite controversial to discuss the degradation of these signals, at one point, until Habituation was seen to reduce the ability of the signals to sustain themselves without some form of support circuitry (Facilitation via the S or other Calcium Channels).

So, part of the problem with defining a "SnapShot" of the State of the brain, is simply that either we have to go for the shortest term, the chemical transmission in the synapse, or the longest time somewhere over 3 seconds If we do the latter, then we need to understand that we have lost the accuracy of the synaptic state.

To get an idea of just how impressive coming up with a synaptic state would be, we need to understand that we can't access the synapse, except through the neurons output, and that there are literally Billions of neurons each with hundreds of thousands of potential synaptic locations only some of which are connected, and that of these potential synaptic locations, the arrangement and strength of the connections is constantly under adjustment both by the repair mechanisms that maintain the cellular membrane, and by the triggering of DNA expression as a result of chemical links between synapses and the DNA mechanisms. In short, each cell is a mystery that cannot be externally resolved, creating uncertainty as to state, although the nature of the cell is being constantly updated for each type of cell by science.

If we add to that the uncertainty of connections, that is caused by the interaction between the cells, and therefore depends on interactions between the cells, as well as interactions within the cell, we see that we have uncertainty on top of uncertainty, on top of the uncertain nature of the sensory inputs. This is why I maintain that Constraints on Order preclude top down analysis, and why I have attempted to do a ends-to-middle analysis where constraints are the dominant factor for my Constraints based Modeling.

I don't think that there is any reason to continue the State argument when we realize the impossibility of achieving it, but I am willing to continue discussion if that is deemed practical.