An interesting experiment with possibly profound results! While this does lead to questions about our notions of Free Will vs. Determinism, that's not necessarily what I wanted to talk about here at this time. Instead, I'd like to mention a couple of possible variations on this experiment that I think would be interesting to create, perform, and see what the resultant outcomes are.
Variation One:
Place two people into two separate scanning devices. Each person is equipped with the Left & Right clicker boxes. Each person also can see a screen which shows images of the other person's brain activity in real time and each of them has been trained to read the images so that he or she can recognize what the images of the scan mean; that is, each person would be able to recognize and understand when the other person was going to click left or right before the other person consciously decides to do so.
Now, give each of them the following instruction:
The moment you see on the screen that the other person is going to click right or left you will click the same.
I wonder what the outcome of this would be?
This would bring in a feedback dynamic whereby each one ought to know what the other is going to do before the other person actually clicks either button. Person A would be watching a screen prepared to click either left or right dependent upon which direction Person B was about to click in a few a seconds--so Person A ought to be able to click the same direction before Person B; however, Person B would be watching a screen which would tell him or her which direction Person A was about to click, and thus, be able to click the same direction a few seconds before Person A actually clicks the direction. In other words, each one of them ought to be able to click the direction the other is going to pick before the other consciously decides to do so.
Under ideal conditions--conditions where we can assure that both people would make their choices at the same time--I wonder how this would play out?
Variation Two:
Daisy chain a series of devices together--let's say ten for now--so that each person in the chain is able to see a monitor that displays the brain activity of the person previous to him or her. Again, make sure each individual can read the monitor and understand the information it displays--i.e., each person could read the information and know which button the person previous to him or her is about to click a few seconds before he or she would click it.
Again, give each individual, except the first one, of course, an instruction to click the same button the person previous to him or her is about to click.
Run the experiment.
Theoretically, the last person in the chain, in this instance the 10th person, ought to be able to click the same direction that the 1st person in the chain will click about a full minute before the first person actually clicks his or her button. As stunning as the results of the actual experiment in the video above are, I think this would be even more amazing.
In theory, we could set this up with any number of people, with the result being that the last person in the chain would click the button that the first person in the chain will click long before he or she clicks it: with one hundred people in the chain, for example, the last person could click the same button that the first person will click about an hour before he or she will actually make the choice to click right or left. Theoretically, this would work every time for each click the person at the beginning of the chain will "choose".
So, would this be called "precognition" or something else?
I am happy to note I CAN look at it from my work computer.
ReplyDeleteI also note shades of Xeno's paradox...
If you have a moment, could you write a little more about the "shades of Xeno's paradox" thing--I'm definitely interested.
DeleteMore feeling than a proper argument, just something of the nature of an infinite regress in the way you've constructed your versions of the experiments. I have another book suggestion to throw at you. I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas R. Hofstadter. I'm due to re-read that one myself.
DeleteI'm OK with a "feeling" or intuition, heh. I feel there are two different sorts of regresses with respect to the two different suggested variations.
DeleteIn the first, there seems to be a self-referential regress, and in the second there is the potential for an infinite chain sort of regress.
I like Hofstadter--I've a couple of his works in my collection--but have neither read nor even gave a cursory glance through the title you mention; although, I can imagine it follows Hofstadter's general direction of thought.
It's a bit of a return to ideas from GEB and an autobiography. When I read it through the first time I wound up with several pages of objections to his arguments. lol.
ReplyDeleteI should probably check it out sometime: so many things to read and only so much time to read them, hey?
DeleteIt's often the case, I feel, that the best reads are ones where we are challenged and/or find ourselves challenging what it is we are reading: shows we're thinking actively and not merely skimming along.