Another interpretation to Libet's experiments

[MM]

I'm sure a lot of you have read in popular science magazines about Libet's experiment ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet ) and the supposed implication regarding conscious will of acts.

 

From the wiki.

 

" Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated. "

 

A simple solution to this problem of a acts being initiated in advance is that the brain does a prediction of where the concious will ( resulting will ) is going to land on the time the act is ready to execute. One way of predicting the resulting will is if it is derived from a lot of competing wills in the brain and there is a voting system. Then as in almost any election the winner can be predicted long before all the votes has been counted. With the predictor you don't only resolve the problem of initiation of acts you also have a concious control. If there is no prediction of the concious will the system would be very inefficient because of the veto anyway.

 

Thoughts.

[iNow]

The brain has a series of feedback loops and inhibitions. This is why you can grasp a hot cup of coffee and continue to hold it, or to run into a burning building despite every instinct telling you not to, or continue moving to go find help when you have a broken leg. While certain predispositions and reflexes are inherent in the system, it's very design also allows for an override. Your post above does not seem to take these into account, but perhaps I am missing something subtle.

[MM]

The brain has a series of feedback loops and inhibitions. This is why you can grasp a hot cup of coffee and continue to hold it, or to run into a burning building despite every instinct telling you not to, or continue moving to go find help when you have a broken leg. While certain predispositions and reflexes are inherent in the system, it's very design also allows for an override. Your post above does not seem to take these into account, but perhaps I am missing something subtle.

 

The brain is complex, meaning that there are many systems in place to make it work. You are writing about a system for continuation of acts but Libet's experiment indicates what system you have for _initiation_ of acts and how its connected to your concious will. That is without a system that don't connect your acts by your conscious will you will not even be able to pick up that cup of coffee to begin with.

[iNow]

So, I'm curious. Can you share how the paper defined "conscious" and they defined "unconscious?" I'd like to read more.

[MM]

So, I'm curious. Can you share how the paper defined "conscious" and they defined "unconscious?" I'd like to read more.

 

They use conscious and unconscious as way to describe awareness. As the experiment shows you are not aware that you made a decision to act the time its initiated.

 

But so you understand my system. The key to understanding is that you can have a causal event that depends on a possible future not as every one else thinks that there have to be in a chronological order.