28.10.2009 - On "Do we have free will?" by Benjamin Libet I

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Birric, Dali and Sylvia :)

Birric Forcella: I've been trying for 2-1/2 years to uphold some level of discussion in the face of Maddie's Kaffeeklatsches (which started all this) - and it got worse and worse

Dali Waverider: Hello Gaya!

Gaya Ethaniel: You must excuse me for being afk most of the time in this session because of unplanned RL disruptions. I will look in time to time :)

Dali Waverider: I wonder if Gilles is stuck in Brussels traffic again.

Gaya Ethaniel: Maybe Gilles got the time wrong? It's an hour earlier in Europe than US for this week.

Birric Forcella: Brussels has traffic?

Birric Forcella: You mean with cars and stuff?

Geo Meek: Good point Gaya

Geo Meek: are your meeting in voice?

Sartre Placebo: hey there

Geo Meek: here

Geo Meek: Hello

Geo Meek: Try this one more time are your metting in voice?

Lucien Velinov: I hope it's not voice. Might not be able to listen.

Lucien Velinov: Or talk

Dali Waverider: Oh right. Gilles will probably show up at 2:30PM

Dali Waverider: no text.

Dali Waverider: Geo...text.

Geo Meek: o ok this meeting is not for me

Dali Waverider: seeya

Geo Meek: not if i see you first :-)

Dali Waverider: The readings: http://pacherie.free.fr/COURS/MSC/Libet-JCS1999.pdf

Dali Waverider: Gaya's mostly AFK. I must go AFK in a few minutes. You folks could discuss the issues amongst yourselves, or return at 2:30 SLT

Sylvia Roxley: *Returns to indulge in her book at hand.*

Birric Forcella: Wait a tad longer?

Sylvia Roxley: Oh I'll be here.

Sylvia Roxley: Semi-responsive, but here.

Lucien Velinov: Is this a seminar or an actual debate? If it is the latter, I have points of contention to raise against the paper.

Dali Waverider: As I remember it, Birric accepted the premises of the paper, but then was annoyed that after Libet seemed to demonstrate a determining causality by experiment (faulty IMHO), Libet then turns around and accepts free will.,

Dali Waverider: Moderator (Gilles Kuhn) is missing Lucien. Probably due to DST issues.

Lucien Velinov: If I am reading this properly...The author is arguing the fact that a subconscious impulse preceeds the conscious one in a given voluntary act, correct?

Birric Forcella: I have my home improver over - so I may be called unexpectedly, too - in case he takes Gilles' advice and tries setting fire to my house

Dali Waverider: yep...but then does not carry that forward into his method of reporting, which is the killer flaw, by me.

Dali Waverider: IOW, the reporting of the consciousness has its own subconscious impulse.

Birric Forcella: I also objected to the utterly dopey arguments Libet gave for his desperation to preserve Free Will.

Birric Forcella: Libet's finding is that the decision for an act is made in the brain about half a minute before it becomes conscious.

Lucien Velinov: Well...Sorry to say, but that isn't really an argument that threatens the concept of free will.

Birric Forcella: When I found that a few years ago, I was delirious with happiness - since it confirms everything I ever thought - however, here Libet simply takes it all back.

Dali Waverider: half a second not half a minute.

Birric Forcella: Well, yes, half a second, sorry

Birric Forcella: I really don't care how much - for my philosophy the only important thing is that the brain action does not FOLLOW the conscious act

Lucien Velinov: Well it shouldn't be expected to.

Dali Waverider: and it's a half a second before the subject REPORTS consciousness. That consciousness must also precede the reporting by some interval not considered by this experiment, which calls the whole garbanzo into question.

Lucien Velinov: Motor function is not conscious. it is not a conscious act that you adjust octave when you speak, or maintain balance when you walk or run. Not a conscious act that you breathe or that your heart beats.

Birric Forcella: You have to understand that in this paper Libet actually cashiers his own findings and makes them irrelevant. Since, if Libet is right, there would be SOMETHING, some smoky spiritual non-material ghost, operating the brain's veto power. Libet's findings only say that SOMETHING happens in the brain, and then Lebt asserts that it later get's modified by that spirit. So why even bother with that SOMETHING that happens in the brain?

Dali Waverider: the point is: reporting consciousness is yet another motor action.

Lucien Velinov: So yes, when you move, it is the conscious mind directing ('vetoing') the directive of the unconscious.

Birric Forcella: That's incoherent, since the veto also must either originate in the brain or be some spiritual ghost. If it originates in the brain, it would be the same function Libet showed earlier.

Dali Waverider: must go AFK now. Best to all.

Birric Forcella: Why are people so desperate to assert free will - to the point that they throw all reason and sense out of the window?

Lucien Velinov: Does not have to be the same function. Same way that conscious and unconscious impulse do not originate from the same point in the brain or carry the same magnitude impulse.

Birric Forcella: It would either be a brain function or a ghost

Lucien Velinov: If the intent of this paper is to challenge the concept of free will...I think it does so poorly.

Birric Forcella: In the same paper Libet states that automated functions register very faintly if at all. So the veto would have to be an automated function, since it is so fast. You clearly can't talk about reasoned "free will"

Lucien Velinov: WHY would a 'ghost' even be considered in this? Of all things, a ghost? Seriously?

Birric Forcella: No, Lucien, the intent of this paper is to uphold the concept of free will. The challenge was in a much earlier paper

Birric Forcella: In this paper Libet desperately (and naively) tries to resurrect free will with two idiotic arguments

Birric Forcella: Argument one is the "veto" and argument two is the testimony of that unknown poet at the end

Lucien Velinov: I should look at the preceding paper after I finish this. I want to hear the argument against free will.

Birric Forcella: There actually, I think, he tips his cards and shows his irrational motivation. I quote:

Birric Forcella: ‘The greatest gift which humanity has received is free choice. It is true that we are limited in our use of free choice. But the little free choice we have is such a great gift and is potentially worth so much that for this itself life is worthwhile living’.

Lucien Velinov: In my experience, at least, the bulk of such arguments usually collapse at some fundamental point or another.

Birric Forcella: The argument against free will is also contained here. It's the simple fact that the Readiness Potential precedes its conscious awareness.

Birric Forcella: That was a jaw-dropping finding and has stood the test of time. Now he tries to take it back.

Birric Forcella: I suppose he got religion

Lucien Velinov: Sorry...That doesn't really make a case for predetermined actions and thought.

Birric Forcella: It doesn't ???

Birric Forcella: In which form would free will survive that finding?

Lucien Velinov: I'm wondering how this defeats the concept of free will. That there is subconscious brain activity preceding conscious activity in movement isn't entirely crushing to the concept of determining your own actions by your own whims.

Birric Forcella: Well, your whims would also be preceded by brain activity

Lucien Velinov: Lack of free will implies pre-determination by some means, am I correct? If this is the case, then free will is held through proof by contrapositive.

Lucien Velinov: No, -acting- on my whims would be preceded by brain activity. The thoughts and desire to do so would not. Those would not even register.

Birric Forcella: Free will implies conscious "authorship" of your acts and thoughts. Now, if it is unconsciously prefigured in your brain, then it is not conscious. And it can be presumed to be the act of causal actions within your neurons.

Gaya Ethaniel: back

Gilles Kuhn: hello absolutely sorry !

Tycho Foxclaw: what if your prefiguring was programmed by you via thought?

Birric Forcella: So you would not assume a "veto" in the last second, as Libet, but a "pre-act" before the RP registers - also caused by some spectral entity?

Gilles Kuhn: I just came online was thinking i had 20 minute left

Gilles Kuhn: forget the hour change

Lucien Velinov: No, not entirely. That sort of ignores how exactly your body functions.

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Gilles :)

Gaya Ethaniel: It goes back to normal next week Gilles.

Birric Forcella: Well, in that case you might ask, if you have this "prefiguring" - ist it physica, and could it be made visible with instruments. In which case you would have an exact duplicate of the experiment of Libet and its implications - only on some earlier action

Lucien Velinov: Learning to move your body was not a conscious act. It is not the conscious part of your mind that determines the movement of your body.

Tycho Foxclaw: If you program yourself to always respond with anger to a situation that preprogramming was done by choice, then later if you automatically respond with anger it is still freewill since you have the ability to change your programming

Sunfire Langer: its not a conscious operation, movement by minute movement, but the impetus to walk is not automatic

Lucien Velinov: That is something only reinforced by this study. In order to establish that we do not have free will, you will have to demonstrate that the very thought behind the action arised by means of a 3rd party.

Lucien Velinov: Tycho, that, at length, ignores the process of habit-forming.

Gilles Kuhn: do you mean lucien that free mean only not to be restrain or controlled by a "more" free entity?

Tycho Foxclaw: Either a 3rd party or unalterably hardwired

Lucien Velinov: "more" free entity? Elaborate.

Birric Forcella: Yes, but presumably, at the point where you start your preprogramming, that decision is made exactly the way Libet's first paper stated - namely within the brain first - so it is not free

Lucien Velinov: No. The decision is not preprogramed. The action based upon the decision is.

Sylvia Roxley: Hmm.

Lucien Velinov: All this shows is that the your body does not function through cognative process.

Birric Forcella: So was your decision to preprogram free? I don't think so

Lucien Velinov: Birric, you may as well be saying that we don't have free will because we cannot fly.

Gilles Kuhn: well lucien the problem of the concept of free will is to define what free entail if free is absolute ontologically that is clear but pose big issue its free is about not to be control by others thats another question and by control that impl the problem of i a intentionality

Lucien Velinov: That has everything to do with restrictions due to the way the body processes commands.

Birric Forcella: We don't have free will, because your brain determines what our "will" will be

Lucien Velinov: Nothing to do with a third party altering and directing our thoughts.

Birric Forcella: Now unless you say that some spectral entity in the brain makes it move - we do not have free will

Gilles Kuhn: Birric then you assume we are different from our brain

Sunfire Langer: well, then we keep on regressing, what determines what the brain will determine?

Gilles Kuhn: why say you that a brain by definition cannot be free as brain?

Lucien Velinov: Wrong, Birric. Our brain determines how our body responds to our will. It is only capable of so much.

Birric Forcella: No, Gilles, I am the one who asserts that we ARE our brain.

Lucien Velinov: And I am speaking of competing regions of the brain, not some unwarranted 'entity' that is magically directing it.

Gilles Kuhn: right then the problem is if one brain so very complex entity can be free and i will add how a brain can produce qualia and consciousness (which are related problems)

Birric Forcella: And I assert that the brain determines what is good for us - by natural processes - and that we then have the illusion we acted freely - but we don't need to fear our brain (unless it is broken) - the whole thing is wonderful and liberating

Lucien Velinov: Uhm...The very fact that we can, and often do, act against what our instincts (unconscious) tell us is 'good for us' denies that assertion,Birric.

Gilles Kuhn: actually lucien it seems that when brain is working well which mean all part are coordinated we are conscious when not we lose consciousness (or awareness if you favor apiphenomenalism)

Birric Forcella: I've debated this for years here now.

Sunfire Langer: now, in the brain, though we can measure activity and see where the activity is, we still have no measurement tool to ascertain how that activity will be interpreted, is that right?

Gaya Ethaniel: What's apiphenomenalism?

Gilles Kuhn: epiphenomenalism*

Gaya Ethaniel: epiphenomenalism?

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok

Lucien Velinov: Far as I know, that is correct, Sunfire.

Birric Forcella: Lucin, that is incoherent. WHAT exactly is it that acts against our unconscious (if that exists) if not our BRAIN

Lucien Velinov: The conscious part of our brain acting against the unconscious part.

Lucien Velinov: I think Freud's old model even addresses that.

Sunfire Langer: reflecting on, observing, not contradicting per se...

Birric Forcella: What overrides our instincts if not our brain - by natural mechanisms

Gilles Kuhn: yes that's a very naive typology

Lucien Velinov: Birric, that is rather (no offense) ignorant of how our brain functions. It is not a collective, singular, unified entity. There are conscious and subconscious processes constantly firing and, in some cases, acting against each other.

Lucien Velinov: i.e. Fight or Flight response.

Birric Forcella: The brain makes EXACTLY the decision that is the most desirable for the self (given all the input it has). The brain produces exactly tht outcome the self wants if it HAD free will. And that is the outcome our self SHOULD want. After all, that is what the brain is for.

Lucien Velinov: And why people 'freeze' in fear.

Lucien Velinov: Birric, the very fact that we act against our subconscious denies that.

Sunfire Langer: 'neurons that fire together, wire together'.

Gilles Kuhn: to claim that our brain have unconscious (un qualic) activities and other activities that are conscious is ok but the problem then is to determine when they are conscious activities is if the conscious part is epihenomenal or not (mean if its only a kind of report and if we are only looking to a kind of movie in which ""we" " have no real influence)

Birric Forcella: Lucien, (no offense) that is rather nonsensical of you - since the brain ALWAYS comes up, necessarily, with ONE action. So all the different impulses get sorted out. Who or what do you think does that?

Sylvia Roxley: Subconscious and conscious routines are generally one in the same. I argue that subconscious routines are more second-nature than your brain mindlessly guiding your limbs to and fro from things. Just as you may try to master driving a manual vehicle, it takes a large thought process in the beginning, but later on it's considered second nature and you hardly think before shifting gears. Same concept as an infant- at first, it was difficult for us to learn how to walk, to use balance and depth-perception to determine how far we were from obsticals, but eventually it became second nature. Subconscious thought is premeditated, you can consider it programming, although we all posses the free will to hold a breath or stand on one leg. Sunfire Langer: because we can't see an immediate influence would not necessarily mean we have no influence whatsoever

Gilles Kuhn: and Birric i'm afraid your argument declare that a concept as the self is what is the entelechy of the brain sorry but that is difficult t assert in a natural Darwinian way

Lucien Velinov: Birric, that is not true. The body responds to one action that overpowers the others. That does not mean that there are other actions or impulses active.

Birric Forcella: Firstly, there is NO subconscious - Freud always talked about the unconscious. Subconscious is some incoherent new psych notion. Secondly, Freud clearly has a mechanistic model of how these overrides work. PLEASURE determines what overrides what

Lucien Velinov: Again, the simple fact that we act against our subconscious denies that.

Sunfire Langer: humans are more than their mechanisms

Lucien Velinov: Fear is not pleasure, and people act on that often enough.

Sunfire Langer: we are the sum emergent effect

Birric Forcella: Well, Lucien, it seems that you are arguing AGAINST free will

Gilles Kuhn: and sylvia the problem you invoke is brain plasticity and hability to learning

Birric Forcella: You are basically saying what my philosophy has stated for decades - your body decides

Gilles Kuhn: right Birric but what s difference between body and mind ?

Sylvia Roxley: Generally speaking yes, but are you not your body?

Birric Forcella: Of course people act on fear according to pleasure/pain

Lucien Velinov: For my argument, replace subconscious with unconscious. The fact is, there are parts of your brain that you do not actively control, just as functions of your body that you do not control. That does not argue against free will. The fact that people are, and often do, act against that demonstrates this.

Birric Forcella: Well, Gilles, there is NO difference between body/brain and mind

Gilles Kuhn: no the fact that a part of your body i e your brain is a complex representation machine can make you decide in a more refined way that pan and pleasure Birric

Gilles Kuhn: agreed on your last Birric

Birric Forcella: Exactly, Lucien. You are arguing for MY position

Birric Forcella: Gilles, who is that YOU that decides?

Frederick Hansome: the subconscious is the repository of all our basic beliefs, learned thruout life and called on as needed to determine behavior

Lucien Velinov: Uhm...No. Your position denies that we should be able to act against those impulse and desires that we do not control.

Birric Forcella: Lucien put it in the subconscious - so clearly it has no free will

Gilles Kuhn: and i repeat our brain representation hability permit us to go way further than simple pleasure pain decision

Birric Forcella: So, Gilles, the subconscious of Lucien is clearly part of your body - since it is not part of a free mind

Sunfire Langer: I think the suggestion is that whatever the outcome that is the impulse from the brain, Lucien

Gilles Kuhn: but the i Birric is aresult of my brain hability to construe a i thats evident but it mean not that this construction is effective and can decide

Lucien Velinov: If Pleasure/Pain essentially default to (What I want to do/What I do not want to do), then sure, I'll accept that part.

Birric Forcella: Well, you may want to give an account of how that outcome comes to be, Sunfire

Gilles Kuhn: is not effective and can decide *

Sunfire Langer: of my own?

Lucien Velinov: Sunfire, the brain is not singular and unified like he is asserting. The fact that it operates on multiple levels (unconscious/conscious) demonstrates that.

Gilles Kuhn: i disagree on part lucien the brain when it construe the i the self you name it construe aa unified thing

Lucien Velinov: wat

Birric Forcella: If you want to make an account of why somebody does something - it will necessarily be the account of WHY the brain chose one thing over another. And it can only choose by ONE mechanism - it can only choose what it would RATHER do over what it would rather not do.

Gilles Kuhn: why one mechanism sorry but the brain is way more complex tahn tobe reduced to one mechanims Birric

Lucien Velinov: That it borders down to a yes/no decision is hardly an argument against free will.

Frederick Hansome: many behaviours are basically defense mechanisms in response to anxiety/threats

Gaya Ethaniel nods ... could you guys put points in relation to free will because I'm getting a bit lost here.

Birric Forcella: I'm not talking about one mechanism, Gilles - but even you can't deny that to most things, the brain can only supply ONE outcome.

Sylvia Roxley: I believe I'm getting to see the point here.

Lucien Velinov: Wrong. The body can only respond to one action at a time.

Birric Forcella: That is the outcome the self then identifies with

Frederick Hansome: we have free will/ freedom of choice UNTIL we are threatened, then we have no choice but to protect ourself

Lucien Velinov: False.

Sunfire Langer: I think that the discoveries in neuroplasticity and learning through hability that Sylvia and Gilles were mentioning bear out. Neurons firing together, reinforcing old paths, forging new ones, our thoughts/neural pathways I'm guessing pre-meditate our ability to act, not always predictably. The body would more be the neural pathways, and yes by that we are our bodies and our living beliefs, but the mind would more be the observing consciousness which reflects on experiencing this.

Frederick Hansome: the cognitive mind is hijacked when threatened

Lucien Velinov: False.

Birric Forcella: Well, Sunfire, you are describing the death of Free Will

Gilles Kuhn: i disagree Birric the brain in complex task devise different strategy and you implement one when its not possible to implement various in the world that is what is choice

Sylvia Roxley: We're beginning to loose the concept of 'free will' here in this debate.

Lucien Velinov: Well...Don't get me wrong, it can be. But the fact that people remain cognitive thought and directed action denies that as a general rle, Frederick.

Birric Forcella: Frederick - the mind can only choose what it WANTS to choose - no matter what the provocation

Sunfire Langer: I dont think so, I havent eliminated the possibility in that description, though i see how it could easily follow, Birric

Lucien Velinov: You can see this in soldiers acting against life-threatening events and situations.

Frederick Hansome: Birric, try choosing NOT to protect yourself when threatened

Lucien Velinov: The mind chooses what it wants to choose? Sounds like free wil to me.

Birric Forcella: Gilles, you are not even arguing against my point. Different strategies originate in exactly the same way - as does ambivalence - the case in which you can't decide because you like both avenues of action.

Birric Forcella: Different strategies, as well as ambivalence neatly prove my point. You choose what you wish/like/brings pleasure

Gilles Kuhn: Birric you know i'm not obsess to try to argue only against you you know.....

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Lucien Velinov: Choosing between what you want and what you don't want isn't an argument against free will.

Birric Forcella: Frederick - you are making MY point. You choose to protect yourself because that brings you pleasure/vitiates pain -

Gilles Kuhn: and that is not the problem we are speaking about Birric and btw your defintion of pleasure is so broad that indeed your point is not falsifiable to use a popperian argument.....

Frederick Hansome: seems tike that is an argument FOR free will

Sunfire Langer: because in the consciousness observing and having awareness, thinking about its thinking, neurons are firing together - neurons are wiring together. Awareness is key to amending your ability to act

Lucien Velinov: Gilles, the fact that his definition is broad is what is working against his position. By all means, let him keep it.

Birric Forcella: Lucient, it's your brain that decides what you want. And Libet showed it decides before you are conscious of it

Frederick Hansome: Birric, have you ever done or said anything you wish later that you hadn't?

Gilles Kuhn: well anyway could we try to refocus on libett experiments because this is going only in way too general way.....

Sunfire Langer: the conscious is not entirely impotent though

Sylvia Roxley: Birric, are you and your brain not one in the same?

Birric Forcella: Frederick - how is that even an argument?

Gilles Kuhn: and Birric i wanted exactly to discuss that point today but alas i got confused by time change in my tz

Lucien Velinov: No. Libet showed that movement of your body is directed by the unconscious. And yes, you decide what you want. Sounds like free will to me.

Birric Forcella: Nobody said the brain is omniscient and can't make bad calls

Lucien Velinov: Unless you are arguing that cognitive thought is directed by the unconscious. Good luck with that one.

Birric Forcella: How and where o you decide what you want, Lucien?

Frederick Hansome: It is an argument against us always making a choice that is pleasurable

Lucien Velinov: I think about what I want to do, then act on it.

Gilles Kuhn: no lucien libett at my opinion showed a lot of things but not things so deep as to be classified as conscious and unconscious argument

Birric Forcella: What exactly is "cognitive" thought?

Sylvia Roxley: "2. of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes."

Lucien Velinov: That would relate to activity in the conscious mind. Directed thinking, really.

Sylvia Roxley: For Birric.

Frederick Hansome: cognitive = consciousness

Gilles Kuhn: i know and its my fault i was late but i would lke that we refocus on the very libett experiment of the article before jumping and charging on generalities

Birric Forcella: It's PROOF that we always choose what is pleasurable, Frederick - since you assume that we will change our mind when we regret an earlier action - which is, we would decide for what is MORE pleasurable.

Lucien Velinov: For instance, I could choose to do something pleasurable (kiss my girlfriend), or sit here and do nothing. I am currently doing nothing. Nothing is forcing my hand either way.

Gaya Ethaniel nods ... a bit of focus back to the paper would be nice ...

Gilles Kuhn: Birric that argument is childish pleasurable ok pleasurable for what the brain your conscious lascive awareness?????

Lucien Velinov: Birric's definition of 'pleasure' extends to 'things that you want to do' - essentially the definition of free will.

Birric Forcella: I have no idea what you are saying, Gilles?

Lucien Velinov: In the end, you do what you want to do.

Gaya Ethaniel: As much as I enjoy this current thread, we also need to focus a bit tackle bit by bit ...

Gilles Kuhn: so if we can refocus a bit i see a lot of methodological problem in the experimental protocol in libett

Birric Forcella: No, things "I want to do" are what my brain determines are more pleasurable -

Birric Forcella: Of course Gilles has only some childish idea of pleasure

Gaya Ethaniel pokes Birric :P

Sylvia Roxley: I believe Gilles is beginning to get frustrated.

Sylvia Roxley: Let him speak. =P

Lucien Velinov: xD

Birric Forcella: Well, I'm always frustrated

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: hell Birric your argument is not coherent as a brain cannot have pleasure without having a conscious state please...

Lucien Velinov: Not true.

Gaya Ethaniel: Gilles you're not helping either by keep going along.

Birric Forcella: I'll just go and look after my home improver. Have to check he doesn't take Gilles' advice from a few weeks back and sets fire to my house.

Lucien Velinov: 'Brain Dead' people still respond to pleasure and pain.

Sunfire Langer: well, the problem is exploding because you're all working with different ideas of what pleasure is

Birric Forcella: Not so, Gilles, the brain will determine (by Libet's mechanism) what will be felt as pleasurable.

Birric Forcella: How hard is that to understand?

Gilles Kuhn: i would enjoy to hear your definition of pain and pleasue lucien

Sylvia Roxley: 'Brain dead' people aren't generally braindead, they've just lost all ability for concious thought.

Birric Forcella: Your BRAIN works FOR you

Lucien Velinov: That Libet's mechanism does not determine thought. It determines action. That is what Libet proved.

Lucien Velinov: When you decide to act, the unconscious fires before the conscious. It makes perfect sense for it to do so.

Gilles Kuhn: am sorry but libett don speak of brain mechanism at all he only make some eperiment that try to relate eeg with subjective perception of time in a decision process

Gilles Kuhn: so let look at the experimental protocol

Birric Forcella: According to Freud - "Thought is experimental action with very small quantities of energy." I think that is one of the greatest insights of all times - and a cornerstone of my philosophy

Birric Forcella: So Libet applies to thought

Gilles Kuhn: basically the libett experiment rely on eeg electro encephalograms

Lucien Velinov: To destroy free will, you have to demonstrate that thought is directed by the unconscious mind. Libet's experiment does not do this.

Birric Forcella: Thinking is so easy for many of us, that we don't realize it is an act and we expend energy

Sunfire Langer: but then action isnt always as immediate as reflex action, so what delays it, Birric?

Gilles Kuhn: yes anpother instance when freud demonstrate is a metaphysician and not a scientis but well

Lucien Velinov: Thinking about chocolate cake does not translate to an action regarding chocolate cake.

Birric Forcella: Of course Libet does show that, Lucien. Would you mind bring ing an argument instead of saying "nay" all the time.

Gaya Ethaniel: Guys me being pretty ignorant of this subject, may I ask a question?

Gilles Kuhn: ok i begin to bhave enough of this could we focus on the libett article as such or not

Lucien Velinov: Birric, I have posited my argument, repeatedly.

Sunfire Langer: go ahead, Gaya

Lucien Velinov: All you have to say is 'Libet' this and 'Libet' that. Particularly in the case where the experiment does not prove your assertion.

Gaya Ethaniel: ok ty sorry for this interruption :)

Gilles Kuhn: before using libett in all kind of sausage it would be perhaps nice to see what he said and if what he said is correct

Gaya Ethaniel: So when the subject became aware of wanting to act - that is a thought? That's how I understood.

Gilles Kuhn: so as we have done with kant we will first at slow pace dissect libett experiment and methodology

Gilles Kuhn: and for that we all need to understand what is a eeg

Gaya Ethaniel: Please, that'd be helpful for me.

Gilles Kuhn: basically a eeg is a measurement of electrical potential in the brain

Gaya Ethaniel: Why 'pontential' in the phrase?

Lucien Velinov: Birric's argument only applies to how the body responds to commands. That is the only thing demonstrated in this experiment.

Gilles Kuhn: but as we cannot put the two captors needed to have a difference of electrical potentail in all the place we would want in a human alive brain its way more often put on the scalp

Gilles Kuhn: so when you put captors on the scalp you will measure difference of electrical potential between them the result have a excellent temporal resolution in fact almost immediate for what they measure which is the electrical variation

Gilles Kuhn: BUT the spatial resolution is very very very bad

Gaya Ethaniel: ah electric potential is a scientific term ... ok

Gilles Kuhn: and too remember that we measure only electrical variation in a general way !!!

Sunfire Langer: electrical activity isnt the only type of activity in the brain, is it?

Gilles Kuhn: so its a meaurement that is about brain activity ok but its an indirect and general one

Gilles Kuhn: no definitely not indeed sunfire

Gaya Ethaniel: So there isn't a chart of something that shows different voltages corresponding to different thoughts?

Gilles Kuhn: but electrical activity is generated by action potential which are for a lot f very good reason believed to be the main manner of communication between neurons

Gaya Ethaniel: Hence general

Lucien Velinov: Muscular/fluid activity. The big thing though is that actions and commands are directed by electric impulse.

Gilles Kuhn: no Gaya hell we are very very very far from that !

Gaya Ethaniel: ah shame to hear that

Gaya Ethaniel: Study harder Gilles

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello qeun :)

Gilles Kuhn: lol Gaya ;-)

quen Oh: hi all!

Gilles Kuhn: well so what libett use as a objective pole of his experiment is eeg measure

Gilles Kuhn: ok now in eeg so you will have as result electrical potential variation between two captors basically

Gilles Kuhn: is what it is show in figure one of the paper we study

Gaya Ethaniel: Yes I wasn't sure about this first chart. What am I basically looking at?

Gilles Kuhn: and as i mentioned earlier the temporal resolution of that is almost perfect

Gilles Kuhn: you were looking at the variation of electrical potential measured between two captors put on the subject skull

Frederick Hansome: no, between about 22 leads attached to the skull

Gaya Ethaniel: What's RP I, RP II & S? They all look similar.

Gilles Kuhn: notice that other kind of methods to """look """ inside the brain process have other kind of limitation another kind of advantage but as libett didn't use any of them i will not enter into that now

Gilles Kuhn: well one sec Gaya i come to that

Gilles Kuhn: grederick when you a eeg you can select how much captor you use i was explaining the general idea

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Frederick Hansome: sure

Gilles Kuhn: generally a graphic like libett figure one is between two captors in a normal eeg result you have multiple graphs that are measurement between two captors and all graphs are from different sets of two captors in the same time frame

Gilles Kuhn: what you can do is to make a kind of middle graphs of all measurement s of all graphs i think that libett used that and its important to realise then that it is a statistical result

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ... I see

Gilles Kuhn: but well libtt rely heavily on two concept one is very accepted is the idea of what is call invoked potential (potentiel invoqué : sorry the seminar in med fac i had about that was in french)

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gaya Ethaniel: I need English terms to look up Korean dictionary though :P

Gaya Ethaniel: evoked potential right?

Gilles Kuhn: a invoked potential (have to check the correct english name) is a difference that you can have after treatment of the data that exist only when you have submitted the subject to a precise input

Gilles Kuhn: yes Gaya thanks !

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: evoked potential so are difference on eeg measureme,nt that can be correlated to a input (phenmenal one) submitted to a subject

Gilles Kuhn: now let see what rp are

Gaya Ethaniel: So what was stimulus in this experiment? Thought about wanting to move?

Gilles Kuhn: that is exactly the problem Gaya

Frederick Hansome: Sorry folks, have to leave. Will look forward to the next discussion

Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Frederick :)

Violette McMinnar: TY, interesting discussion

Violette McMinnar: bye all

Gilles Kuhn: thanks to have come fred sorry i was late

Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Violette :)

Gaya Ethaniel: ok please go on Gilles

Gilles Kuhn: yes i realie my tz confusion make of this a mess i am dreadfully sorry

Gaya Ethaniel: It's ok, where is the hurry :) Shall we continue next week then?

Gaya Ethaniel: Same time as last week for you Gilles

Gilles Kuhn: would be better as we are out of any bound about the announced time

Gaya Ethaniel: mhm so see you all next week then :) Thanks!

Gilles Kuhn: and Birric sorry to have stop the general debate but i wanted really to refocus we will haveall th time to have general brawls when the concept are less fuzzy for all

Gaya Ethaniel: :D I love the general brawls!

Gaya Ethaniel: But yes would be nice I understand a bit before what you all are going to hound at each other about.

Gilles Kuhn: lol me too but i think they are senseless if we dont clarify the concepts first

Gaya Ethaniel: mhm :) Well I have to go unfortunately. See you all next week, tc :)

Gilles Kuhn: bye Gaya