Talk:Benjamin Libet

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Medicine C‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Patricia Churchland not a dualist

But her criticism is under "dualist" criticisms.... That's going to give people false assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.80.245 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dualist "philosophers" editing this article

I noted that some dualist ignoramuses are editing this article, please put this page into moderation so as to prevent uneducated people from trying to discredit a serious scientific work. I changed the article so that it becomes clear where such stupid dualist objections are raised, and clarified in which way a reasonable neuroscientist would interpret the power of veto. It seems there is no shortage of religious fools. Can't we just get rid of them? The dualist objections should be put into another page so as not to litter a biography Exa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Really? You have to be a dualist to criticize Libet?? First of all, there are almost 0 dualist philosophers on the face of the earth. I am a philosophy graduate student and a well ranked school and I can think of 1 living dualist off the top of my head. Epiphenomenalism, while also unpopular, is NOT dualism. Second of all, Libet's work is philosophically sophomoric. He doesn't understand the debates and he is not even good at interpreting his own results. If you've actually read his work and thought to yourself "huh, geee I've never thought of that before, and wow that really does look like the brain might just be makin' us do stuff" you're nothing short of SILLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential error in main article

The way the article reads strikes me as the opposite of what I was taught in graduate school. The questionable sentence is:

On average, approximately two hundred milliseconds elapsed between the first appearance of conscious will to press the button and the act of pressing it.

I remember learning it as exactly the opposite: the button is pressed two hundred milliseconds before the appearance of conscious will. If someone else agrees it should be the other way around, would you please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.164.207 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the key timings were, as averages over the subjects:

-550 msec: readiness potential begins (RP II, with no pre-plans)

-200 msec: awareness of wish to move (W)

-85 msec: awareness of moving (M)

0 msec: muscle movement (EMG)

So the awareness of the "wish" to move (W) was indeed 200 msec before the movement (EMG). The readiness potential (RP) started 350 msec prior to W. The awareness of the wish to move would be quite strange if it came after the actual movement -- you would constantly be thinking, "Oh yeah, I wanted to do that." You are perhaps confusing the start of the RP with the actual movement. The RP does precede the awareness of the wish to move. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In

In my Opinion,the neutrality of this article is disputed. The way it was written may even discredit Benjamin Libet as a scientist, and suggest that his own opinions about his own research is wrong and that his ideas are non-sense; all this is suggested without the proper evidence. This may be unconsciously done and without intention to offend him or his research, but the effects of this article may still damage the discovery of the truth behind that still-unclear scenario . Free Will debates still lives on even inside the scientific community, and is not a product of denial.(See Scientific American -Mind-(Volume 14, Number 1 ; 2004); "Does Free Will Arise Freely?" by Michael Pauen ; see also the Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 articule on "states of consciousness").Please do not exclude (or remove) from the article proper scientific literature about the subject that can let the reader see things from both points of view - in favor and against the notion of the existence of free will (or other point of view wich is supported by legitimate evidence)-.This helps with the neutrality issue in this subject .Thank you -James Albert P.S.- Please do not engage in the Style over Substance fallacy; A more attractive aspect is not the most important matter in this subject.

Hope the revisions I've made help - it seems people were extrapolating too much from Libet's experiments, into being a disproof of free will in its entirety and, as you say, discrediting Libet's own understanding of the results. Anyway, any comments?Visual Error 12:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free will

The sentence "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" seems to me to be such a leap of logic to be almost a non-sequitur.

If these experiments demonstrate that the subconscious or unconscious brain initiates the act before the subject is consciously aware of it (which is itslef debatable), all that means is that conscious awareness 'lags' behind our actions. But it doesn't destroy the idea of free will. That would suggest that someone, or something, outside of the brain had decided to initiate the action. There is no evidence for that at all.

It is still "you" who decides to do it; after all the uncoscious brain is a part of "you" - as a materialist, I would have to say there is nothing else. But I suppose if you believe in a mind separate from the brain, then the argument against free will has even less force.

There are lots of other intepretations of these results which seem far more sensible (and far more grounded in the facts) than a leap to abolish free will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.248 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many interpretations of this work, but one certainly is that these findings threaten free will. If free will requires conscious intent while making a decision, and if it turns out (as this research has been interpreted) that conscious awareness comes after the decision is made, then free will is in trouble. --Theoretical Pluralist (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what we think (as long as Wikipedia is concerned) but what either Libet or other scientists have though. What is very interesting therefore is that Libet himself did believe in the existence of a free will in the form of free won't. The references to this however seem very wrong since they refer to an Indian doctor who re-interprets Libet's opinions. I believe they should be removed and real ones should be included. I know that R. Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion" mentions this fact so a quotation from him would be useful. Mmick66 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Existence of Free Will Confirmed

Since Libet's findings started to trickle out -

there was a lot of nonsense about our free will...

What??? My free will is useless? I'll give it up!

Here, my friend, take it - and tell me what to do...

Now, how could I - give up something I did not have?!

22nd May 2011

Rene Descartes noticed slight delay as people were overriding their instinctive reactions with willed deliberate voluntary acts. This is exactly the same delay Benjamin Libet researched. This calls for "readiness potential" to be renamed into neuronal activity required for intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.7.10 (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final paragraph

The final paragraph of this article seems to present an opinion rather than citing a factual source - could citations and references please be offered for this section (the phrase 'it is a fact that...', minus a reference, especially stirs my suspicions). Cheers Visual Error 21:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed now, by expanding on Libet's ideas rather than presenting personal opinion. --EPadmirateur 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

A little change for a more objective view

I did a little change because; We should not give our subjective opinion using beautiful objective-like phrases. The articule should not state what Benjamin Libet study implies without proper evidence; Not even in the form of "we may have to accept that...unconscious act" (such a sentence is not grounded on facts and may add bias.

Wave Dr.

The implications of the experiments section in the article was appallingly badly edited by barkeep,(june 18) I think, if I've understood how to compare previous drafts correctly.

It was edited without respect to the citations and quotations previous edits had made, and presented an erroneous opinion as fact.

I have reinstated the previous version, and hope that someone will keep an eye on barkeeps editing. (freedhead)

Controversial?

... his most famous and controversial experiment demonstrates that unconscious electrical processes in the brain (called 'readiness potential') precede conscious decisions to perform volitional, spontaneous acts... [etc] ...

The word 'controversial' in that sentence seems unclear to me. Does it simply refer to the fact that the philosophical implications of Libet's experiment are still being discussed and no real consensus has yet been reached? Or is the experiment itself -- the methods used, the results, etc -- considered controversial; in other words, is the scientific validity of the experiment itself in dispute? If the latter meaning, then that needs to be clearly dealt with in the article. 194.66.229.8 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is unnecessarily obtuse in the opening summary. For example, "This work soon crossed into an investigation into human consciousness; his most famous and controversial experiment demonstrates that unconscious electrical processes in the brain (called 'readiness potential') precede conscious decisions to perform volitional, spontaneous acts, implying that unconscious neuronal processes precede and potentially cause volitional acts which are retrospectively felt to be consciously motivated by the subject" could be cleaned up by saying: "This work may have implications for human consciousness. His most famous experiment demonstratee that electrical activity in the brain, or a 'readiness potential', occurs before a conscious decision to perform a simple volitional act."150.176.79.10 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad News

Benjamin Libet, my grandfather, passed away earlier this afternoon.JQLibet 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any news reports or an obituary yet. I hope that there will be appropriate tributes given in the press and at UCSF. --EPadmirateur 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one from the paper in Davis, CA, where he lived at the time of his death. I'm sure others exist. Thanks to you and the other commenter for your sympathies. [1] JQLibet 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --EPadmirateur 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Man

Perhaps this isn't the relevant forum to communicate these ideas, but I was taken aback when I saw that Dr. Libet had passed. My condolences to his grandson who communicated this news. His ideas and research have yet to be adequately interpreted, and they will shape the study of consciousness for many years, but you know this already.

This is indeed very sad news. I extend my heartfelt sympathies to Dr. Libet's family. I think his work will be judged as a very significant contribution to neuroscience. The pattern of his research and his penetrating thought on what he discovered, over the period of 1964 to the present, is a model of scientific investigation on par with the greatest scientists. --EPadmirateur 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how to pronounce his name

is it libet as in "buy-it", or libet as in "cricket"? Thanks32.149.125.23 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Lih' bet, more like "libbet" or as you say "cricket". --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. You wouldn't believe the pronunciations I've heard though! JQLibet (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of experiments?

Addition of dates to article would be nice. 1970's? 1980's? He would have been in his 50's or 60's when these experiments were performed; what did he do between WWII and then? linas (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libet challenged

Recent work of Aaron Shurger and Judy Trevena queries role of readiness potentials in decisions. Datafile28 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More references

In case someone might wish to collect a bibliography of Libet's work, are are some more citations, converted from BiBTeX:

Haggard, Patrick; Libet, Benjamin (2001). "Conscious Intention and Brain Activity". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 8 (11): 47–63.
Libet, Benjamin (1966), "Brain Stimulation and the Threshold of Conscious Experience", in J. Eccles (ed.), Brain and Conscious Experience - Study Week Sep 28 to Oct 4, 1964, of the Pontificia Academia Scientarium, Springer, pp. 165–181
Libet, Benjamin (1973), "Electrical Stimulation of Cortex in Human Subjects and Conscious Memory Aspects", in A. Iggo (ed.), Somatosensory system, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol. 2, pp. 743–790, ISBN 3-540-05941-5
Libet, Benjamin (1978), "Neuronal vs. Subjective Timing, for a Conscious Sensory Experience", in Buser, P.; Rongeul-Buser, A. (eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. Cerebral Correlates of Conscious Experience (INSERM 6), Elsevier, pp. 69–82
Libet, Benjamin (1993). Neurophysiology and Consciousness: Selected Papers and New Essays of Benjamin Libet. Birkhäuser.
Libet, Benjamin (2002). "The Timing of Mental Events: Libet's Experimental Findings and Their Implications". Consciousness and Cognition. 11: 291–299.
Libet, Benjamin (2003). "Can Conscious Experience Affect Brain Activity?". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 10 (12): 24–28.

Churchland's reply to Libet's reply:

Churchland, Patricia Smith (1981). "Timing of Sensations: Reply to Libet". Philosophy of Science. 48 (3): 492–497. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

By the way:

As far as I understood, Libet's early experiments and his theory of "antedating" should be clearly separated from his volition experiments. In the article, the distinction is not very clear: sect.1 seems to describe only the volition experiments; after that, sect.2 seems to discuss implications of only the volition experiments; however, the "antedating" issues seem to be explained as part of it in sect.2.3. I'd like to read more details about the "antedating" issues.

Maybe the current article should even be split into on article about Libet and his work in general (there also explaining "antedating" stuff), and another article about Libet's famous and highly controversial volition experiments in particular?

Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience identifies the 500 ms time lag with the approximate time that a sensory stimuli takes to become conscious through processing in the sensory cortex. There does not seem to be anything particularly puzzling about 'antedating'. Physics tells us that the external world bears little resemblance to the repesentations that our brains produce. What we see etc. is an adaptive model or map aiding our survival. The adjustment of the experience closer to the time of the originating stimulus looks to be similarly adaptive. One can call this an illusion if you like, but only in the sense that most of our experience is an illusion.

What is more interesting is that the up to 500 ms time delay takes us to the areas of the brain and the types of processing that are correlated with consciousness. This rather than the more famous experiments relative to free will may be more lasting legacy of Libet's work. Research since Libet's time has pointed to the type of small movements that he studied being governed by the unconscious dorsal stream, while the consciousness-related ventral stream is more connected to reward/punisher evaluations and their influence on more deliberative planning and behaviour.Persephone19 (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margin of error can't be negative

The article states that the margin of error is negative (perhaps a typo, the common way to specify statistical errors is by preceding them with $\pm$ .) Another thing that needs to be specified, whether we are talking about absolute error or square root of sum of squared errors. The former is easier to calculate while the later is more commonly used in statistics (there are some other, less often used errors). In any case, you need to tell what exact kind of error was meant.

The rationale for why errors can't be negative is that error stands for amount the data under experiment deviates from the chosen concept of average. All data can deviate to one side of the average only for very poorly chosen average (for negative error, it would have to be the largest value in the data set, which hardly qualifies as any average at all). 79.176.121.21 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benjamin Libet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benjamin Libet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706085825/http://cognition.uni-klu.ac.at/nobel/Ben_Libet_low_res.mov to http://cognition.uni-klu.ac.at/nobel/Ben_Libet_low_res.mov
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Conferences/tucson96.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F18%2FBANFRK1TG.DTL
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/07/30/obituaries/160obit0.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]