What The Libet Experiment Tells Us About Free Will 

Atomic decay is true random but what does it have to do with making a decision?

That is assumed but not known.

​@@pluto9000Others may think that if theres pure randomness, free will could arise. However, they sometimes forget that even though randomness is true, its still outside of our control. But i dont think so that theres such thing as "randomness" if were able to measure all the factors that might affect a particular outcome of an event, everything can be predicted

Excellent point.

Interesting way to look at it

Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will. What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that. Ex. The decision making process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as: - previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to) - your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over) - your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)

A reasonable interpretation, I think. Even the simplest actions can be made up of yet smaller steps, each of which takes an elapse of time. A similar interpretation would be be to consider the lag as the time necessary, not for the action itself -- here, making a decision or even recognizing the decision --, but for afterwards reacting to the decision. Particularly, in the course of this experiment, the time needed to initiate all the physiogical processes necessary for reporting to the scientists that a decision's been made. The lag would be like the time between seeing a ball in the road and stamping one's foot on the brake pedal to avoid hitting a careless child. Recognition takes time (including, say, "input lag"), and then a subsequent reaction takes additional time.

@@declup True, Our brain signals to break immediatley when the sensory signals reach the neurons, but it takes 120ms for a forumla1 driver realise the brakes.

I used to have a t-shirt that said... "Top 10 Reasons I Procrastinate 1.) "

Excellent obervation.

Exactly what I was going to write, but with more elaboration.

I love this explanation, and I agree

Elementary particles follow laws of physics which in turn logically follows that each particle interaction is a result of previous ones. A physicist will tell you that people (as a collection of particles) can't deviate from the linear progression of particles interacting in deterministic ways, and thus can't have free will. What matters is that the illusion of choice exists. Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that. In your case, the consensus building process is a mathematical function that takes in inputs such as: - previous memories that exist within you (which you have no control over. The memory making process happens regardless of whether or not you will it to) - your ideas, beliefs, and biases (all of which arose from your memories which you don't have control over) - your psychology due to genetics that your parents given you and the environmental triggers that shaped your entire neural network from the ground up (neither of which are controlled by you)

@@firelight3806 I have to admit I never considered the biochemical ramifications to consciousness, but I have to counter that these particles are subject to the uncertainty principle and so we are back to where we started as we will never know because the initiation is both willed and unwilled at the same time and cannot be determined until we crack the skull open. I for one find the need for an answer insufficient justification for brain surgery.

@@RibberflavenousThis argument has been beaten to death an uncountable number of times. The random atomic vibrations of the sodium and potassium ions that power the action potentials of your neurons matter little in the face of the macroscopic construction of your brain. Whether one ion vibrates left or right at a specific millisecond will not affect its entrance across the axon when the voltage gated ion channel is opened, and thereby it will have no affect on your thought process as the signal carries on to other neurons. Let’s be honest: every decision you have ever made has arisen from the culmination of a lifetime’s worth of stimuli reception. Your brain makes a decision for you, and you become aware of it after the fact. It doesn’t really matter that much, though, because for all intensive purposes it *feels* like you made the decision in the first place, so it’s easy to live under the illusion of free will. Why get bothered about things that are out of your control? Live your life as you think you want to.

I very much like that theory.

You are your brain and body.

It means it was decided before you experienced it ;)@@pluto9000

"Life is meaning in itself and not having choice doesn't change that," that I believe too.

Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start. "Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.

But in this case, the software is run by chemical processes. That are run by other chemical processes. In other words, everything is causal, therefore no free will exists. That’s the sort version of the no free will argument.

@@frusie91 People can't even agree on how to define free will, which makes debates on its existence rather pointless.

@@frusie91 We ARE the process by which our decisions are made. Doesn't matter if that process takes time or is run by chemical reactions. We are our brains. We are the unconscious part, and the conscious part. It is WE who are making the decisions, even if those decisions start brewing in the unconscious part.

It's real free will even if it's just an illusion, the fish sees the tank as the whole universe as long as it is inside it. The fish must get out of the pot in order to see how things really are. Unfortunately we can't detach ourselves from being conscious in order to see that we "don't have free will", and indeed we have free will(indeed the tank is the whole world for the fish as long as it's inside of it). Free will is an illusion that is also real if it makes any sense.

@@caofan5190 I like that explanation actually. Still think its not actually ‘free’ if it is sort of cascading from stimuli eventually from outside the body. So on a fundamental level, I still think it is reasonable to think that free will is not there. On the deeper levels. On a more conscious level you have at least the illusion that you control your mind. I think thats what you mean right?

From what I could make out, the brain decided to move the wrist before the conscious decision to move the wrist took place. Unlike a reflex, it wasn't in response to any sudden stimulus, which means something outside consciousness initiated the action. Which suggests that the conscious isn't fully in charge, at least something precedes it in what we would otherwise refer to as voluntary action.

Thanks for your answer, I got that part, but still, the free will isn't relevant to me. We can consider the intention of doing as the trigger to the brain activity. Therefore, the 150ms, are more likely processing time.

​@Indeeeex you are right, its just a lag in processing time

@@Indeeeex The experiment shows the intention coming after the processing time, not before.

That's obvious, isn't it? Like sound needs to first travel to your ear, get processed and only then you realize what you heard. Your vision and hearing allows to you sense, after sensing there is processing time/thinking/decision making/consciousness, after this you realize that you have "thought" and after this you command your mouth to speak and communicate your thoughts. I also don't see any connection to free will, and anyway free will is only perceived it's not something that really exists, I think it's some emergent phenomenon from the complexity of the brain. We live in a physical world and as far as we know physical things are causal, there's a step preceeding anything that comes after.

Also true!

@jjw00dw. Oh can you elaborate?

HAHA

That's obvious, if you clear yer mind of any thoughts, you won't have any thoughts :V

Mostly our brain and our hands. No real animation in that sense.

That’s interesting, I believe Roger Penrose suggests something similar

Thinking and intending are more often actually earthly, while speaking and acting follow suit. Also, thinking and intending can alternatively be spiritual, and speaking and acting follow suit.

Verovati u slobodnu volju je isto kao i verovati u postojanje bezuzročnih posledica (causless effect). Sve ima svoj uzrok uključujući i naše misli. Šopenhauer je rekao "Možemo raditi šta želimo, ali ne možemo da želimo ono što želimo". I drugi veliki filozofi poput Spinoze, Kanta i Ničea su se slagali s tim, a takođe i verovatno najveći naučnik Albert Ajnštajn.

​@@mtlicqThinking and intending-which those familiar with Swedenborg’s thought might also recognize as willing and understanding-may not seem like inherently spiritual activities, but he emphasizes that the ability to make rational choices is the cornerstone of spiritual development, or regeneration. Our spiritual state isn’t simply the result of a single action or decision; it comes with years and years of consistently choosing one path over another. For example, in the book A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge spends years inflicting suffering on others for his own profit, until one night he’s confronted with the consequences of his actions and has a change of heart. That’s great, Swedenborg might say, but by consistently choosing to put his greed first, Scrooge has done spiritual damage to himself. It’ll take a lot of internal work-consistently trying to do good-before he can really turn himself around. Whatever we choose to do freely becomes a part of us. Swedenborg tells us that a rational choice-one that comes from considering our options and everything that we’ve learned-has more spiritual impact than an impulsive action. And actions that we’re forced to take against our will have the least impact of all. In the same way, people who aren’t able to make rational decisions, whether it’s because of mental or physical illness or due to more fleeting conditions like rage or intoxication, aren’t held spiritually responsible for their actions-even though they might be held responsible on a personal or criminal level!

​@@vladan5383Free will is not effects without cause, for the cause for free-will decisions is the will itself. And will, together with intellect, is understood as an essential part of human nature caused by whatever causes human nature to exist.

I love that !!!

Exactly. The question is ambiguous from the start. "Is reality a simulation" argument is also one such example where too often people tend to talk past one another due to lack of precise and accurate definitions which serve to eliminate subjective views, biases, and implicit meanings of words and concepts.

Good point! Thanks!

You say 'we', but "I" don't think of "myself" as an "I". More like a conduit of all the chance events happening around "me".

@@declup you mean that’s what you’ve rationalized and told yourself. What you actually experience is yourself thinking and making decisions unless you’re unlike everyone else I guess.

@@mbmurphy777 -- Couldn't the same be said for the alternative viewpoint? That first-person-ness is a "rationalization" itself? A consequence, not a choice, in the same way that vision is a consequence, not a choice? You see because parts of the world (parts of you) interact with parts of the world. You're aware because parts of the world interact with parts of the world. But interaction and responsiveness don't grant your eyes or the vision centers of your brain first-person-ness. How then those parts of you that observe yourself?

@@declup I don’t think so because that’s not our firsthand experience. Or at least my experience and what most people say is their experience. Clearly lots of biology is unconscious… Autonomic responses, routine actions like the mechanics of walking, eating etc. Probably even some of our nonreflective/reflexive actions making, although it seems we can *choose* to hone certain reflexive actions (through choosing to practice free throws, for example). However, for reflective decisions where we consider and weigh options, ruminate over outcomes etc, it certainly feels like we are an agent/entity making decisions. Again, I don’t think that there is any way to prove things one way or another. The only evidence that we don’t have free will is that it seems that having free will does not play well with known deterministic/probabilistic physical models. Sure, that’s a big deal, but I don’t think we can dismiss all the direct first-hand evidence that we have consciousness and make decisions. I agree that that is not definitive evidence, and I don’t think definitive evidence can exist either way. But to have a deterministic universe, all of those daily experiences would have to be illusions. Why would such a situation evolve?

​@@mbmurphy777 -- "Certainly feels like" is evidence of feeling, but it's not evidence of choosing or agency. It's evidence of feeling machines, brains, that can be influenced by other parts of the world, but it's not evidence of an abstracted self in a Platonic realm, some kind of special object that's physical, since it orchestrates a person's actions, but also, at the same time, metaphysical and set apart from the world. The experience of reality is the result of physical reality's impingements on itself, physical reality. The experience of reality isn't a choice any more than reality is a choice, and it isn't more or less impactful than reality is impactful -- because it's just another aspect of reality's complex self-interactions. "Certainly feels like" may be immersive, visceral, so encompassing as to seem cinematic, but sensation, no matter how impressive or high-resolution, has nothing to do with agency or first-person-ness. Nor do the emotions induced by sensation. Nor do mental states, like reflection or rumination, as physics churns within a human brain. Nor even awareness, which is the brain's own set of complex self-interactions and self-observation, as neurons signal other neurons and are signaled in turn. Instead, in a physical universe, one mediated by sense and response, awareness and "certainly feels like" are evidence of the physical and sensory nature of the universe and nothing else. And you ask, "why would such a situation evolve?", by which, you possibly mean, "why would such a purposeless mode of existence come to be?" But if that interpretation is what you'd meant by your rhetorical question, doesn't your underlying question not already presuppose the necessity of purpose? Why must there be purpose at all? What even is purpose? Intentionality? If so, then purpose does exist in this deterministic universe, since desire is a temporarily stable, complex subsystem's self-preserving behavior within its more-chaotic ambient environment. If not intentionality, maybe some kind of teleological finality? The target or culmination of the universe after its allotted duration of being? If so, perhaps the universe is indeed evolving toward some predetermined, physically entailed conclusion, but that end is entirely unrelated to people's agency or first-person-ness, since it'll terminate as it will whether or not consciousness is a special characteristic of human beings. And if not intentionality or teleology, there isn't much else. Value maybe? (Value is a corollary of desire and intentionality.) Meaning maybe? (The word "meaning" is as difficult to define or prove as "purpose" is.) Or possibly a recasting of consciousness or free will? That is, purpose as proof of first-person-ness in that agency would be defined as "that which chooses its own purpose" and purpose would be defined as "that which is determined by agency"? If so, then purpose, far from being irrelevant and unrelated to first-person-ness, would be too related, and any attempt to demonstrate agency by asserting purpose would be tantamount to proving agency by asserting agency, which is a circular argument and, although valid if one already takes, on faith, agency as an axiom of human nature -- since no argument, you're right, can definitively disprove an axiomatic assertion --, unconvincing to others who aren't already convinced.

This is an excellent we are still missing. I've already added it to our board of new ideas. Visit to comment or upvote this link: sprouts.featureupvote.com/suggestions/536198/dyscalculia

Our body is also involved in a lot of the decision making. 🍪

@@pluto9000 Can verify! :)

Is it usually a good move when hand does it automatically?

great question!@@pluto9000

Thats a very valid point!

Oh! I am sorry you feel distracted.

Thanks

Thats not free will...

Are you saying we are dictated by instinct ?

@@SomeGuy-jx4qd Instinct, past experiences and things outside of our control. For example, someone walks up and hits you. The way you react to that is dependent on personality traits you have that are part nature and part nurture plus your current surroundings plus your mood at that time plus the appearance of the person that hit you... All of which you didn't choose.

Are you saying we are stuck reacting, and cannot possibly decide against past experiences and external-locus events? You never face fears? You never proverbially get back on your horse? Are you saying no human can ever be a contrarian?

@@mtlicq You do make decisions but that are based on all the things listed. Fear is a neurochemical response to stimuli that you have no control over. Some people are contrarians but that is a personality trait they got from the nature/nurture component of their past/biology. No decision is made in a vacuum.

What are you talking about???

They can't help themselves.

Some did.

What is your question?

@@pluto9000 my bad. Statement. No proof.

Funniest joke. You're in control of what? The stars that shine? Control is an illusion. You're the one controlled by your environment. Action equals reaction, just as this video prompted you to spout your theory.