The Libet results on free will and their many descendants are crumbling now, and there is more to come. A nice case of science exposing hidden dualist assumptions in neuroscience.
For decades, a landmark brain study on the 'readiness potential' fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake I'm sure there will be more debate on this but good piece by
I wrote for about how science has not disproved free will, despite what decades worth of science news headlines and many popular intellectuals (like , , Robert Sapolsky,...) have been telling people.
This piece by , on a classic result that's long been used to argue against free will, is *fascinating*, and a really great piece of science writing. A perfectly judged four-act structure. So good.
"Researchers questioned Libet’s experimental design... But one aspect of [the] results sneaked by largely unchallenged: the possibility that... his conclusions were based on an unsound premise." by
New research seems to debunk a famous argument against free will: the argument based on Libet's classic brain studies. This may salvage compatibilist conceptions of free will; it doesn't salvage libertarian free will, though. No siree.
Big news from neuroscience: Free will has not been debunked. The studies debunking it have been. I chose to type those sentences. And that one. And that one. And that one... #FridayFeeling
A reminder that neuroscience, psychology, etc. are NOT reliable, not citable, not useable for anything other than tenure & academic rent seeking.
The fabled Libet experiment, showing that the brain makes choices before we become aware of them, may have fallen victim to the reproducibility crisis.
For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake.
Many arguments against free will say that our brains make decisions before we're even aware of them. But the experiment that introduced this idea missed something crucial, writes
A nice article on the work that Aaron Schurger, Jaco Sitt and I published in 2012: the readiness potential is NOT a preconscious decision, but a mathematical consequence of retrospective averaging over a random walk.
“Given the issue is so fundamentally important to our view of who we are, a claim that our free will is illusory should be based on fairly direct evidence. Such evidence is not available.” New research on an old controversy. I remain a compatibilist.
Hmm I don't get any of this "debate". Do modern neuroscientists really find anything shocking/confusing about the Libet experiment? Of course neurons can indicate decisions before their report.
“Bereitschaftspotential may not be what we thought it was. That maybe it’s in some sense artifactual “For a paradigm shift, the work met minimal resistance. Schurger appeared to have unearthed a classic scientific mistake, so subtle no one noticed...”
OK new episode will be delayed til Tuesday for technical reasons. (Technically our second segment was dogshit and we didn't want to subject our listeners to it.) So the new episode will be on Chappelle (1st segment) and this...
Bad news for double predestination.
ICYMI: A fascinating article about how the Libet experiments about the readiness potential were based on a misunderstanding h/t
Anti-free-will data is misleading: "noisy activity in people’s brains sometimes happens to tip the scale if there’s nothing else to base a choice on, … rising part of the brain fluctuations … tend to coincide with the decisions."
Good news, philosophers! The Libet study about free will has finally been debunked! 🙄 cc
Libet's experiments, often invoked as evidence against free will, debunked. Great. But can someone explain how "reverse-averaging" works?
Are you a free agent? IMO, we can be empirically free, but not metaphysically free: #freewill #philosophy
FREE AT LAST of what always seemed to be a specious experiment! our brains make decisions before we're even aware of them? Experiment that introduced this idea missed something crucial, writes
Arguments against free will say our brain decides before we're aware of it. But the Libet study that sparked this idea may have missed something crucial. Nice piece on colleagues Aaron Schurger, Jaco Sitt, & 's work
Really interesting re-examination of a classic study
This just suggests to me that more scientists ought to study philosophy (but I've always said that - together with claiming that more philosophers ought to study science)
Liberating free will from Libet. via
Does free will exist? A popularized neuroscience experiment attempted to disprove it. “a classic scientific mistake, so subtle that no one had noticed it and no amount of replication studies could have solved it, unless they started testing for causality.”
Science Didn’t Disprove Free Will After All
It was not, as Libet thought, that people’s brains “decide” to move their fingers before they know it, but rather that the noisy activity in people’s brains sometimes happens to tip the scale if there’s nothing else to base a choice on.
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked: For decades, a landmark brain study fed speculation about whether we control our own actions. It seems to have made a classic mistake via
Dang it seems I do have free will after all ⁦⁦
‘Given the issue is so fundamentally important to our view of who we are, a claim that our free will is illusory should be based on fairly direct evidence. Such evidence is not available.’ Rethinking the Libet experiment
A more accurate title would have been: "A Famous BAD and IRRELEVANT Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked."
I never bought this argument, and we still don’t have free will.
I like this article because it disagrees with Sam Harris. It’s also about neuroscience so that’s an added bonus.
Does Free Will Exist? Neuroscience Can't Disprove It Yet. - The Atlantic
Many arguments against free will say that our brains make decisions before we're even aware of them. But the experiment that introduced this idea missed something crucial, writes