Guest guest Posted June 7, 2001 Report Share Posted June 7, 2001 Are we doers or simply witnesses? The following scientific inquiry suggests that our consciousness could be just witnesses to events rather than doers! We think it is us who decide what to do but in reality the readiness to do what we are about to decide has already begun! So either we fool ourselves into believing that the decision to act was ours or maybe our brain has precognitive abilities! Consciousness is an afterthought? http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/conscious/ Electrodes pick up readiness potential a second or more before any apparently voluntary movement begins. We might assume, then, that the conscious decision to act must come before the readiness potential, if a conscious decision to act is what starts the train of events. Libet set out to test this. He asked subjects to flex their wrist or fingers at any time they felt the 'urge' or desire to do so. To measure the timing of that urge or desire, he asked them also to watch a revolving spot and to report its clock position at the time they felt the urge to move. His findings were consistent and surprising. The readiness potential came first and the desire to move about 400 milliseconds (nearly half a second) later. The implication seems to be that even in apparently spontaneous voluntary acts, an unconscious brain event happens well before any conscious desire or decision to act. Again, the consciousness seems to be an afterthought. Libet went on to show that subjects could 'veto' the action within a period of between 100 and 200 milliseconds before the action would have started. This, he argues, still leaves some potential role for the 'will'. Other scientists have argued, however, for more extreme interpretations of his data. The experiments could mean that we do not directly experience an intention to act at all. Rather, we might infer an urge or desire to act after the process has already begun unconsciously. Because this urge precedes the action, we can keep up the illusion that it causes the action - but it is only an illusion. According to this view, consciousness has no active role at all. This dispute reflects the long philosophical argument over whether mental events, anything from the desire for ice cream to the sensation of pain, can cause physiological events in the brain. Libet maintains they can. He thinks there is still room for the 'will', which can intervene to stop physiological processes when required. Others prefer to use his findings as evidence that they cannot. The important question for us is whether science is on the verge of turning a difficult philosophical problem into an empirical one. ________________________________ Love makes the heart laugh. I wish you Love. [God is Love] CyberDervish `````````````````````````````````````````````` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2001 Report Share Posted June 7, 2001 ah...the dragon argument between free-will and pre-destiny crops a new head once again.....i think St. Paul got close to slaying this dragon when he said....."Freedom is chosen bondage.".....non-duality is embracing each new arising duality as it arises....St. George slaying the dragon or is that Manjusri slaying mental concepts or is the Highlander slaying mere mortals so he can suffer the pangs of immortality.....same one i think......THERE IS ONLY ONE......(shush...it is a secret....if we do not decieve ourselve that there are two the game is no fun!) ....^^~~~~~~ - Jan Sultan <swork <> Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:38 AM Are we doers or simply witnesses? > Are we doers or simply witnesses? > > The following scientific inquiry suggests that our consciousness could be > just witnesses to events rather than doers! We think it is us who decide > what to do but in reality the readiness to do what we are about to decide > has already begun! So either we fool ourselves into believing that the > decision to act was ours or maybe our brain has precognitive abilities! > > Consciousness is an afterthought? > http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/conscious/ > > Electrodes pick up readiness potential a second or more before any > apparently voluntary movement begins. We might assume, then, that the > conscious decision to act must come before the readiness potential, if a > conscious decision to act is what starts the train of events. > Libet set out to test this. He asked subjects to flex their wrist or > fingers at any time they felt the 'urge' or desire to do so. To measure the > timing of that urge or desire, he asked them also to watch a revolving spot > and to report its clock position at the time they felt the urge to move. > His findings were consistent and surprising. The readiness potential came > first and the desire to move about 400 milliseconds (nearly half a second) > later. The implication seems to be that even in apparently spontaneous > voluntary acts, an unconscious brain event happens well before any > conscious desire or decision to act. Again, the consciousness seems to be > an afterthought. > Libet went on to show that subjects could 'veto' the action within a period > of between 100 and 200 milliseconds before the action would have started. > This, he argues, still leaves some potential role for the 'will'. Other > scientists have argued, however, for more extreme interpretations of his > data. The experiments could mean that we do not directly experience an > intention to act at all. > Rather, we might infer an urge or desire to act after the process has > already begun unconsciously. Because this urge precedes the action, we can > keep up the illusion that it causes the action - but it is only an > illusion. According to this view, consciousness has no active role at all. > This dispute reflects the long philosophical argument over whether mental > events, anything from the desire for ice cream to the sensation of pain, > can cause physiological events in the brain. Libet maintains they can. He > thinks there is still room for the 'will', which can intervene to stop > physiological processes when required. Others prefer to use his findings as > evidence that they cannot. The important question for us is whether science > is on the verge of turning a difficult philosophical problem into an > empirical one. > > > ________________________________ > Love makes the heart laugh. > I wish you Love. [God is Love] > CyberDervish > `````````````````````````````````````````````` > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 Wolf! >snip< >THERE IS >ONLY ONE......(shush...it is a secret....if we do not decieve ourselve that >there are two the game is no fun!) ....^^~~~~~~ ))) Wonderful! )) Ain't it the truth!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.