The ghost of Libet returns (free will)

[C C]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuros...btxbL97k3g

EXCERPT: Last month, I blogged about the famous Libet experiment ... which was once heralded as undermining the concept of free conscious will, has now been reinterpreted in a less radical way. [...] However, recent work by neuroscientist Aaron Schurger and colleagues cast doubt on this interpretation... But now, in an interesting twist, a new paper has appeared that casts doubt on Schurger’s theory. And – double twist – Schurger is one of the authors.

The new paper is called Do readiness potentials happen all the time? and it’s from Travers, Khalighinejad, Schurger and Haggard in Neuroimage. [...] This is an interesting set of results that help support the original interpretation of the Libet study. I’m not sure I’m fully convinced by Travers et al.’s approach though. ... I don’t think that this paper offers conclusive evidence against the Schurger hypothesis. Even so, it seems that the ghost of Libet et al. (1983) has returned to haunt neuroscience (and philosophy) once again. Happy Halloween! (MORE - details)

RELATED (scivillage): Libet case against freewill is debunked: Die-hards finally accept it?

[Syne]

The new paper is called Do readiness potentials happen all the time? and it’s from Travers, Khalighinejad, Schurger and Haggard in Neuroimage.

Travers et al. searched through EEG data (from this paper) looking for evidence of random RP’s that don’t culminate in actions, which should be common according to Schurger’s hypothesis. In a nutshell, they didn’t find any convincing RP-like events except immediately before voluntary actions

And? If there is no decision (random choice, in the case of Libet's experiment), why would the brain consult its version of a random number generator? There's a difference between neural noise and such being consulted in lieu of any other decision-make criteria. The readiness potentials are the brain paying attention to the neural noise, which obviously raises the activity above that of the noise alone.

Again, I've been saying this for years, but scientists are generally too biased to see obvious facts.