Talk:Benjamin Libet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
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)