From hpstapp@lbl.gov Wed Oct 14 13:20:35 2009 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:20:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Henry P. Stapp To: "Kelly, Edward *HS" Cc: 'David Presti' Subject: Re: Of interest On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Kelly, Edward *HS wrote: > > Experiments providing some evidence against the conventional > anti-free-will interpretation of Libet's results. > > Ed > > Dear Ed, Many thanks for alerting me to the existence of this paper. I think that its characterization of Libet's conclusions about his result is off the mark. Libet himself emphasized the "free won't" interpretation, which is also in line with James's idea that attention is *initially* focused on a *possible action* by a purely brain mechanism, and that this *contemplation of a possible action* is converted into an intention to act followed by an actual action only later, and with a possible active involvement of a mental component that need not be determinately specified by the immediate quantum-physically describable past. The empirical findings of Trevena and Miller seem fully concordant with this Libet/James/quantum interpretation, and they effectively nullify the claim that the readiness potential is a beginning stage of the physical action itself, as opposed to being the neural correlate of the *contemplation of the possibility of acting in in a particular way*. The paper effectively counters, I believe, the claim that this Libet experiment shows that our idea about the efficacy of our conscious intentions to act is an illusion. Thanks again, Henry