Random Decisions (Libet Experiments): If VP finalizes executing an interaction based on a random decision, it is handed over to LB, without VP participating (other than initiating it, guiding actions based on LB's decision and being on standby if required - more under title Why is DOS Needed? ), as random interactions are, let alone past or future, not connected to anything (otherwise they would not be random). In such cases, the information of the decision reaches VP after its execution is finalized by LB.

In detail: Ever since neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet did it for the first time in 1983, many experiments are performed where subjects, while their brains are being scanned for neuronal activity, are asked to initiate a random action or make a random choice, e.g. pressing the left or right button on a device. The subjects are also asked to note down the time when they become aware of making the decision of pressing the particular button. All such experiments result into scans predicting the activity for which the decision is made, either left or right button, before the subjects are consciously aware of making it. In other words, the scans predict with good accuracy what button the subject is going to press before he is aware of making it. This gives rise to the belief that whatever action a person decides to execute is a result of his brain's neuronal activity or something else, but not of his conscious free will, and thus, free will does not exist. For otherwise, how could a machine foretell which button the subject is going to press before he himself becomes aware of making it?

The reason they become aware of making the decision at a later stage is that, as a random choice is to be made at a non-specified time, LB makes the decision of which button to press and executes it, (as mentioned under title Interactions Requiring Random Decisions). What's more, as it is a simple action of pressing a button, LB does not need VP's guidance in performing it. The reason why such experiments do not produce 100% accurate results is VP's acausal freedom, which can change what is to be executed at any moment for no particular reason, as, being a free agent, it has power to do so, which is not an issue in the decision making process, as it is random.

In detail: Other than initiating the decision making process at a particular time, which is not the case in such experiments (otherwise it would fail the purpose of the particular test), random decisions do not require involvement of VP, unless they are connected to past or future. Additionally, as it is a simple action of pressing a button, LB executes it without VP guiding it. As it is not presented to their VP at the time of decision being made, they are not aware of it at that time. It is only when LB communicates the decision to VP through intramural communication (which it does because they work to reach common goals) that the person becomes aware of it (i.e. at a later stage).

What's more, due to differences in quality and frequency of VP-LB communication and biological differences in their neural substrates, intramural communication differs from person to person, resulting into one person becoming aware of the decision fractions of a second earlier than the other. However, the person gets additional conformation of the decision made externally through sensory feedback (proprioception).

Turning the Libet Experiment on its Head: As a matter of fact, one can turn the Libet type experiment on its head. Just by making a little change, Libet type experiment may be a good tool prove that free will exists!

How? Run the same experiment. When the action potential on the EEG machine shows whether the subject is going to press left or right button, make it visible to him/her in one way or the other, who, based on his/her own free will, is instructed to press the other one.

The subject needs to be someone whose reflexes are super-fast, as the time difference is in milliseconds.

To make it more clear, there can be multiple instances of the experiment, where, in certain, pre-defined instances, the subject is asked to change the decision made by the EEG machine.

Note: The above discription is not the same as the idea of 'free won't'.

© Copyright 2017 Parag Jasani. All Rights Reserved.

Kindly enter your credentials