Talk:Benjamin Libet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


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)

Contents

[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)

I think this is fixed now, by expanding on Libet's ideas rather than presenting personal opinion. --EPadmirateur 03:53, 1 August 2007 (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.

The implications of the experiments section in the article was appallingly badly edited by barkeep,(june 18) I think, if I've understood how to compare previous drafts correctly.

It was edited without respect to the citations and quotations previous edits had made, and presented an erroneous opinion as fact.

I have reinstated the previous version, and hope that someone will keep an eye on barkeeps editing. (freedhead)

[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)

[edit] Sad News

Benjamin Libet, my grandfather, passed away earlier this afternoon.JQLibet 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news reports or an obituary yet. I hope that there will be appropriate tributes given in the press and at UCSF. --EPadmirateur 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the one from the paper in Davis, CA, where he lived at the time of his death. I'm sure others exist. Thanks to you and the other commenter for your sympathies. [1] JQLibet 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --EPadmirateur 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Great Man

Perhaps this isn't the relevant forum to communicate these ideas, but I was taken aback when I saw that Dr. Libet had passed. My condolences to his grandson who communicated this news. His ideas and research have yet to be adequately interpreted, and they will shape the study of consciousness for many years, but you know this already.

This is indeed very sad news. I extend my heartfelt sympathies to Dr. Libet's family. I think his work will be judged as a very significant contribution to neuroscience. The pattern of his research and his penetrating thought on what he discovered, over the period of 1964 to the present, is a model of scientific investigation on par with the greatest scientists. --EPadmirateur 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)