Why conscious decision always coincides with what we do?

[bahman]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

[surreptitious57]

Because it has already been decided by the subconscious and also because it may be a decision that requires no
obvious effort it may superficially appear that the conscious has no real input with regard to its implementation

But I do not think the subconscious can control motor function or cognitive capability in total isolation to the conscious
If it could do that there would be no need for the conscious - it would be superfluous to requirement - but yet there is

[bahman]

Because it has already been decided by the subconscious and also because it may be a decision that requires no
obvious effort it may superficially appear that the conscious has no real input with regard to its implementation

But I do not think the subconscious can control motor function or cognitive capability in total isolation to the conscious
If it could do that there would be no need for the conscious - it would be superfluous to requirement - but yet there is

Do you have any argument to support your claim?

[Impenitent]

the evil genius makes it so...

-Imp

[bahman]

the evil genius makes it so...

-Imp

Probably!

[commonsense]

you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something different.

It is not uncommon for a person to decide to quit smoking, and then light up another cigarette. Every New Year, there are people who vow to go on a diet or start exercising, but they don’t.

How do we reconcile these examples with the idea that conscious decisions coincide with what we do?

[bahman]

you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something different.

It is not uncommon for a person to decide to quit smoking, and then light up another cigarette. Every New Year, there are people who vow to go on a diet or start exercising, but they don’t.

How do we reconcile these examples with the idea that conscious decisions coincide with what we do?

You just change your mind and make a different decision when you start smoking again. I have quite thousands times.

[commonsense]

you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something different.

It is not uncommon for a person to decide to quit smoking, and then light up another cigarette. Every New Year, there are people who vow to go on a diet or start exercising, but they don’t.

How do we reconcile these examples with the idea that conscious decisions coincide with what we do?

You just change your mind and make a different decision when you start smoking again. I have quite thousands times.

Yes, of course. I wish I had thought of that first.

[Dimebag]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

The interpretations of the Libet experiments are flawed. The readiness potential was measured before the conscious intent to perform the action, but, the conscious intention to perform the action might have been a single trigger to release a pre-defined and pre-primed action. When a person becomes aware of the action they are to perform, at that time, their motor cortex begins to simulate the action, this can be experienced if one focuses on it, known as “visualising” in sports psychology. Likely this is what the readiness potential is. Then, the moment the conscious intention to act occurs, that is when a person reports their intention to act, but actually, they could have become conscious of the readiness potential if they knew more about the way consciousness and action is linked. Essentially, people don’t know their own minds, poor introception.

Secondly, there were cases in the Libet experiments where people could at the last moment change their minds and veto their previous intention to act. In these cases, the readiness potential was still detected, even when they did not act. So what the readiness potential actually is, is the getting ready to act, not the moment of intention to do the act.

The unconscious mind decides what we want, but the conscious mind can control the execution (deliberate action), or it can sit back and be the passenger if the unconscious mind is knowledgeable enough about the action to be performed, and focus on other more interesting things.

[SteveKlinko]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

Libet's experiments have been mostly debunked. He unwittingly was using one of the oldest built in programs of the Brain that exists in most any animal. The decision about when to pounce on your prey is a Brain Program that we all have inherited through Evolution. Think about what is going on when you decide when to swat a fly. It works the same if you are deciding when to push a Button. There are all kinds of Neural Activity preceding the actual Pounce, Swat, or Push that involves the background program. This preceding Neural Activity is what Libet got confused in his experiments. One of the things that Libet did find out was that subjects could suppress the Button press action at the last instant but yet all the Brain signals were still there as if they had actually pushed the Button. So there was not always a Correlation between the Brain measurements and the Action.

[bahman]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

The interpretations of the Libet experiments are flawed. The readiness potential was measured before the conscious intent to perform the action, but, the conscious intention to perform the action might have been a single trigger to release a pre-defined and pre-primed action. When a person becomes aware of the action they are to perform, at that time, their motor cortex begins to simulate the action, this can be experienced if one focuses on it, known as “visualising” in sports psychology. Likely this is what the readiness potential is. Then, the moment the conscious intention to act occurs, that is when a person reports their intention to act, but actually, they could have become conscious of the readiness potential if they knew more about the way consciousness and action is linked. Essentially, people don’t know their own minds, poor introception.

Secondly, there were cases in the Libet experiments where people could at the last moment change their minds and veto their previous intention to act. In these cases, the readiness potential was still detected, even when they did not act. So what the readiness potential actually is, is the getting ready to act, not the moment of intention to do the act.

The unconscious mind decides what we want, but the conscious mind can control the execution (deliberate action), or it can sit back and be the passenger if the unconscious mind is knowledgeable enough about the action to be performed, and focus on other more interesting things.

If conscious mind can veto the motion of finger then it means that there are two decisions involved, what is made by unconscious mind (to move my finger) and another with conscious mind (to veto the previous decision).

[bahman]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

Libet's experiments have been mostly debunked. He unwittingly was using one of the oldest built in programs of the Brain that exists in most any animal. The decision about when to pounce on your prey is a Brain Program that we all have inherited through Evolution. Think about what is going on when you decide when to swat a fly. It works the same if you are deciding when to push a Button. There are all kinds of Neural Activity preceding the actual Pounce, Swat, or Push that involves the background program. This preceding Neural Activity is what Libet got confused in his experiments. One of the things that Libet did find out was that subjects could suppress the Button press action at the last instant but yet all the Brain signals were still there as if they had actually pushed the Button. So there was not always a Correlation between the Brain measurements and the Action.

If all those activities before the decision are not decision-related then what are they for? They always come before the decision.

[SteveKlinko]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

Libet's experiments have been mostly debunked. He unwittingly was using one of the oldest built in programs of the Brain that exists in most any animal. The decision about when to pounce on your prey is a Brain Program that we all have inherited through Evolution. Think about what is going on when you decide when to swat a fly. It works the same if you are deciding when to push a Button. There are all kinds of Neural Activity preceding the actual Pounce, Swat, or Push that involves the background program. This preceding Neural Activity is what Libet got confused in his experiments. One of the things that Libet did find out was that subjects could suppress the Button press action at the last instant but yet all the Brain signals were still there as if they had actually pushed the Button. So there was not always a Correlation between the Brain measurements and the Action.

If all those activities before the decision are not decision-related then what are they for? They always come before the decision.

It's part of the program that gets you prepped for swatting the fly or pouncing on prey. It's just an unfortunately bad choice of experiment for Volition because of all the underlying evolutionary programmed activity. But I don't think there has been any other experiments that can deal with Volition. Nobody really knows how Volition operates yet.

[SteveKlinko]

The unconscious mind creates both experience of decision and decision. These two always correlate. For example, you never experience that you decide to do something but you do something else. The experience of decision apparently, according to Libet's experiment, comes after the decision. So, consciousness is completely irrelevant. The question is why they always correlate? If consciousness is not relevant then there could be a person who experiences a decision and do the opposite at least for one instance.

The interpretations of the Libet experiments are flawed. The readiness potential was measured before the conscious intent to perform the action, but, the conscious intention to perform the action might have been a single trigger to release a pre-defined and pre-primed action. When a person becomes aware of the action they are to perform, at that time, their motor cortex begins to simulate the action, this can be experienced if one focuses on it, known as “visualising” in sports psychology. Likely this is what the readiness potential is. Then, the moment the conscious intention to act occurs, that is when a person reports their intention to act, but actually, they could have become conscious of the readiness potential if they knew more about the way consciousness and action is linked. Essentially, people don’t know their own minds, poor introception.

Secondly, there were cases in the Libet experiments where people could at the last moment change their minds and veto their previous intention to act. In these cases, the readiness potential was still detected, even when they did not act. So what the readiness potential actually is, is the getting ready to act, not the moment of intention to do the act.

The unconscious mind decides what we want, but the conscious mind can control the execution (deliberate action), or it can sit back and be the passenger if the unconscious mind is knowledgeable enough about the action to be performed, and focus on other more interesting things.

If conscious mind can veto the motion of finger then it means that there are two decisions involved, what is made by unconscious mind (to move my finger) and another with conscious mind (to veto the previous decision).

This could be the case.

[Dimebag]

And/or to proceed with the cued motion. If you had to think about every single motion you produce consciously you would be overwhelmed, it is an offloading of processing to unconscious automated processes.