MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155787784 · doi:10.1075/ceb.1.12sha

Anticipatory consciousness, Libet’s veto, and a close-enough theory of free will

2005· book-chapter· en· W2155787784 on OpenAlex
Azim Shariff, Jordan B. Peterson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConsciousness & emotion book series · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVetoConsciousnessAction (physics)Power (physics)PsychologyFree willConstant (computer programming)EpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyLawPolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benjamin Libet concluded that, given the constraints caused by the timing of consciousness, all action is generated unconsciously.The power of consciousness, according to Libet, is in selection, in having the ability to veto each action before it is run to completion.In this paper we challenge the veto, by proposing that the role of consciousness exists prior rather than after the initiation of action.This is done through a modulation of the likelihood of automatic responses to constant stimuli.To account for the time lag of consciousness, we also suggest that conscious attention is focused on a predicted future in order to remain effectual to real time existence.Implications for free will are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it