## Biology of Mind: a trivial foundation — The correct interpretation of REM sleep, Libet’s experiments, and Pavlov’s reflexes

Mindless Scientist

This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.

So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*

"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"

If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.

"What if I think this was a mistake?"

For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.

you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.

If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.

* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)

### The correct interpretation of REM sleep, Libet’s experiments, and Pavlov’s reflexes

DOI references:

> This essay revisits three classical pillars of cognitive science — REM sleep, Libet’s experiments, and Pavlov’s reflexes — and shows how they can be reinterpreted within the framework of Biology of Mind. The aim is to challenge the received wisdom, highlight overlooked mechanisms, and invite critique from the rationalist community.

Introduction (lower phase — sarcasm) For more than a century, the scientific community has managed to amuse itself with three great misunderstandings: Sleep, reduced to chaotic fireworks of neurons. Free will, buried by premature electrical potentials. Reflexes, glorified as if the brain were nothing more than a Pavlovian doorbell. One almost admires the consistency: generation after generation of scholars dutifully repeating these half-truths until they sound like eternal laws. Entire careers have been built on confusing preparation with choice, noise with signal, and isolation chambers with natural life. It is almost touching. Humanity, proud of its science, has managed to remove from itself not only the notion of freedom but also the complexity of its own mind — all in the name of “rigor.”

---

Main body (middle phase — factual declaration)

#### 2.3.3 REM sleep as an evolutionary training ground for consciousness REM is not chaos but a training ground for consciousness. Its primary function is to relieve emotional tension and to package key associations (images, situations, conclusions) into long-term memory. In parallel, REM also functions as a simulator: consciousness is placed into absurd scenarios where familiar actions fail to produce expected outcomes. This is not random noise but a systematic mechanism of the brain — restricting possibilities in the most illogical yet universal ways. That is why identical archetypes of nightmares recur across cultures: running without reducing distance, trying to act while everything reverses. The frustration of this “helplessness” strengthens flexibility and determination in waking life. Nightmares do not arise from “raw” problems. At least minimal acceptance of a situation, or an outline of resolution, must appear first to lower emotional pressure. Only then does the unconscious launch a stress-test in sleep. This delayed activation explains why nightmares may emerge not immediately after stress, but days later. The greater the stress, the sooner it is processed. Ultimately, nightmares do not destroy but consolidate resilience: by placing consciousness in impossible scenarios, they test endurance and enhance the ability to act effectively in reality.

---

#### Alternative interpretation of Libet’s experiments in the framework of Biology of Mind Classical studies by B. Libet showed that brain electrical activity (the “readiness potential”) arises hundreds of milliseconds before the subject becomes aware of the decision to move. Some researchers interpreted this as evidence that free will is illusory: the brain “decides” before the subject does. Within the framework of Biology of Mind, this interpretation requires revision. The cognitive system has a two-level architecture: 1. The unconscious field — a dynamic network of associations that continuously prepares possible reactions. It operates in advance, offering “maps of possible actions” before awareness emerges. 2. Consciousness as operator of choice — the minimal function of the subject, expressed in selection: to allow an impulse into action or to block it. Consciousness does not generate options, but it pulls the trigger, determining which prepared impulse becomes reality. Thus, the “decision before awareness” reflects preparatory unconscious processes, not the true act of choice. The real decision occurs when consciousness allows or stops the prepared impulse. **Consequence:** free will is not an illusion but the function of the final filter. It does not create alternatives from nothing, but it grants the subject the right to ultimate selection. **Experimental prediction:** readiness potential will sometimes be recorded even when no movement occurs — the brain prepared an option, but consciousness blocked it. This effect should be most visible under strong cognitive control (e.g., when the subject is instructed “not to act” under certain stimuli). Neurophysiologically, it will appear as a mismatch: early readiness activity visible in EEG or fMRI, but no motor execution. **Verification:** detecting more cases of “prepared but blocked” impulses would directly confirm the role of consciousness not as an illusion, but as the final gatekeeper of free will.

---

#### 3.X. Conditioned Reflexes and Associative Nodes The classical experiments of I. P. Pavlov demonstrated that animals can form conditioned associations: a neutral stimulus (a bell) becomes encoded in memory as a predictor of a significant event (food). This phenomenon has become a canonical example of associative learning. **Conditioned reflex as a node** The link “bell → food” represents an associative node: the event (bell) acquires an emotional tag (expectation of food) and triggers a reaction (salivation). **Role of environment and filters** In natural settings, the animal is exposed to multiple concurrent stimuli: odors, movements, visual signals. The conditioned node does not vanish, but its activation competes with others. Conscious filters direct attention toward the most salient stimuli (e.g., the actual smell of food), while suppressing less relevant ones. **Why it is observed primarily in laboratory settings** Pavlov’s paradigm isolates the animal from background stimuli, creating an artificially “clean” environment. This enables the observation of a single node’s effect, whereas in natural conditions it is always embedded within a broader network of associations. **Conclusion:** conditioned reflexes are not a distinct “magical” function of the brain. They are a specific case of associative node formation, which in nature operate only as elements of an interconnected network. Pavlov’s laboratory experiments therefore demonstrate not a “natural” reflex, but an artificially isolated association, stripped of competition from other stimuli.

---

### Conclusion (upper phase — irony) For decades, modern science has comforted itself with a convenient tale: free will does not exist, and life is nothing but reflexes. A perfect excuse — it lifts responsibility from both the researcher and the subject. Easier to hide behind neural noise and dream chaos than to confront weakness and error. But the facts, read without self-deception, tell another story: dreams are training grounds, decisions are filters, and even Pavlov’s dogs reveal only a fragment of a far richer network. Consciousness is not a passive witness but the final gatekeeper of will. The irony is that humanity has spent generations living under a lullaby: “there is no free will.” A sweet song for those afraid to face the truth. Yet if freedom were only an illusion, it is a strangely resilient one — surviving nightmares, laboratories, and entire civilizations. Perhaps it is time to stop lulling ourselves with this story. After all, even an illusion capable of withstanding centuries and cultures deserves more respect than a convenient excuse for weakness.