Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:30 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:08 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:43 pm And what do we get from you instead? A retreat into the cowardly position of “well, it can neither be definitively proved nor disproved.” That’s intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Actually it is the very opposite of what you assert it is.

You can, and you will, characterize my position as it serves you to. You know that I don’t have a problem with that, I hope.

My position though is not one concocted by cowardice but rather circumspection, and — as I said at the start of— elements of my own experience.

Additionally, I submit that some scientists are not convinced by the hard determinism model. Consider that anecdotal if you wish.

The issue of “being” (with all sorts of levels of mystery) is ultimately where my intuition’s fulcrum is located. And I know and we all know what you think of knowledge of that sort!

I am not so much interested in this conversation if it simply turns over and over in the same pattern. Yet you seem to wish to have your understanding validated.

Very well: consider it validated.

Myself, I am far more interested in the implications of having agency than of argumentation that undermines it. That has direct bearing on issues of immediate concern.

Give them a few days, Mike, and pack a suitcase with a few changes of clothes. You will be taken in and refurbished soon!

Ah yes, the classic I’m not retreating, I’m just being circumspect defense. It’s remarkable how conveniently this brand of “circumspection” only ever manifests when faced with conclusions one finds uncomfortable. You see, Alexis, actual intellectual rigor doesn’t involve dancing around hard truths with vague appeals to “experience” and “intuition.” It requires demonstrating why those intuitions hold any weight outside of personal sentiment.

And here we go again with the some scientists aren’t convinced by hard determinism routine. You want to frame it as an ongoing debate among serious thinkers, but let’s be honest: you’re not engaging with the actual science. You’re cherry-picking dissenters who, at best, offer speculative philosophy, not empirical refutations. This isn’t “anecdotal,” it’s grasping at straws. If determinism were on shaky ground, you’d be able to point to an actual competing framework that explains causality without contradiction. But you can’t. Instead, we get this performance of thoughtful skepticism that conveniently avoids the inconvenient task of presenting a viable alternative.

And let’s talk about your obsession with having agency. You want agency, therefore you insist it must be real. That’s the whole game here, isn’t it? This isn’t an argument—it’s a refusal to let go of an emotionally satisfying narrative. But wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. The implications of determinism are uncomfortable, sure. But the role of reason isn’t to comfort us—it’s to align our understanding with reality, whether we like it or not.

But by all means, keep packing that suitcase of intuition and experience. Just don’t expect it to hold up when reality comes knocking.

You said:
Are there any experiments to suggest that people have free will?

ChatGPT said:
Yes, while many experiments (like Libet’s) suggest that unconscious brain activity precedes conscious decision-making, there are also studies that suggest people do exercise a form of free will, or at least a capacity for conscious control over their actions. Here are some key experiments that provide evidence in favor of free will or conscious agency:

1. Libet’s “Free Won’t” (1983, 2000)
Even though Libet’s famous experiment suggested that readiness potentials (RPs) occur before conscious decisions, he also found that people could veto an action just before it happens. He called this the "free won't" hypothesis.

Findings:

Even after an RP begins, participants can consciously decide to stop the movement at the last moment.
This suggests that while unconscious processes may initiate actions, conscious will can intervene and override them.
Implication for Free Will:
Rather than free will initiating all actions, we may have the ability to inhibit or modify them consciously.

2. Schultze-Kraft et al. (2016) – Real-time Movement Vetoing
Expanding on Libet’s idea of "free won't," this study used EEG to monitor participants and predict when they were about to move.

Findings:

The researchers could predict upcoming movements before the participant was aware of deciding to move.
However, participants could still cancel the movement after prediction, just milliseconds before execution.
Implication for Free Will:
Even if unconscious processes initiate actions, people retain the ability to consciously stop or change their choices.

3. Maoz et al. (2019) – Deliberate Decision-Making
Some critics of Libet argue that his experiment only studied impulsive, unimportant movements (like flexing a wrist), not complex, real-world decisions. Maoz et al. designed an experiment where people had to make deliberate, meaningful choices between two options.

Findings:

Readiness potentials were weaker when participants made more deliberate and reasoned decisions.
This suggests that conscious reasoning plays a stronger role in deliberate decision-making than in spontaneous actions.
Implication for Free Will:
When decisions require reflection and reasoning, conscious thought seems to play a bigger role than unconscious impulses.

4. Mudrik et al. (2022) – Conscious Will in Complex Tasks
This study examined whether consciousness plays a causal role in decision-making beyond just vetoing actions.

Findings:

Conscious thought was actively involved in making complex choices, rather than being a passive observer.
When choices were based on reasoning (rather than impulse), brain activity did not show early unconscious decision signals like those in Libet’s studies.
Implication for Free Will:
Higher-level decision-making may not be completely driven by unconscious brain activity.

Summary: What Do These Experiments Suggest About Free Will?
People can consciously veto actions ("free won't"), even after unconscious initiation.
Deliberate, meaningful choices seem to involve conscious thought more than impulsive ones.
In complex decisions, early unconscious signals are weaker, suggesting that free will might operate more strongly in reasoned choices.

Final Thought:
Rather than absolute free will or complete determinism, the research suggests a hybrid model—some actions may be initiated unconsciously, but conscious reasoning and vetoing play a key role in shaping outcomes.

Would you like to explore how this connects to philosophy, like compatibilism or determinism?

You said:
Are there any experiments that have been done in neuroscience that seem to indicate that the only possible explanation for their results is the existence of free will?

ChatGPT said:
No, there are currently no neuroscience experiments that unequivocally prove the existence of free will as an independent force beyond deterministic brain processes. Every experiment so far has been compatible with determinism, even if some findings suggest a role for conscious control in decision-making. That said, there are studies that challenge purely mechanistic views of the brain and leave open the possibility that free will might exist in some form.

Experiments That Challenge a Fully Deterministic View
While none of these experiments prove free will, they complicate the determinist narrative and suggest that conscious control may play a real role:

1. Libet’s "Free Won’t" (1983, 2000)
Findings: Even though unconscious brain activity (Readiness Potential) precedes movement, people can consciously veto an action at the last moment.
Why it challenges determinism: If decisions were fully determined, why would the brain generate a movement plan only for consciousness to override it?
Deterministic Counterargument: The veto itself could still be unconsciously determined before the person becomes aware of it.
2. Schultze-Kraft et al. (2016) – Canceling Predicted Movements
Experiment: Using EEG, researchers could predict when participants were about to move, but participants could still stop themselves at the last instant.
Why it challenges determinism: If the movement was already determined, why were participants able to override it?
Deterministic Counterargument: The "veto" signal might itself be just another deterministic process happening within the brain.
3. Maoz et al. (2019) – Conscious Decisions in Meaningful Choices
Experiment: Unlike Libet’s simple wrist flexing, this study involved complex and deliberate decisions.
Findings: The readiness potential (RP) was weaker or absent in meaningful, deliberate choices.
Why it challenges determinism: If all choices were unconsciously determined, we would expect to see the same brain patterns, but the brain seems to behave differently when decisions are made with reasoning.
Deterministic Counterargument: The process may still be unconscious, just distributed across more brain regions.
Why Haven’t We Found Definitive Proof of Free Will?
The Brain is Physical – Neuroscience has yet to find a non-physical force driving decision-making. Everything observed so far involves neuronal activity, which follows known physical laws.

Self-Reports are Unreliable – Most studies on free will rely on self-reported decision times, which can be delayed or inaccurate.

Prediction is Getting Better – Some AI models and brain scans can predict choices seconds in advance, which suggests decisions might not be as "free" as they seem.

Final Thought: The Mystery Remains
While no experiment proves free will, some findings suggest that conscious reasoning plays a real role and may not be entirely reducible to unconscious, deterministic processes. This leaves room for interpretations that aren’t purely deterministic, but the debate is far from settled.

You said:
Is it possible that people in the Libet experiments made the decision to flex their wrists before reporting to have made that decision? In other words, the act of reporting the decision to flex my wrist might be delayed by physical processes that happen before I can give the alert that I made the decision and therefore make it seem like I had made the decision after the readiness potential of the action of flexing my wrist became evident to the EEG? Did the Libert experiments take this into account?

ChatGPT said:
Yes, that is a very insightful question, and indeed, many researchers have raised similar concerns. The possibility that there is a delay between the actual decision to move and the reported time of decision is known as the delay-of-report or subjective-reporting lag problem.

Could reporting the decision be delayed?
Absolutely. The process of reporting a decision involves:

Internal awareness: Becoming consciously aware of the decision to move.
Processing the awareness: Interpreting and preparing to report when the decision was made.
Motor execution: Physically moving the eyes or speaking to indicate when the decision was made.
Each of these steps could introduce delays, making it appear as if the conscious decision occurred later than it actually did.

Did Libet's experiments account for this?
Libet attempted to address this concern by using a fast, rotating clock (with a full revolution in about 2.5 seconds) to help participants report when they felt they had made the decision. However, this method still relies on subjective introspection, which is prone to errors and delays.

Critics argue that the neural processes underlying reporting a decision could be separate from those underlying making the decision, meaning the reported time could be systematically late. Some studies using more refined methods, like direct brain stimulation, suggest that subjective timing of decisions is not as precise as Libet assumed.

Alternative Interpretations:
Pre-conscious decision-making: Some argue that people make the decision before they become aware of having made it, which would explain the delay.
Continuous decision formation: Instead of a sharp moment of decision-making, the choice to move might build up over time, making it difficult to pinpoint exactly when it happened.
The role of attention and perception: Some researchers believe that attention shifts after movement preparation can alter the perceived timing of the decision.
Final Thought:
The Libet experiment remains a cornerstone of the free will debate, but its interpretation is highly contested. Newer research using fMRI and intracranial recordings suggests a more complex and distributed decision-making process in the brain, rather than a simple linear chain from unconscious readiness potential to conscious decision.

Would you like to explore more modern experiments that build on or challenge Libet’s findings?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:54 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:30 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:08 pm
Actually it is the very opposite of what you assert it is.

You can, and you will, characterize my position as it serves you to. You know that I don’t have a problem with that, I hope.

My position though is not one concocted by cowardice but rather circumspection, and — as I said at the start of— elements of my own experience.

Additionally, I submit that some scientists are not convinced by the hard determinism model. Consider that anecdotal if you wish.

The issue of “being” (with all sorts of levels of mystery) is ultimately where my intuition’s fulcrum is located. And I know and we all know what you think of knowledge of that sort!

I am not so much interested in this conversation if it simply turns over and over in the same pattern. Yet you seem to wish to have your understanding validated.

Very well: consider it validated.

Myself, I am far more interested in the implications of having agency than of argumentation that undermines it. That has direct bearing on issues of immediate concern.

Give them a few days, Mike, and pack a suitcase with a few changes of clothes. You will be taken in and refurbished soon!

Ah yes, the classic I’m not retreating, I’m just being circumspect defense. It’s remarkable how conveniently this brand of “circumspection” only ever manifests when faced with conclusions one finds uncomfortable. You see, Alexis, actual intellectual rigor doesn’t involve dancing around hard truths with vague appeals to “experience” and “intuition.” It requires demonstrating why those intuitions hold any weight outside of personal sentiment.

And here we go again with the some scientists aren’t convinced by hard determinism routine. You want to frame it as an ongoing debate among serious thinkers, but let’s be honest: you’re not engaging with the actual science. You’re cherry-picking dissenters who, at best, offer speculative philosophy, not empirical refutations. This isn’t “anecdotal,” it’s grasping at straws. If determinism were on shaky ground, you’d be able to point to an actual competing framework that explains causality without contradiction. But you can’t. Instead, we get this performance of thoughtful skepticism that conveniently avoids the inconvenient task of presenting a viable alternative.

And let’s talk about your obsession with having agency. You want agency, therefore you insist it must be real. That’s the whole game here, isn’t it? This isn’t an argument—it’s a refusal to let go of an emotionally satisfying narrative. But wanting something to be true doesn’t make it so. The implications of determinism are uncomfortable, sure. But the role of reason isn’t to comfort us—it’s to align our understanding with reality, whether we like it or not.

But by all means, keep packing that suitcase of intuition and experience. Just don’t expect it to hold up when reality comes knocking.

The evidence for determinism appears to be compelling. And I'm not aware of any compelling counterevidence to suggest that we have free will. Most of the arguments against determinism seem to revolve around possible room for doubt and not experiments suggesting evidence of free will.

However, I'm curious, what would amount to evidence of free will? What would evidence of free will look like? If the subjects of the Libet experiments had reported making their decision BEFORE the readiness potential was observed building up, would that count as evidence of free will?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:28 pm The burden of proof is on free will, not determinism. Determinism doesn’t require special pleading; it follows naturally from the foundational laws of physics, which have been repeatedly confirmed. Free will, on the other hand, remains an assertion without a mechanism. If someone wants to claim that humans possess an ability to make choices independent of causal influences, they need to do more than point out areas of uncertainty—they need to demonstrate a working model of how that could possibly function.

You said:
Given the experiments mentioned above, what is the probability based on Bayesian logic that human actions are determined?

ChatGPT said:
To estimate the probability that human actions are determined using Bayesian logic, we would need to:

Define Our Prior Probability (Initial Belief)

Before looking at experimental evidence, what is our initial belief about determinism? If we assume a 50% split between determinism and some form of free will, we start with P(Determinism) = 0.5.
Assess the Likelihood of the Evidence Given Determinism

Many experiments (Libet, Soon et al., Schultze-Kraft et al.) provide strong support for determinism: brain activity often predicts decisions before conscious awareness.
However, some findings (like “free won’t” or deliberate decisions) suggest that consciousness plays some role.
Assess the Likelihood of the Evidence Given Free Will

If free will were true, we might expect decisions to originate at the moment of conscious awareness, rather than being preceded by unconscious activity. The fact that unconscious signals often precede decisions makes free will less likely in its traditional sense.
Update Our Probability Using Bayes’ Theorem

Given that most neuroscientific experiments favor determinism but do not entirely rule out conscious intervention, we should increase our probability estimate for determinism but not to 100%.
A Bayesian Estimate
If we initially assign a 50% probability to determinism:

The experimental evidence heavily favors P(Evidence | Determinism) over P(Evidence | Free Will).
A reasonable Bayesian update might increase P(Determinism) to 0.85 - 0.95 (85-95%).
This means that determinism is highly likely based on current neuroscience, but there is still a small chance (5-15%) that free will plays a meaningful role—especially in complex, deliberative choices.

Would You Like a Mathematical Bayesian Calculation?
I can set up an actual Bayes’ theorem equation with hypothetical probability values if you'd like a more rigorous estimate!

Final Thoughts
Determinism is the dominant explanation (~86%), strongly supported by experimental results.
Free will is not ruled out (~14%), but it would likely need a new, non-traditional framework to be viable.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:51 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 11:28 pm The burden of proof is on free will, not determinism. Determinism doesn’t require special pleading; it follows naturally from the foundational laws of physics, which have been repeatedly confirmed. Free will, on the other hand, remains an assertion without a mechanism. If someone wants to claim that humans possess an ability to make choices independent of causal influences, they need to do more than point out areas of uncertainty—they need to demonstrate a working model of how that could possibly function.

That seems to be likely:

You said:
Given the experiments mentioned above, what is the probability based on Bayesian logic that human actions are determined?

ChatGPT said:
To estimate the probability that human actions are determined using Bayesian logic, we would need to:

Define Our Prior Probability (Initial Belief)

Before looking at experimental evidence, what is our initial belief about determinism? If we assume a 50% split between determinism and some form of free will, we start with P(Determinism) = 0.5.
Assess the Likelihood of the Evidence Given Determinism

Many experiments (Libet, Soon et al., Schultze-Kraft et al.) provide strong support for determinism: brain activity often predicts decisions before conscious awareness.
However, some findings (like “free won’t” or deliberate decisions) suggest that consciousness plays some role.
Assess the Likelihood of the Evidence Given Free Will

If free will were true, we might expect decisions to originate at the moment of conscious awareness, rather than being preceded by unconscious activity. The fact that unconscious signals often precede decisions makes free will less likely in its traditional sense.
Update Our Probability Using Bayes’ Theorem

Given that most neuroscientific experiments favor determinism but do not entirely rule out conscious intervention, we should increase our probability estimate for determinism but not to 100%.
A Bayesian Estimate
If we initially assign a 50% probability to determinism:

The experimental evidence heavily favors P(Evidence | Determinism) over P(Evidence | Free Will).
A reasonable Bayesian update might increase P(Determinism) to 0.85 - 0.95 (85-95%).
This means that determinism is highly likely based on current neuroscience, but there is still a small chance (5-15%) that free will plays a meaningful role—especially in complex, deliberative choices.

Would You Like a Mathematical Bayesian Calculation?
I can set up an actual Bayes’ theorem equation with hypothetical probability values if you'd like a more rigorous estimate!

Not 100% but 85% on the low end seems uneasily dismissed. when I asked the AI to do a more rigorous calculation, it gave it to me but when I try to paste the steps, things get extremely out of format. But here's the conclusion:

Final Thoughts
Determinism is the dominant explanation (~86%), strongly supported by experimental results.
Free will is not ruled out (~14%), but it would likely need a new, non-traditional framework to be viable.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 12:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 1:06 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 11:49 am

Henry, justice is a concept that your brainmind creates. There is no need to deny the existence of the brain and there is no need to deny the existence of the mind. Brain and mind are the same thing .

Are they?

When was this UNCOVERED and FOUND OUT BY 'humanity', EXACTLY?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 11:49 am Your brain is what a neurosurgeon can see and feel: your mind is what you and you alone can feel.

WHAT?

Talk about just CONTRADICTORY "yourself" in two sentences and CLAIMS.

you SAY and CLAIM that, 'brain' AND 'mind' are the SAME thing. HOWEVER, you ALSO SAY and CLAIM that ONLY the 'brain' can be seen and felt when the skull is cut open.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 11:49 am These are not separate but are the same thing (called Henry's 'brainmind') from different points of view.

Talk ABOUT ANOTHER PRIME example of WHY these human beings, here, took SO, SO LONG TO ALSO UNCOVER and SEE what the ACTUAL Truth of things IS, here, EXACTLY.

Spinoza explained brain and mind are two aspects of the same . 1661-1675.The book in which Spinoza explained this is called "Ethics".

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 12:46 pm When the "skull is cut open" the brain is perceived by the surgeon to be an object. When "the skull is cut open" The patient usually knows what is happening but can't directly perceive any pain or cognitive effects so the operation as it happens does not directly affect the patient .

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.

You might be interested to know that I am a mathematician, and Bayesian inference is one of many useful tools in the mathematical toolbox. It’s not just some fancy statistical trick; it’s a structured way to update probabilities in light of new evidence, making it an essential method in science, machine learning, and decision-making under uncertainty.

The reason Bayesian logic is so heavily used in the sciences is that it allows us to refine our understanding as data accumulates—exactly what we’ve been discussing in relation to determinism. With every experiment confirming the predictive nature of brain activity before conscious awareness, the probability of determinism being correct only increases.

Of course, no single method is a magic bullet, but Bayesian inference is one of the most reliable ways to quantify uncertainty and track how evidence strengthens or weakens a hypothesis. And right now, the hypothesis of determinism is looking stronger than ever.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:03 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.

You might be interested to know that I am a mathematician, and Bayesian inference is one of many useful tools in the mathematical toolbox. It’s not just some fancy statistical trick; it’s a structured way to update probabilities in light of new evidence, making it an essential method in science, machine learning, and decision-making under uncertainty.

The reason Bayesian logic is so heavily used in the sciences is that it allows us to refine our understanding as data accumulates—exactly what we’ve been discussing in relation to determinism. With every experiment confirming the predictive nature of brain activity before conscious awareness, the probability of determinism being correct only increases.

Of course, no single method is a magic bullet, but Bayesian inference is one of the most reliable ways to quantify uncertainty and track how evidence strengthens or weakens a hypothesis. And right now, the hypothesis of determinism is looking stronger than ever.

What is your expert opinion of the calculation that ChatGPT gave me? Does it look like a reasonably good application of Bayesian logic, are you able to tell?

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:09 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:03 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:47 am

You might be interested to know that I am a mathematician, and Bayesian inference is one of many useful tools in the mathematical toolbox. It’s not just some fancy statistical trick; it’s a structured way to update probabilities in light of new evidence, making it an essential method in science, machine learning, and decision-making under uncertainty.

The reason Bayesian logic is so heavily used in the sciences is that it allows us to refine our understanding as data accumulates—exactly what we’ve been discussing in relation to determinism. With every experiment confirming the predictive nature of brain activity before conscious awareness, the probability of determinism being correct only increases.

Of course, no single method is a magic bullet, but Bayesian inference is one of the most reliable ways to quantify uncertainty and track how evidence strengthens or weakens a hypothesis. And right now, the hypothesis of determinism is looking stronger than ever.

What is your expert opinion of the calculation that ChatGPT gave me? Does it look like a reasonably good application of Bayesian logic, are you able to tell?

Yes, assuming an initial 50/50 split between determinism and free will is a neutral starting point, but personally, I would have placed the prior probability of determinism much higher than 50%. The fundamental laws of physics—conservation laws, the four fundamental interactions, and everything we know about causality—already overwhelmingly favor determinism before we even introduce neuroscience into the equation.

So while Bayesian updating is useful for refining probability estimates based on new evidence, in this case, the real question is: why start at 50%? Given that there has never been a single confirmed instance of something—anything—acting independently of causal influence, a more reasonable a priori estimate for determinism would be significantly higher.

As for the Bayesian calculation itself, without going into the specifics of ChatGPT's probability assignments, the general structure looks sound. It correctly accounts for the likelihood of experimental findings given determinism versus given free will. However, what really matters is that as more experiments accumulate, this probability will only shift further in favor of determinism—just like how conservation laws have been confirmed over and over again. And since free will still lacks any demonstrable mechanism, its probability should asymptotically approach zero.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.