somebody wrote:
>> Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.
> 
> I was more concerned about the degree of confidence, or maybe correlation.

I'm pretty sure you're 100% certain that you know when you've made a 
decision which button to push. :-)

As for how often the MRI disagrees with the eventual button push, I don't 
know, but apparently not very often.

>>> but it's pretty common to predict other
>>> people's decisions and reactions.
> 
>> Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2."  This isn't
>> really what most people would call a "decision."
> 
> Why? That's the least of human faculties. 

Because there's no external information on which you could base your 
analysis.  If you tell me you can confidently predict whether your spouse 
will enjoy a particular christmas present, sure. If you tell me you can 
confidently win every hand of scissors-paper-stone with your spouse because 
you know that person so well, I'll ask to see proof.

> If we define free will as 

I haven't defined free will as anything.

> But therein lies the problem - how can we define it so it's meaningful if
> both deterministic and probabilistic decisions are out?

JOOST.  Jump Out Of The System.  It's usually useful in these circumstances.

Free will isn't about making decisions. It's about knowledge.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message