|
|
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
|
|