Revolution in Thought

[Eodnhoj7]

No idea what you are on about. I was referencing a famous economic theory that doesn't even pretend to describe the real world, let alone discuss determinism in any way. It's there for the purpose of gross simplification, which is what the book under discussion also does, albeit without acknowledgment because the author lacks that sort of self awareness. RCT briefly explains human decision making, assuming in the process that all decisions are oriented towards a specific goal or desire, which is sort of obviously not true.

You rarely know what is going on. The book observes that human decision making is a deterministic framework, even the basic choice paradigm requires a base dualism (2) that is not subject to choice.

Which book? The one by Seymour Lessans in which the author apparently doesn't know what rational choice theory is. Or one of the many economics books such as Richard Posner's Economic Analysis of Law that use it? I ask, because the latter certainly does not posit any "preconfigured dualism determining choice" and the former does not even contain the phrase "rational choice theory". So when you wrote "Actually rational choice theory necessitates a preconfigured dualism determining choice" you were bullshitting either way.

You are far too desperate to impress. Stop being pretentious. You belong here https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

It doesn't matter, base choose always requires a basic yes/no dichotomy....unless you know so much you can't see otherwise.

Save the pretentious remarks, a year ago you wanted to stroke my dick, a "cow" is pretentious to a wannabe intellectual trash like you.

Please continue with your explanation of choice "without" a basic yes/no dualism premised in a deterministic quantification.

[henry quirk]

"Please know that this 15 pages (pages 45-60) explains why man's will is not free."

No worries: that's exactly my interest here.

As I say: I read this weekend and comment after.

[henry quirk]

"The subject is instructed to signal WHEN they have decided which button they will press as soon as they become aware/cognisant of their own decision."

Libet's work (and the replications of his work) is solid, but not even he claims the 'anticipatory impulse' or 'state of readiness' negates or blunts the possibility of free will.

[peacegirl]

"The subject is instructed to signal WHEN they have decided which button they will press as soon as they become aware/cognisant of their own decision."

Libet's work (and the replications of his work) is solid, but not even he claims the 'anticipatory impulse' or 'state of readiness' negates or blunts the possibility of free will.

There is a problem with this. It assumes the person (the agent) has no responsibility in the choice made because it was made 7 seconds earlier. Therefore it wasn't a conscious decision. This presents a serious problem for our present legal system to deal with, for without the consent of the agent, how can he be prosecuted? Can they prosecute his brain for deciding to kill someone before the conscious decision to do it was even made?

[Arising_uk]

Hi everyone, I am introducing a discovery that was made in 1959. The discoverer was never able to bring his discovery to light as he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. It's has been over 50 years since this finding was made, yet this knowledge has never been given the attention it deserves. Sadly, the author passed away in 1991. This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism. It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

What? Again!!

[-1-]

"The subject is instructed to signal WHEN they have decided which button they will press as soon as they become aware/cognisant of their own decision."

Libet's work (and the replications of his work) is solid, but not even he claims the 'anticipatory impulse' or 'state of readiness' negates or blunts the possibility of free will.

There is a problem with this. It assumes the person (the agent) has no responsibility in the choice made because it was made 7 seconds earlier. Therefore it wasn't a conscious decision. This presents a serious problem for our present legal system to deal with, for without the consent of the agent, how can he be prosecuted? Can they prosecute his brain for deciding to kill someone before the conscious decision to do it was even made?

I thought it was the machine that predicted the agent's decision seven seconds before the agent came out with it. This does not mean that the agent made the decision seven seconds earlier. It means that the machine predicted correctly what it will be. Therefore the argument "he decided to kill someone before his conscious decision was made" is false. It had been predicted what his conscious decision would be, but he only decided to kill when the decision by him had been made consciously.

Did I understand this falsely?

[Logik]

"The subject is instructed to signal WHEN they have decided which button they will press as soon as they become aware/cognisant of their own decision."

Libet's work (and the replications of his work) is solid, but not even he claims the 'anticipatory impulse' or 'state of readiness' negates or blunts the possibility of free will.

Ok, but if choice happens before awareness-of-choice your conception of free will is incoherent.

Science has never claimed the impossibility of God either.

[peacegirl]

Hi everyone, I am introducing a discovery that was made in 1959. The discoverer was never able to bring his discovery to light as he was not a member of a leading university, and held no distinguishing titles. It's has been over 50 years since this finding was made, yet this knowledge has never been given the attention it deserves. Sadly, the author passed away in 1991. This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism. It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.

What? Again!!

What is that supposed to mean?

[peacegirl]

"The subject is instructed to signal WHEN they have decided which button they will press as soon as they become aware/cognisant of their own decision."

Libet's work (and the replications of his work) is solid, but not even he claims the 'anticipatory impulse' or 'state of readiness' negates or blunts the possibility of free will.

There is a problem with this. It assumes the person (the agent) has no responsibility in the choice made because it was made 7 seconds earlier. Therefore it wasn't a conscious decision. This presents a serious problem for our present legal system to deal with, for without the consent of the agent, how can he be prosecuted? Can they prosecute his brain for deciding to kill someone before the conscious decision to do it was even made?

I thought it was the machine that predicted the agent's decision seven seconds before the agent came out with it. This does not mean that the agent made the decision seven seconds earlier. It means that the machine predicted correctly what it will be. Therefore the argument "he decided to kill someone before his conscious decision was made" is false. It had been predicted what his conscious decision would be, but he only decided to kill when the decision by him had been made consciously.

Did I understand this falsely?

How can it be that a prediction can be made 7 seconds earlier without the possibility of that decision changing within that 7 seconds. It would be the agent's conscious decision to pull the trigger, whether or not the machine (his brain) had predicted what he will do in advance. The agent (the 'I') is still responsible for making the choice, whatever the choice happens to be, because he has to give permission to act upon what he is contemplating. Most choices are benign. What most people are concerned about in regard to the free will/determinism debate is the issue over moral responsibility, as I already mentioned.

[Logik]

How can it be that a prediction can be made 7 seconds earlier without the possibility of that decision changing within that 7 seconds.

Your brain is playing apologetics.

The experiment predicted what the person is going to DO. Not what the person is going to SAY.

This is the timeline of the experiment design:

T(0): Machine predicts that the subject will push one of two buttons (A or B). Prediction is NOT relayed to subject.
T(7): Test subject reveals that they have made a choice, but does NOT reveal WHAT the choice is.
T(10): Test subject reveals their choice by pushing button A or B.

The button the machine predicted corresponds with the button the subject pushed.

Where is the "free will" here?

[peacegirl]

How can it be that a prediction can be made 7 seconds earlier without the possibility of that decision changing within that 7 seconds.

Your brain is playing apologetics.

The experiment predicted what the person is going to DO. Not what the person is going to SAY.

This is the timeline of the experiment design:

T(0): Machine predicts that the subject will push one of two buttons (A or B). Prediction is NOT relayed to subject.
T(7): Test subject reveals that they have made a choice, but does NOT reveal WHAT the choice is.
T(10): Test subject reveals their choice by pushing button A or B.

The button the machine predicted corresponds with the button the subject pushed.

Where is the "free will" here?

My rebuttal still remains. A prediction by the machine can be made —- and the test subject may choose the button that was predicted —- but within the gap of 7 seconds a person could decide not to choose the predicted choice. Therefore the implication that the person is not responsible because the prediction was made before he was aware and therefore not responsible is flawed.

[Logik]

within the gap of 7 seconds a person could decide not to choose the predicted choice.

The test subject does NOT know what the prediction is.
Neither at the 0-second mark, nor at the 7-second mark, nor at the 10 second mark.

All the test subject knows is that the machine predicted SOMETHING.

At the 7 second mark the person could've chosen A, then between 7 and 8 switched their choice from A to B.
Then between 8 and 9 switched their choice from B to A again.
And then one last switch at 10 to try and confuse the machine.

The button they pushed despite their flip-flopping and contrarianism, is the button the machine predicted.

Therefore the implication that the person is not responsible because the prediction was made before he was aware and therefore not responsible is flawed.

Your reasoning is flawed. Not the implication.

I would recommend Introspection at this very moment. That unpleasant feeling of confusion and rebellion you are experiencing right now is called cognitive dissonance.

[peacegirl]

within the gap of 7 seconds a person could decide not to choose the predicted choice.

At the 7 second mark the person does not know what was predicted.
The person only knows that they have made a choice. To the best of their knowledge - that is their own, free choice!

At the 7 second mark the person could've chosen A, then between 7 and 8 switched their choice from A to B.
Then between 8 and 9 switched their choice from B to A again.
And then one last switch at 10 to try and confuse the machine.

The button they pushed despite their contrarianism, is the button the machine guessed.

The prediction by the machine could be accurate by changes in the person’s neurophysiology. But again the person is doing the choosing. That’s what I’m trying to establish.

Therefore the implication that the person is not responsible because the prediction was made before he was aware and therefore not responsible is flawed.

Your reasoning is flawed. Not the implication.

So if the machine guesses accurately 100 % of the time what a person will do, where does that absolve him of responsibility for having made the choice?

[Logik]

The prediction by the machine could be accurate by changes in the person’s neurophysiology. But again the person is doing the choosing. That’s what I’m trying to establish.

So if the machine guesses accurately 100 % of the time what a person will do, where does that absolve him of responsibility?

Ugh.

The entire legal system is built on the ASSUMPTION of agency. The ASSUMPTION that we have control over our choices.

To hold somebody responsible for something they have no control over is a choice YOU make. Not a choice they make.

You are just playing the blame-game. Somebody MUST be guilty! It's a witch hunt.

[peacegirl]

The prediction by the machine could be accurate by changes in the person’s neurophysiology. But again the person is doing the choosing. That’s what I’m trying to establish.

So if the machine guesses accurately 100 % of the time what a person will do, where does that absolve him of responsibility?

Ugh.

The entire legal system is built on the ASSUMPTION of agency. The ASSUMPTION that we have control over our choices.

To hold somebody responsible for something they have no control over is a choice YOU make. Not a choice they make.

I’m not sure what you mean “is a choice you make” not a choice they make.”

You are just playing the blame-game. Somebody MUST be guilty! It's a witch hunt.

You’re correct, it’s not the best system but the only one we got at this time. That’s why I’m trying to bring this discovery to light because there’s a better way!