>>11696727Why not? Trying to convince people is just another link in the causal net. The fact that people can be 'convinced' in no way suggests free will, it just means that communication from others is one of the environmental factors that shapes them.
>>11696830>doesn't matter if we massively underestimate the importance of genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning>it's unknowable so don't waste time talking about it, but here I am and I have gnosis of g*d btw>you should devote your apparent free will to the servitude of an omnipotent & omniscient deityI applaud your gift of obliviousness.
>>11696568All this indicates is that it is possible for some impulses (some kind of psychological satisfaction, for instance) to overwhelm survival instinct, and that people can be conditioned to 're-prioritize' their impulses. This is supported by the fact that the behaviours you describe are vanishingly rare, especially in people who are neurotypical (whereas we may expect relatively 'odd' seeming behaviours from genetic outliers, diseased/injured people and those conditioned by intensive regimens who are neurally atypical as a result).
>>11697003Problem with the thought experiment is that the computer doesn't factor in how informing you of its prediction impacts your behaviour, despite that being an obvious variable. It would have to either inform you of predictions so briefly before they occur that you have no time to respond (or constantly revise them until that point), or just hide predictions until after they were predicted to happen.
Honestly a bit disappointing, /sci/. I've seen less cope in /lit/ threads about 'free will' and that place is chock full of mystics. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when even dudes like Dennett make pathetic compatibilist arguments... I guess some cows are just too sacred.
