/lit/ - Literature

>>20228212
>Sure, but they're still choosing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain#Visual_test

They *claim* they do.

>This subpoint was initially about the ability to discern appearances from reality.
Can you, if you can't even tell that 'your' choices are 'your own'?

>How is that remotely a comparable analogy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism
I don't need to believe in "good/bad" categories, to observe someone performing "good/bad"-talk.

>An abstract thought experiment is not experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_rationality
It is a manual for any "choice architector" on how to tweak an environment.

>He's fully on board with the notion that we're not "disembodied reason machines."
I never claimed we are. I claimed, you have to think you are, if you gurgle things like "good" or "bad" as if they exist.
>You can train them in the long-term.
You can change environment in the short-term.