3 ms·
My point is that this device proves more than non-existence of free will. It requires inability to react to visual stimulus within 1 second timeframe. I mean I
by praptak 6y ago
My point is that this device proves more than non-existence of free will. It requires inability to react to visual stimulus within 1 second timeframe.
I mean I can construct a robot which does the same - moves its arm towards the button and only stops when either the button is pressed or the light comes on.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoYou say you can construct such robot, but in fact, you can't. That's because if you could, then it would cause a paradox with a predictor. So you can't (though it may be fun watching you try). Don't mess with time travel.
- hvdfhbj 6y agoI spent way too long thinking about this and getting annoyed before remembering that Predictors aren't real.
- jerome-jh 6y agoThey are real and this is the future of advertising.
- praptak 6y agoMy point exactly - the existence of the Predictor proves more than lack of free will. It's lack of free will, so we are automatons that respond to stimuli in a deterministic way, sure. But there are also some strong restrictions on the set of reactions that are allowed, for example none of them can lead to a functioning counter-predictor robot.