Touche - the prediction mechanism, the event, then the
Inhibition before the N400 then the N400.*
It's true, we're never "in" the present moment. Quite impossible
due to our machinery.*
I tend towards seeing these kinds of things as hysteresis; and
the lag is critical to take into account.
But let's consider the anticipation-based-on-past-inputs/the
action/the inhibition/the n400 "circuit" as a single processing
unit.
I still don't see how the existence of the lag invalidates free
will. We make changes to resolve cognitive dissonance, either to
our outer environment or to our "inner" environment. [try to
change what's around us, or restructuring our beliefs/ideas in
some fashion] generally... yet we also hold contradictory
beliefs simultaneously with ease most of the time.
The thing about this: It all makes sense. I see us as state
machines - anticipation machines; driving through life
experiencing Time as if driving forward while looking backwards
and SHOCKED when a rock comes crashing through the mirror which
we thought was a window...
... yet it doesn't, for me, invalidate free will.
In short, it's a nice story to conclude there's no free will
except the sociological consequences would be absolutely
dreadful should a society decide en masse that "yes, there is no
free will". Courts? Poof gone. Reasoning? Why bother?
To me, since we CAN'T PREDICT with any sort of accuracy all
possible choices of a person, it's far TOO SOON to declare free
will doesn't exist.*
I couldn't recommend to anyone that we have no free will because
all of these subtle nuances will be completely lost on most
people, even if explained.
It would be disasterous for a society to believe they have no
free will. Dreadful.*
Also, you have to consider that it is the VERY SAME supposedly
determinate systems that built the machines to measure the lag
to provide the determination that we have no free will.*
I still content that "there is no free will" is an interesting
fairy tale backed by a nice story filled with neural circuitry
measured in laboratory conditions isolated from reality.
We do not know enough about the brain for this level of
certainty. It remains a fairy tale to my ears, one that is
somewhat inspirational and freeing, but a story nonetheless.
Certainty is also an illusion. It is an emotional state. Reason
is an illusion for the same reason. Can't have reason without an
emotional push. Yet we still have to act 'as if' these things
are true, just as we have to act 'as if' free will is true
because from a pragmatic perspective, it's true. The
distinctions only need come into play in certain circumstances.
Apologies for bringing seemingly unrelated things into it. It's
a subject I'm passionate about because overconfidence in a
deterministic Universe is a very bad thing.
