Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

Because it implies that we only behave based on how we feel, not how we think. The thinking part is an illusion. Therefore, our “consciousness” has no effect on how we behave.

I’m not willing to die on this hill by the way so if someone else comes along and argues otherwise, I’m open to other ideas.

Thinking isnt even a path to "free will". Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus just like feeling is.

> The thinking part is an illusion.

Except for this part of thinking, paradoxically.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer to?

Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?

Just because you're reliant on words to think doesn't mean others are.

Language certainly helps shape thoughts, even to the extent that, certainly for older kids and adults, different languages influence and constrain thought in different ways.

But consider dreams. These are adjacent to thoughts, and don't require language. Some dreamers are even able to express will not only on their actions, but over the dream itself. And if proof were needed of a conscious agent, it's there even in an apparently unconscious being.

Turn it around. How would "consciousness" manifest if we behave based on how we think, not how we feel? You meed to prove the opposite too.

There is not a prerequisite of it being either or but I guess it is both.

"Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like.

"Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.

Influence != Determine

It only implies that some people think (or perceive thinking) differently.

There's alien hand syndrome in split-brain people, where the verbal hemisphere will invent its own confidently incorrect explanation of "why I just did that" when the non-verbal hemisphere does something with the hand it controls. And there's Marvin Minsky's society of mind. But none of this undermines free will, it just means the will is a function of lots of components, only some of which are involved in contemplative thought (and not necessarily verbally).

How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Behaviorism was found wanting because it didn't account properly for goes on between the ears. And the rest of the body, which makes us individuals. The idea of free will comes from the fact that people do make different choices. We make different choices than our past selves did. From a compatibilist perspective, one could say free will comes from being part of determining what goes on. Things don't just happen to us. We participate in what does happen. We're not simply puppets on the string of the external world. We're just as much a part of causing things as everything else is.

How are all of these measured?

Theres actually a ton of different ways. The most obvious is probably MRIs of which many have been conducted with the subject having a huge variety of different stimulus. Then theres the good old fashioned behavioral studies ranging from the classic "does the subject jerk their hand back in the presence of heat?" to the more recent hungry judge phenomenon.

I wouldnt think the fairly self evident assertion that exterior stimulus changes both the internal state of a person as well as their behavior would be controversial.

At this point in history "free will" is really just the god of the gaps and those gaps shrink every year. Its probably a useful religious concept but as far as reality goes its the least interesting question one could ask about the whole human experience.

Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.

> How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus?

Because, and this may shock you: we are not all the same person

You make an excellent point that people respond differently to a given stimulus. This is explained by those people having had different genetics, environments, upbringings and even breakfasts leading up to the point of the test. It has been demonstrated that your metabolic state will vastly change your response to stimuli throughout a day.

I ate something different for breakfast today than yesterday because one sounded tastier than the other. I made this decision not because I have an eternal soul making randomized decisions like a roulette machine but because yesterday I craved salty food and today yogurt sounded better. I am different person today than I was yesterday. My gut, brain and everything else has been changed by all the stimulus I experienced yesterday and is now influencing my responses today.

Did you remember to check/contemplate whether your "measurements" are correct?

This seems like a rather recursively self-referential problem.

Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly change the game up.

Im not really sure what you mean here, could you elaborate?

Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though.

Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.

Well, above you seem to be describing "how things are". What if what you're describing is not the things themselves, but rather only a model of the things?

Like, where are the details of how you are "measuring" these things? And what measurement instrument returns values like "is clearly" and "is really just"? I can think of only one.

Still not entirely sure what exactly youre getting at here.

Yes what I am describing is my opinion which I have formed from looking at evidence. My opinion isnt really a measurement in the sense that one can measure activity in parts of a brain with an MRI. It is really just the state of the system.

I'm not really interested in abstract epistemological definitions of free will because they arent useful in the way that neurology psychology and biology are generally. I am interested in predicting or explaining behavior or observations mostly. You might be interested in that kind of exploration which is great! If you think it does have bearing on such things I am totally interested in hearing how.

> Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable.

Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs:

1.Thinking isn't even a path to "free will".

2a. Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus

2b. just like feeling is.

Note: a definition for "determined by" (in percentage of total causality) would be required in the specification, as would a non-ambiguous definition for "just like".

> Yes what I am describing is my opinion

Have you an opinion on whether your opinion is necessarily true?

> If you think it does have bearing on such things I am totally interested in hearing how.

I happen to believe humans have > 0 free will, and that if we do it derives from cognition, at least primarily. If this is the case, I believe that it would be advantageous to be able to exert control over cognition on demand. I also believe that doing something often requires trying to do it, and that if one doesn't think something can be done, it decreases the chances that one will try to do it, in turn decreasing the chances that it gets done.

I believe this to be > 0 "true", and that it has extremely broad applicability.

So yeah I dont disagree with you that attempting to exert control over oneself is a desirable thing or that it generally results in things that wouldnt have happened if one didnt work to have control over ones cognition, behavior etc. This isn't at all at odds with my deterministic view in my opinion.

I guess what I am asking is what is causing you to exert control over cognition? I would say its the sum of too many variables to count (including previous states of the system) acting on you to cause you, the system to be in such a state that that is just what it does. Given enough time and resources we could probably come up with a half decent accounting of the most important of those variables and be able to explain why the system is doing a given thing. In this example that means explaining why the system is modifying its own state in some way. What would you say is the cause?

> Have you an opinion on whether your opinion is necessarily true?

Yes my opinion is that my opinion is likely true as I believe it is supported by evidence. I would bet on it but I am not certain about it.

> Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs

No. I think this statement is a conclusion only indirectly supported by scientific fact. This is a logical leap from more and more behaviors and internal states being correlated with various external stimulus over time. I believe it only a matter of time until it becomes entirely possible (though silly and will likely not be done because it only serves to prove a foregone conclusion and would be a unfathomably huge undertaking) to provide a complete accounting of all the factors that influence a system bringing it to the state where it reacts in a given way to some stimulus.

The only other conclusion I can see is that human beings are not deterministic and there is some magical spark IE everlasting soul making randomized decisions for us.

> I think this statement is a conclusion only indirectly supported by scientific fact.

Can you expand on this "supported by" scientific fact? Is it something more than is not inconsistent with, and more towards must be, necessarily?

> ...or that it generally results in things that wouldnt have happened if one didnt work to have control over ones cognition, behavior etc. This isn't at all at odds with my deterministic view in my opinion.

Can you explain how it is not? As I see it, my theory is directly breaking out of determinism.

> I guess what I am asking is what is causing you to exert control over cognition?

Consciousness (self-awareness, will & determination, etc...the "how" of which I make no claims of knowledge about). I absolutely agree that it is substantially out of our control and thus at least semi-deterministic, where we would differ (at least) is on the 100% part.

There are many problems, here are some:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard%27s_syndrome