[pdonis]

> why is my outcome not worse for believing I don't have free will?

You still don't get it. Your brain is doing the thing that I call "making choices", but which I called "causal processes" because you have trouble with words like "choices", whether you believe in free will or not. Those causal processes in your brain have a significant effect on your outcomes, whether you believe in free will or not. And how much of an effect the causal processes in your brain have on your outcomes, as compared with the effect that causal processes in other people's brains have on your outcomes, which is the thing I have said is important, has little or nothing to do directly with whether you or anyone else "believes in free will". It does have to do with whether you and other people respect other people's right to make choices, which I have also said is important.

[Layke1123]

But the has nothing to do with the idea that one has free will, only that I exhibit behavior that allows you to pursue your own desires, I.E I'm not actively harming you or putting you into prison. Redefine what free will means all you want, it doesn't make your arguments any more true.

[pdonis]

> I exhibit behavior that allows you to pursue your own desires

Okay, then please don't rearrange my brain, even if you think it would "improve" some "deficiency" of mine. If we're agreed on that, then I'm good.

[Layke1123]

I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it.

One day we will do the same with thought cancers and viruses I am sure.

[pdonis]

> I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it.

With my consent, or without it?

Does that make a difference to you? It does to me. If it does to you, we probably agree more than it seems like we do from this discussion.

But if consent doesn't matter to you, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think any amount of discussion will resolve.

[Layke1123]

Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would.

If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure.

When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutely. Some things do not, like resuscitating a person if you are an EMT and sworn to do no harm. Consent isn't the end all be all of the debate, not by a long shot.

For example, do you ask the murder to consent to going to jail or do you put the murderer in jail against their will?

[pdonis]

> Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would.

Am I not even aware of it because I'm unconscious and incapacitated, and you're asking the consent of someone else who is empowered (say by my medical power of attorney) to give consent on my behalf?

Or am I not even aware of it because you have a stealthy way of doing it that I can't perceive even though I'm conscious?

I suspect it's the latter, but I'd like you to confirm.

> If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure.

Is this because you think it's important that I consent to the procedure, or just because our limited technology of today won't let you do it in a way I can't perceive at all?

Again, I suspect it's the latter, but I'd like you to confirm.

> When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutely. Some things do not, like resuscitating a person if you are an EMT and sworn to do no harm.

Oh, so you do think consent is important in some cases? Then where do you draw the line? I get the EMT resuscitating a person, that's an easy case--but it's an easy case because there is a default presumption that if the person were able to consent to being resuscitated, they would. But you are also saying (I think--see above) that you would cure my brain cancer without my consent if you could. Where's the line between that and you not being willing to alter my brain so I like vanilla instead of chocolate?

> do you ask the murder to consent to going to jail or do you put the murderer in jail against their will?

The murderer has already harmed others. That's where I am drawing the line about when consent is no longer required to imprison them.