I’d need a definition of “recursive reasoning” and “beforehand”.
I’d have just interpreted “recursive reasoning” to mean “taking into account the predicted results of this decision and predicted future decisions”, but by that metric any good chess-playing algorithm can pass.
I’d have interpreted “beforehand” to mean “before the sensory data making this decision necessary are experienced”, but by that metric I can usually say “yes”; you need a stronger interpretation like “before the sensory data making this decision necessary are all known” before the problem becomes intractable. Yes, I know there are calculations whose results can only be predicted by just running the calculation, but that’s (at least metaphorically) what I do: just run the calculation ahead of time.
I’m not sure if this makes me (a compatibilist) a counter-example or not. You did say “YYYN”=>”belief in free will”, not the converse.
I’d need a definition of “recursive reasoning” and “beforehand”.
I’d have just interpreted “recursive reasoning” to mean “taking into account the predicted results of this decision and predicted future decisions”, but by that metric any good chess-playing algorithm can pass.
I’d have interpreted “beforehand” to mean “before the sensory data making this decision necessary are experienced”, but by that metric I can usually say “yes”; you need a stronger interpretation like “before the sensory data making this decision necessary are all known” before the problem becomes intractable. Yes, I know there are calculations whose results can only be predicted by just running the calculation, but that’s (at least metaphorically) what I do: just run the calculation ahead of time.
I’m not sure if this makes me (a compatibilist) a counter-example or not. You did say “YYYN”=>”belief in free will”, not the converse.