Yes, it seems that he either has to argue that we would feel different, which obviously we don't, or that we wouldn't feel different and therefore have no reason to care if we are free or not. It's a lose-lose argument.

There is a reason to care, for as Kant pointed out, without free will, ethical judgments are a sham. As he wrote, "Ought implies can".

It sounds like you're saying that I don't have free will and if someone tapped me with a magic wand to give me free will I wouldn't feel any different at all. If that's the case, why would I even care? What good is a new pair of glasses that look and feel exactly like the old pair?

But what has any of that to do with it? Why should I have to convince you of anything? I just gave you an argument. Deal with it.

If I did not have free will I would feel (I guess) that I was compelled to do things I did not want to do. Perhaps like an obsessive compulsive. I don't feel that way. Do you?

Yes. It feels the same. Are you saying if we all were in a dream machine, it would not be worth knowing because it would feel the same?

What could I do differently with this knowledge? Could I escape it? Could I fly around like Neo? Could the knowledge have any possible observable implications at all? If not, then aside from a bit of trivia, it's irrelevant. It's about as worth knowing as how many grains of sand are on the beach. Interesting but pointless.

It's like telling me that the money in my pocket is counterfeit but done so in a way that is physically impossible to detect. If that's the case, aside from questions of how you could possibly know that, if I can still spend the money and not get in trouble, why would I care? What has changed?

I agree. But this would be the case for most of science. It's trivia. What are the implications of string theory for your life?

That doesn't address the assumption that we wouldn't feel any different. That's the context in which I said we wouldn't care.

String theory isn't science yet. Bad example. Take general relativity instead. In fact, I depend on it everyday. The GPS satellites that my car uses to figure out my position would give me incorrect times if they didn't apply general relativity. That's not just trivia. That's something I need to get around quickly.

Why would you know that you are not compelled to do these things? Maybe you are just not aware that you are compelled to do them. Imagine a obsessive compulsive who does not know he is obsessive compulsive.

Hmmm... What do you mean by string theory isn't science yet? If it isn't a working theory yet, it's not science? Then all that money that governments spend on science which never ends up being a theory isn't science? That's a bit of a convenient way to define away wasted money and only have successes count as science.
If this seems off-topic I will explain the connection in a minute.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 04:56 PM ----------

It's a bit like saying that McDonalds isn't real food because it is so unhealthy, therefore your daily meals there don't count as diet, ergo you diet is really healthy.

I was answering your question as to now would I feel any different. I told you. I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive. Your question, how would I know I was not OC is answered by my question, why would you think I was if you had no evidence that I was. How would you know that you are not an Extra-terrestrial from outer space? I guess the answer is that you have no good reason to suppose that you are. You are committing the fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance). It does not follow from the fact that you don't know that you are not an ET, that you might be an ET. That is just a fallacious argument.

1. A does not know he isn't an alien from outer space.

Therefore, 2. He might be an alien from outer space.

Fallacy. Argument from ignorance.

Most scientists don't consider it science because it hasn't made any testable predictions. It might be science one day but it's not fair to hold it up as an example of something that isn't relevant to my life specifically because of the fact that it hasn't made anything we can test for. There's no evidence to support it rather than alternatives. It would be dishonest to make an argument based on string theory rather than quantum mechanics or relativity.

But the methods by which it is reached are scientific. In that sense it is science. How can you say that the 'knowledge' that free will isn't real is just trivia, yet string theory is valuable?

I would argue that it's the other way around.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will has to be explained, not the absence of it.

1. A does not know he does not have free will.

Therefore, 2. He has free will.

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 05:22 PM ----------

There is no evidence to support string theory simply because it hasn't made any testable predictions. There are mountains of evidence for relativity and quantum mechanics. As I said, it's dishonest to use string theory as an example.

Testability is a necessary condition for an explanation to be science?

I don't understand that stone argument. Why if stones have no free will, do we have to explain why people do? That seems to me just a non sequitur. It's like saying that since snakes have no fingers, we have to explain why people do have fingers. I would not know what to make of that argument.

The other argument, as I pointed out, commits the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up.

You are misunderstanding the argument from ignorance. It's not a fallacy to assume the non-existence of something, such as that of free will. It is a fallacy to assume the existence of something, like free will, unless there is an argument against it. That argument is from ignorance, not mine. You are saying, that you are not a obsessive compulsive (i.e. don't have free will), because if you were, you would know. - "I would feel like an obsessive-compulsive."
But how do you know that you would know? Because you know?

No. I am saying that for you to argue that I may be an obsessive-compulsive because there is no evidence that I am not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy. If I did not know, then others would know, and they could tell me, because there would be evidence that I was. Unless there is evidence that I am, it is just gratuitous to say that I may be OC anyway. That simply would mean that it is not impossible that I am not. But the argument, it is not impossible that you are not OC therefore you may be OC is preposterous. Ir is not impossible that you are an ET, therefore you may be an ET is also preposterous.

No it's not. Arguing that you have free will because there is no evidence that you do not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy.
"Having OC" is just another way of saying "not having free will", just as a positive. Assuming the non-existence of something through ignorance is not a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a positive. Assuming the existence of something is a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a negative.

Here's an analogy of what you are doing: The existence of "God" is the opposite of the existence of "no God".
There is no evidence for the existence of "no God".
Therefore assuming the existence of "no God" is an argument from ignorance.
Since "no God" does not exist, God must exist.

You can see, just formulating something as a positive does not mean that assuming the nonexistence of that positive is an argument from ignorance.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will is something that has to be argued for, not the absence of it, even if you call it "having OC".

Why would you think that I would argue about God in that way?

Clearly, if I am an OC, then I do not have free will (at least to the extent that I do things because I am OC). But if you allege that I am OC, don't you think that you should have some reason to make that allegation. My view is analogous to the view that the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. And that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Of course, that does not mean that the accused is innocent unless there is evidence that he is guilty. Obviously not. But it does mean that the accused should not be found guilty unless there is (sufficient) evidence to do so. Now, in the same way, if you allege that I don't have free will when I do seem (at least) to make choices, and change my mind, then don't you think that the burden of proof is on you to show that despite appearances, I do not have free will, and that I cannot make choices and change my mind.