<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 25, 2025, at 14:50, Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2@gmail.com> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><p>If you think that you
are better able to predict your own behavior than your partner — or your
dog, for that matter — then the evidence is against you. First-person
accounts of behavioral causality are notoriously shoddy. I feel that
that was a bullet that both Ryle and Dennet were unable to bite.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>I must admit that I read this and suspect the data were chosen to be those that fall under this outcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Sucker-punching wouldn’t work if the puncher were no better at anticipating what he would do (meaning, whether he even is a puncher) than the punchee.</div><div><br></div><div>It seems that there must be a very large collection of other microscopic daily activities that fit a similar description. I’m thinking of a natural number; try to guess which one it is… I’m supposed to be reviewing this really tedious paper, so my mind wanders endlessly to every calculation I wish I were allowed to do instead of this. Do you know, minute by minute, what “image” of the structure of which calculation happens to be the object of my procrastination daydreaming? They’re very definite, and sometimes I see next steps in the calculations.</div><div><br></div><div>But you’re the psychologist, and not I.</div><div><br></div><div>Eric</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br></body></html>