A) I KNEW somebody was going to say that; the Mail can't edit quotes and I doubt their science section is going to be as greatly flawed as the rest of the paper (Google the story and you will see many scientific communities had this story running around the time the article was published.)OurGloriousLeader said:Some problems:
A) That's the Daily Mail.
B) That experiment does not necessarily disprove free will. All it proves is that when a subject is forced to make swift judgements when confronted with a mind numbing amount of stimuli, the (theoretical) subconscious has an effect. Free will is far more concerned with what could be called macro decisions, such as me deciding whether or not to go on holiday next year, down to whether or not to go and get a sandwich right now.
Now, saying that, I am of the opinion that free will is an illusion. After all, human society works on stats that are fairly accurate. Take 1000 people and an expert could work out, with a small degree of error, the number of criminals, rich and poor, homosexuals, musicians, scientists - the lot. It is a nice illusion, though, and crucially said expert could not work exactly who did what. There would always be unpredictability.
B) Good points; thats why I posted this, to hear others opinions on the subject.