Libet Experiments – Veto

Thank you very much for the answer.
I didn't have that much free time to answer until now.
1. I didn't understand, after all, when we come to examine this assumption itself – Does the veto also have an RP that precedes it, we have no reason to presuppose this assumption…
2. I agree that if RP occurs before the veto, then it will be possible to veto it as well. But we don't have the feeling that we are vetoing the veto. Therefore, in fact, it doesn't sound reasonable for us to claim this. After all, the will reflects our judgment, and if we didn't experience the feeling of vetoing the veto on the veto, why do we claim that we do so?
3. I agree. According to the studies, did people experience the awakening of the urge to move their hand and veto it, or did they not even feel it? Because it is implied from your words that they were not aware of the veto at all. So the only reason we assume this is because the result was RP and yet the person did not act accordingly.
4. As I understand it, what you wrote is a completely semantic wordplay. But it is not a fundamental reason to oppose the existence of the veto. As if then instead of a veto you would call it the “action of canceling RP”.

PS
A philosophical question occurred to me in general about the very existence of the RP. Why can't it be argued that the will, which is later in terms of time, was a cause of the RP event that occurred in terms of time before it.
After all, we have no reason to argue that the result precedes the cause. As we know, the soul is in terms of (and not really) a part of God from above.

Thank you very much, Shabbat Shalom

1. Obviously. That's why I wrote that it's a philosophical claim.
2. The veto is just an implementation of a decision. The feeling that is explained is of a decision. How it is actually carried out is another question.
3. True.
4. This is not semantics. The libertarian claim is that there is a veto, and that it is not part of the calculation. You won't find an RP for it anyway. Of course, what is written in 3 should also be added here, that the veto is an assumption to explain the decision and not a scientific finding.

These are words that I don't understand. I don't think you do either. Either way, if you accept a groundless proposal like this, the entire discussion is essentially null and void. Even without assuming a veto, you can always say that the RP does precede the decision, but it is the result and not the cause.

1. 3.4. Thanks
2. I didn't understand the argument, even if the veto is an application of a decision, how can it be said that in practice this is done by imposing a long regression of vetoes on the initial vetos with the RP? This does not sound reasonable at all.

—-
Regarding the thought I raised, this is not an unreasonable suggestion, because if so, how does the Rabbi accept that choice affects the knowledge that preceded the choice in time. And if not, then how does he rationalize the question of choice and knowledge. And whoever accepts this assumption, why shouldn't he accept that the soul, which is a simple and abstract spiritual thing, can affect back in time.

My argument is that there is not necessarily awareness of every stage of the calculation in the brain. There is a sense of decision. How is this actually done in the brain? That is a different question. It can be a very complex process. In general, many of our actions involve different areas of the brain at the same time. Therefore, there is no one-to-one correlation between a feeling and a brain action. Moreover, this entire chain can be done simultaneously, with the veto, if it is imposed, being only the result of such a calculation process. But all this is unnecessary chatter. I have already explained my principled position.

I did not understand the argument. I do not accept that God has foreknowledge of actions that depend on choice. Furthermore, in my opinion, anyone who does think so is confused. And Newcomb's paradox will prove it.