So we'll have to agree to disagree, as we're talking about the future...
Until it becomes the present, anyway. At which point you can close your ears, because critically examining this issue is too dangerous for your liking.
This brings us to a meta-problem, though, Gnu: If lying is more important than truth in this context, then nothing you say on the topic can be taken as genuine.I don't see the problem. If you think I'm lying about anything, you can call me on it, as before. Nothing's changed.
Ahh, but Gnu, the entire game has changed now. You've revealed that your belief in free will is a product of doublethink, not a genuine intellectual conclusion. You believe in free will in the same way that someone whose only justification for their theism is Pascal's Wager, believes in God: Because of the (supposed) consequences of the alternative.
Hence the need for a supernatural brain. Hence the need - as you've expressed it - to disregard science if it disproves the idea of a supernatural brain. You are not open to being proven wrong by evidence, because your main motivation for your belief isn't evidence-based in the first place.
So, what approach should I take, given that I disagree with you? Should I try to argue rationally? What would be the point, since you aren't willing to be rationally argued out of your position?
Not on this thread. Here I was replying to your statement:
If lying about reality promotes people taking responsibility for their actions, then we should lie about reality.I took that to mean, lying to others, though I may have misunderstood you.
Lying about reality. No "to others", no "to ourselves". Just lying about reality. That applies to everyone.