So my faith is that my choice cannot affect the past. — unenlightened

The whole point of a predictor is that he doesn't travel back in time. He simply knew ahead of time what your answer would be as described below:

It doesn't matter how many times prior to that final choice you flip between "...but he'll have predicted I'd think that, so I'll think the opposite...". The point is you can only perform those zig-zags a finite number of times and so a predictor could feasibly predict how many times you'd do it in the time you have available and so arrive at the correct answer. — Isaac

One might say that their free will is unpredictable and this is why I made two points with the first one being:

1. The predictors infallicity does not exclude the existance of free will. It does not take an all-knowing entity to outsmart or predict ones actions. Observing a game of poker or chess with a large discrepancy of skill clearly shows that humans are somewhat predictable. — Jacykow

I'm not sure if you understood my second point. Logic does not have assumptions - it works on the ones you already have declared faith in. The paradox clearly states that the predictor is infallible and there is no reason to question this any more than to question whether box A contains $1000 or not.

The very concept of a predictor is contradictory — fishfry

I think that is the answer to this and many more 'unsolvable paradoxes'. They contain contradictory assumptions. I was hoping for something less anticlimactic.

Can you give an example of a belief system that introduces the soul as something without an unquestionable value given to every person? I'm sure that this is a part of how the christian soul works.

If there are any other values than the metaphysical, how are they justified? The left does value equality of outcome and it might seem unjust to more productive people but why would you put them above any other being if their soul is the only objective value equal to any other? The whole point of the soul is to elevate people above any materialistic hierarchy.

Great point, it seems obvious that values of theism and atheism are of minimal importance if you are doing politics. But someone had to come up with the idea that this division would make sense and apparently it does because is still stays strong.

Disregarding the necessity of hierarchization the right believes it to be true.

If you take a materialists point of view there are no values apart from the ones you create. If you don't then this generalization is not about you since the stereotypical leftist is an atheist.

You cannot value what you cannot choose - the right values rising in hierarchies and not needlessly resisting the inevitable collapse of any group to a hierarchy.

I may have overdone it a bit but since materialism doesnt really elevate the individual to a god but that is exactly what the individual becomes: the only source of value. It is right leaning because the right puts the individual above all else.

Disregarding critique of this point of view it seems like a good answer to one half of my original question.

Yes, they do but hierarchy is not considered a value but a necessity. I don't really understand your point since both having ultimate control of ones fate and sorting groups by some factor is all about the individual.

I think you just pointed out another paradox because if religion is all about the rules then why wouldn't people willing to accept them not be willing to accept a more strict goverment? The problem cannot lie in the weak connection to the country because nationalism is also considered to be on the right.

It seems that You misunderstood my question as a critique on religious beliefs but I wanted it to be far from that. By religion I mean any dualistic or spiritual belief system that introduces the soul as one of or the only core value. Only such a system can create values because there is nothing sacred about matter and therefore it cannot generate objective (unquestionable) value. Your defence is very convincing but slightly off topic.

YouTube is betting their money on being able to predict the concious decisions of their customers.

It is far more likely that we think we have conscious experience because we actually do have conscious experience.

How does my belief in the existance of a thing make its existance more probable?

How does the nonmaterial interact with the material without being material itself?

You keep repeating that brain and mind are different. A materialist might say that anything you believe to be conciousness, free will or decisionmaking is a consequence of neurons cleverly put together to form an efficient survival machine.

How do dualist cope with the fact that we can predict decisions? YouTube is making this all the time - by recommending videos it effectively simulates somewhat accurately my decisionmaking without my cooperation.

Why is your speech so emotionally heavy?

They have accepted an irrational, unrealistic, absurd, and poisonous ideology that simply does not correspond to reality.

It is really easy to defend materialism because it can explain any phenomenon as a scientific (purely mechanical) proces that has already been examined or is going to be soon.

I would attack from a different angle:
1. The world is filled with objects that interact.
2. We have no proof of the existance of things that do not interact.
3. Therefore, objects are their interactions and have no other body.
4. Their material aspect is the one we are interacting with but it is largely dependent on the observer and cannot possibly show all of the information and therefore it is only a part of an object at any time and not its only face.
5. We are left with information as the fundamental building block of reality and it is hardly material but not really spiritual either.