Can determinism and free will coexist?
Of course . What is the light in your opinion ?
>>7200240
compatiblism ya dingus
>7200320
Compatiblingus would be a funny word
This question belongs on >>/lit/
>>7200240
Sort of. 'True' free will, like infinity, doesn't exist, but chaos-assisted (not random) determinism is so insanely complicated that you can't tell the difference. We all are robots - but that is underestimating what robots can do.
(lol had to prove to system "I'm not a robot")
Free will doesn't naturally imply the ability to determine outcomes. In a macrocosmic scope the fate of the universe could be independent of any conscious intrusion. It's possible to conclude that in the microcosmic case what appears as a result of free will is determined anyways. The choice is made yet the outcome decided.
>>7200240
Free will can't exist at all.
Free will is a logical and physical impossibility.
>>7200380
The impossibility of free will does not necessarily imply determinism. If you are too dumb to figure this out, then please refrain from posting here, and stop polluting this board with your subhuman ignorance. Thanks in advance.
>>7200380
Please explain how indeterminism leads to free will? If your actions are random you have no control over them and therefore no free will.
If by free will you mean free from causality, then no.
>>7200380
>experimental evidence against determanism
Excuse me? Determinism is a concept for which no evidence is possible, from either side.
Either your actions are all decided long in advance and you simply play your part, or you truly are free as in freedom. No evidence can possibly be presented from either side. Only religious beliefs.
>>7200394
>Either your actions are all decided long in advance and you simply play your part, or you truly are free as in freedom.
Both, obviously, but not many people on /sci/ ever understand this.
The determinist essentially believes that the universe is identical to some non-random algorithm. If this is true, then free will (in any meaningful sense of the term) cannot exist
>>7200444
>If this is true, then free will (in any meaningful sense of the term) cannot exist
Why not? Determinism means that if you'd repeat a given situation, the same things would happen. This is precisely how a rational, free agent would act (if he acted in his own best interests, for example): when confronted with the same situation/choices, he would make the same decision. If a rational, thinking person's actions would not be fully determined by the state of his mind and surroundings, he would be governed (partially) by randomness, which has nothing to do with freedom.
>>7200460
If, given a set of circumstances, a rational being would reliably choose some course of action, then that means that his actions are determined by the circumstances. He is bound by his logic to respond to those circumstances in the prescribed manner. He is not free to act in any other way, his logic forbids it. He is a machine running an algorithm that takes his external circumstances as input and produces a predictable outcome.
Alternatively, if given that set of circumstances, a rational being may or may not reliably act in some specific manner, his actions must be determined, at least in some part, by chance. He is not free to act in the manner he chooses, because his actions are chosen for him by the roll of the cosmic dice.
Freedom of the will makes no sense, in any situation.
If you want to add a soul or other some such nonsense into the equation, just take my argument and replace "rational actor" with "ectoplasm" or whatever /x/ tier bullshit you may desire.
let's say that the outcome of a system is A but this system has n ways of getting to A, would that count as 'free will'?
>>7200384
>declares free will impossible
>offers no evidence or rationale
>asks others not to post on "muh /sci/"
>>7200388
absence of evidence != evidence of absence
What is it about free will threads?
Does the anti-free will crowd not into logic, or do otherwise respectable /sci/entists lose their shit when it comes to this topic?
>>7200474
>then that means that his actions are determined by the circumstances.
Circumstances that include him. Specifically, his actions are determined by the part of the circumstances that make up his mind and his body. If his mind (i.e. he) determines what actions he takes, how is that not free will?
>He is bound by his logic to respond to those circumstances in the prescribed manner.
He is not "bound by" his logic, he IS that logic. If his logic leads to him doing something, then he HAS chosen it, because he is the logic, implemented in a brain.
>>7200474
>then that means that his actions are determined by the circumstances
True. But from this does not follow that he is not free.
>He is bound by his logic
A free agent has to be bound by some kind of logic, or else he would be bound by something that is not logical (i.e. randomness) in which case he would not be free but simply a retard.
>He is not free to act in any other way, his logic forbids it.
Of course he can act only in one way, since only one thing can take place at any given time. It makes sense, even for a free agent, to act in the way he wants, and even a free agent would not want something else in the same situation. If he makes a choice, then you rewind the world, and he makes another choice, what does that have to do with freedom? It's simply randomness and irrationality.
>Freedom of the will makes no sense, in any situation.
What makes you say this? You've only shown that freedom following from randomness makes no sense, not that freedom can not follow from determinism.
>no definition of free will
The best answer I can think of to the OP is "dunno maybe lol"
>>7200487
What does that have to do with what I asked? I didn't even ask for evidence, I just asked for an explanation. If you are going to talk about free will you should at least explain what it is and how it could work.
>>7200532
Most people define free will as "this thing that can not exist" and then go act all smug about denying that it exists.
>>7200543
No, most people believe in this vague thing called free will, which implies independent control of your actions. But they don't really think about whether this makes sense because they strongly feel like it exists. So define what you are talking about or get the fuck out.
>>7200474
This is me.
>>7200500
>>7200506
If a rational actor will always choose a given action (the most rationally justifiable action) based on a given set of circumstances, then quite simply, he will always choose that action when he is presented with those circumstances. He is not FREE to act otherwise.
If, according to the actor's rational thoughts, all people wearing red t-shirts should be shot on sight, he will, based on external circumstances and internal logic, always shoot a person wearing a red t-shirt. He is not free to choose whether or not to do it; he is a slave to his internal logical response to an external stimulus. (Yes I know that it's not logical to shoot people in red shirts, its a shitty example).
If you will argue that he IS the logic, or he was free to exercise his will to become a logical being, I don't know what youre talking about and neither do you.
>>7200240
No.
I have been studying social psychology for a while, and interested in statistics. Social psychology almost always beats up the personality psychology, people don't act in a way because of their personality. Studies and experiments show us that in a certain situation, almost every person act as what are they expected to act. Most people believe that they are special, but no one is actually special.
>>7200550
>If a rational actor will always choose a given action (the most rationally justifiable action) based on a given set of circumstances, then quite simply, he will always choose that action when he is presented with those circumstances. He is not FREE to act otherwise.
Try to explain what doing something different every time has to do with freedom, for once.
>he is a slave to his internal logical response to an external stimulus.
How does acting on his own will make him a slave? If anything, it makes him free. You could argue this way about anything. Even if you would define what a perfectly free agent is like (which you sadly don't), you could still say that he is a slave to whatever he did. A slave to the decision he made, a slave to his own freedom, a slave to his own free will, whatever, it makes no sense at all. If you do something because you want it, that doesn't make you a slave to yourself. It has nothing to do with slavery.
>If you will argue that he IS the logic
He is, indeed.
>or he was free to exercise his will to become a logical being
What are you talking about?
>I don't know what youre talking about and neither do you.
Free will, obviously.
>>7200550
>If a rational actor will always choose a given action (the most rationally justifiable action) based on a given set of circumstances, then quite simply, he will always choose that action when he is presented with those circumstances.
Yes.
>He is not FREE to act otherwise.
Why not?
>he is a slave to his internal logical response to an external stimulus.
No, he IS his internal logical response to an external stimulus. [He/his internal logical response] decides to shoot. This is free will in action.
>I don't know what youre talking about and neither do you.
Now you're just being silly. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you cannot possibly judge whether *I* know what I'm talking about.
Free will means that a person's actions are determined by his choices. In your example, the choices are implemented by a piece of brainware that decides to shoot red-shirted people. That piece of brainware is part of the guy's system for choosing things, and its output is part of the guy's choice. This choice then does indeed determine the man's actions. Free will in action.
>>7200474
>Alternatively, if given that set of circumstances, a rational being may or may not reliably act in some specific manner, his actions must be determined, at least in some part, by chance. He is not free to act in the manner he chooses, because his actions are chosen for him by the roll of the cosmic dice.
This is a false dichotomy. No reason we can't introduce some third way of deciding what's going to happen in the future, and then call it free will
>>7200607
Not true, since that third way would be part of the circumstances as well. Either that or it would be true randomness, if you're willing to accept that.
>>7200240
holy fuck I thought Gödel beta function was just a name
>>7200240
No, because if determinism was correct, then whatever choice you make would just like everything else be predetermined. If your will is predetermined, that means it is ruled by something else and therefore it cannot be free.
>>7200548
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+free+will
"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
Was that so fucking hard?
Plenty of /sci/entists suddenly turn retarded when it comes to free will. It offends them somehow.
As to "how it works", I'm pretty sure the universe isn't deterministic, so "fate" and determinism seem far-fetched.
Beyond that, it's anybody's guess, but that's not bad considering I understand my belief in freewill is faith-based, just like your opposition to it.
>>7200532
>What does that have to do with what I asked? I didn't even ask for evidence, I just asked for an explanation.
I'm not arguing that free will exists, just that the insistence that it doesn't exist is as irrational as anything you'd find on /x/.
>>7200240
Depends how you define freewill.
If freewill means you can change what hasn't happened yet, and that you could have done something differently in retrospect, then it's incompatible with determinism. Because what has happened, is happening and hasn't happened yet, is static, always, in a determined universe.
In a determined universe "you" are not separate from the cause and effect chain. "You", physically, are the result of all proceeding events. And since the mind behaves according to physics (otherwise it's supernatural) it is also part of the cause and effect chain.
So your current thoughts are caused by things outside of your thoughts control. Though there's still a feedback loop. But regardless... you and your thoughts don't have control over you and your thoughts.
But... If freewill just means that you are controlled by your thoughts, then it's compatible with determinism. Because thus definition of freewill is not concerned with the cause of your thoughts.
>>7200676
How is it irrational?
>>7200671
>As to "how it works", I'm pretty sure the universe isn't deterministic, so "fate" and determinism seem far-fetched.
If the universe is deterministic, then no one can act without the constraint of necessity or fate. If the universe is indeterministic, then no one can act at their own discretion. Either way, free will can't exist as you've defined it. Why the fuck is this so hard to get? All you do is say "lol free will offends you". Yes, your idiocy offends me.
>>7200764
>If the universe is indeterministic, then no one can act at their own discretion.
What in the fuck are you smoking?
First off, even assuming the universe is non-deterministic, computers still exist, and are completely deterministic.
Therefore, deterministic systems can exist in a non-deterministic universe.
Secondly, ruling out determinism doesn't invalidate causality, and can't possibly rule out people "acting at their own discretion".
>How is it irrational?
The question of free will is essentially a philosophical question, and can't be proven or dis-proven (despite your attempts at ipse dixit logic).
a thread like this comes up every week
then you get the same retards... every week
juvenile assertion that nothing exists beyond hard determinism - check.
retards arguing semantics - check.
someone quotes hitches - check.
now we just wait for someone to potshot philosophy while simultaneously having a philosophical conversation (which, fyi, is probably dated by a century or two. all the terms you guys are using... you don't even understand the girth of the debate. take a fucking proper class on it)
>>7200797
>First off, even assuming the universe is non-deterministic, computers still exist, and are completely deterministic.
Therefore, deterministic systems can exist in a non-deterministic universe.
In an indeterministic universe the basis of every deterministic process is a random event. Again, it doesn't fucking matter. Either way, free will doesn't exist. Is the brain deterministic? Then your actions are not independent. Is the brain non-deterministic? Then your actions are not controlled. Free will implies both causality (you control your actions) and non-causality (your actions are not controlled by external factors). Until you can explain how this is not contradictory, you are simply spouting gibberish.
>The question of free will is essentially a philosophical question
Yes, and it philosophically doesn't make sense.
>>7200797
>computers still exist, and are completely deterministic.
>completely
What is random
>>7200819
>Is the brain non-deterministic? Then your actions are not controlled.
???
>>7200834
>What is random
Computer programs _are_ completely deterministic.
The rand() or random() function returns a pseudo-random series of numbers.
The usual method is to use the current time as the "seed" of a generalized Fibonacci sequence, then only return every n-th element.
The results _look_ random, but aren't.
>>7200841
Wow, you must be very stupid. I'll explain it yet again:
Either your actions are determined by factors outside of your control, or they are determined by random events within your brain. How are you controlling your actions if they are random?
>>7200848
In a deterministic universe, yes. In a non-deterministic universe, white noise would actually be truly random, and generators based on white noise would therefore be truly random.
>>7200848
So I could somehow predict the result of a computer random function?
>>7200852
>Wow, you must be very stupid. I'll explain it yet again:
>How are you controlling your actions if they are random?
Muh "it's just random".
Look, your thoughts are the result of either deterministic or non-deterministic processes.
If I have a truly "random" stray thought, did I not really think it?
Did the idea somehow wish itself out of existence because it's non-deterministic?
Why do you touch yourself at night?
>>7200859
>generators based on white noise would therefore be truly random.
Sure, but...
The white noise would be an input for the computer program, which will still always produce the same results if you give it the same input.
and...
Most computer programs don't use white noise for rand().
>>7200863
>So I could somehow predict the result of a computer random function?
Sure, if you knew the "seed", which based on the time the rand() function is initially called.
>>7200906
>If I have a truly "random" stray thought, did I not really think it?
No. But "really thinking" something has nothing to do with free will. I didn't say your actions are not happening, I said they are not freely willed. Jesus, every single post you've made in this thread has shown you to be incapable of even approaching a logical understanding of the subject. Read a fucking book or something, your brain needs some exercising.
>>7200852
There's no such thing as a hot dog.
First, I'll claim that there's no suitable definition.
Then when I hear YOUR definition, I'll dismiss it, claiming "that's just a sausage"!
>>7200914
>The white noise would be an input for the computer program, which will still always produce the same results if you give it the same input.
But the input, and thus the result, is still random you stupid fuck.
>>7200924
What are you talking about? I used the definition YOU gave me. Holy shitballs.
>>7200918
OK, sooooo...
If a thought Is deterministic, it was "fated" and thus NOT free will, but if a thought is NON-deterministic it's STILL not free will because....somehow non-deterministic thoughts are ALSO not free will.... because you can re-state "non-deterministic" as "just random"?
Seems awfully hand-wavy for someone calling ME stupid.
>>7200927
>But the input, and thus the result, is still random you stupid fuck.
Jesus.
I never said you couldn't feed a computer truly random data, just that programs are deterministic because they'll always do the same thing given the same input.
>>7200924
And there is still no suitable definition. The one you gave is contradictory. You have yet to counterargue.
>>7200934
>but if a thought is NON-deterministic it's STILL not free will because....
As your own definition states: the ability to act at one's own discretion. Random actions are not at your discretion, they are not controlled by external factors, but they're also not controlled by YOU. Why do I have to say this over and over?
Having your thoughts determined by a roll of dice is no more free than fate.
>>7200930
>I used the definition YOU gave me. Holy shitballs.
No, you didn't.
You never referenced the Google definition.
You kept sticking to your "damned if you do, damned if you don't" logic.
>>7200942
I never said anything to the contrary. You have just been spouting irrelevancies.
Me: Neither determinism nor indeterminism allows free will
You: But indeterministic universes can also have determinism! hurr durr
>>7200946
>You never referenced the Google definition.
Ah I see, so you're just plain illiterate. I referenced it in the post directly replying to the post you quoted it:
>>7200764
If the universe is deterministic, then no one can act without the constraint of necessity or fate. If the universe is indeterministic, then no one can act at their own discretion.
Then I repeated this over and over because you kept ignoring it. Dumbass.
>>7200944
>And there is still no suitable definition. The one you gave is contradictory.
First off, every dictionary on Earth has a definition that's suitable to almost anyone who isn't trying to disprove free will.
Secondly, how is it contradictory?
>Random actions are not at your discretion
Why not? You're still not connecting the dots here.
If some source of true randomness is a part of me, than its results are *my* results, despite your desperate emotional need to dispute free will.
>>7200954
>Then I repeated this over and over because you kept ignoring it. Dumbass.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking you to explain it.
> If the universe is indeterministic, then no one can act at their own discretion.
That's pure ipse dixit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
>>7200964
>First off, every dictionary on Earth has a definition that's suitable to almost anyone who isn't trying to disprove free will.
And? You know usually posts are supposed to have points.
>Secondly, how is it contradictory?
Already explained it several times. Not my fault you can't read.
>Why not? You're still not connecting the dots here.
Can you choose a random result? Can you choose what side a fair coin is going to land on? Is it at your discretion? I really shouldn't have to explain something so mind-numbingly simple.
>>7200968
>I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking you to explain it.
I already have. What more do you want? Do you need me to translate this into some other language? Because it's fucking simple in English.
>That's pure ipse dixit.
That's pure ipse dixit.
See I can say that too. Post when you have a real argument.
>>7200971
>See I can say that too. Post when you have a real argument.
see
>>7200964
>If some source of true randomness is a part of me, than its results are *my* results,
You keep claiming that if part of my thought process is actually random, it somehow doesn't count, but you can't explain how or why.
I got to choose to post in this thread.
I got to choose the words I am using to describe this message.
I get to choose my picture and I can even give myself a name.
An animal rummages around when it is hungry. A man wants to do the same, but has the ability to control himself if his willpower is strong.
Habits are something that we can change. People quit smoking and drinking all the time.
Can't we give determinism a soft definition? That a great portion of things are determined yet also alterable and a great amount of variety can exist in an environment?
>>7200975
>If some source of true randomness is a part of me, than its results are *my* results,
This is no different from saying your determined actions are your actions. It has nothing to do with whether or not those actions are FREE. A random process is not at your discretion. Therefore by your own definition free will cannot exist. But you are just going to act like this sentence never happened.
>>7200978
Your choices were determined by factors outside your control. The question is not whether you have will, it's whether your will is free.
>>7200975
Can you choose a random result? Can you choose what side a fair coin is going to land on? Is it at your discretion?
I'm going to keep posting this until you answer it.
>>7200984
>A random process is not at your discretion
It is if randomness is part of what makes up my "discretion".
>by your own definition free will cannot exist
You're relying on far more than "my" definition for your faulty proof.
>>7200984
>But you are just going to act like this sentence never happened.
I'm sure it seems that way to you, because you keep repeating the same, unsupported nonsense with nothing beyond your personal reassurances that "random != free will".
>>7200989
>Can you choose what side a fair coin is going to land on?
That's not how anyone defines "free will".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
>>7201000
>It is if randomness is part of what makes up my "discretion".
Can you choose a random result? Can you choose what side a fair coin is going to land on? Is it at your discretion?
>>7201003
>That's not how anyone defines "free will".
You: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
>>7201000
Your definition of free will seems to be "allowed to follow through with whatever output my brain comes up with." Yes, that is free in that pure not being forced to do something. But it isn't free in the sense that you had control over the output. What you will do in any given situation is either predetermined or random. You fail to grasp the point actually being discussed and are arguing semantics.
>>7201000
>It is if randomness is part of what makes up my "discretion".
That's no different from saying that fate is part of your discretion. It's just a semantic game that ignores what discretion means.
>>7201009
>You: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
First off, I'm quoting Google's definition of free will.
There are plenty of others out there.
Please stop pretending you don't know the definition of free will, or that I am somehow responsible for creating the definition.
Next, nothing about that definition implies you can predict the flip of a coin.
Thanks or playing though, and don't be afraid to keep trying.
>>7201020
>That's no different from saying that fate is part of your discretion.
So?
It seems clear to me that if no part of your thought process is random, then you don't have free will.
This seems to be the only way to disprove free will.
It stands to reason that if part of your thought processes are random, then free will is a possibility.
All you're offering is the notion that you find random thought distasteful, and therefor it's "disqualified".
>>7201026
You're a moron, that's a definition that means free will as in there isn't a gun against your head, not free will in the deeper sense, like religion claims.
>>7201026
>First off, I'm quoting Google's definition of free will.
I know.
>Please stop pretending you don't know the definition of free will, or that I am somehow responsible for creating the definition.
What are you talking about? In fact I predicted that this would be the definition you used before you even posted it:
>>7200548
"No, most people believe in this vague thing called free will, which implies independent control of your actions."
>Next, nothing about that definition implies you can predict the flip of a coin.
I'm not talking about predicting a coin flip, I'm saying that a random process can't be at your discretion, because by definition the result is not chosen, or determined, by anything. If you think otherwise, you're an idiot and just playing semantic games.
>>7201038
>You're a moron
Once again I DIDN'T WRITE THE DEFINITION, I just found it on Google.
Perhaps they're morons.
>not free will in the deeper sense, like religion claims.
I don't follow you. Their definition seems to cover both aspects.
Go find a different one if you like.
The only reason I posted one is to dispute the absurd claim that "there's no definition of free will".
>>7201036
>So?
So you've been arguing this whole time as if indeterminism implies free will. Why not just argue that anything implies free will? Oh wait, I know, because that would make you look stupid. This is the typical result of a free will proponent trying to debate, they can't contend with the contradictions of their definition of free will and are eventually forced to redefine free will into meaninglessness and say that any form of will is free.
>It seems clear to me that if no part of your thought process is random, then you don't have free will.
But you just argued that as long as the process is "in you" it's part of "your discretion".
>It stands to reason that if part of your thought processes are random, then free will is a possibility.
So you just assumed that because you identified one scenario in which free will does not exist, the other scenario must have free will being possible? You really are logically retarded. As I've said from the start, randomness means you don't control your actions, thus free will is not possible in either scenario. Neither scenario allows free will.
>>7201054
No one claimed there was no definition. It was claimed that you were arguing for something without defining it.
>>7201054
So semantics entirely. The point wasn't there isn't a definition, of course there's a definition because the concept is used in law. That has nothing at all to do with the concept of free will in the sense that you aren't bound by chance or determinism. Jesus Christ you're autistic.
>>7201060
>So you've been arguing this whole time as if indeterminism implies free will.
So you HAVEN'T been following.
I've been arguing it's a possibility, and that to dismiss it out of hand is as foolish as the nonsense you find on /x/, and for similar reasons.
>can't contend with the contradictions of their definition of free will
Once AGAIN, it's not MY definition. It's a commonly accepted definition, and it doesn't contain any contradictions.
*You're* introducing the contradiction when you claim that any non-deterministic thought can't contribute to a "true" decision.
>eventually forced to redefine free will into meaninglessness
You let me know when that happens.
>>7201060
>>It seems clear to me that if no part of your thought process is random, then you don't have free will.
>But you just argued that as long as the process is "in you" it's part of "your discretion".
I'm not seeing your point, do you think I contradicted myself?
>So you just assumed that because you identified one scenario in which free will does not exist, the other scenario must have free will being possible?
No, but if the sole argument against free will is "muh determinism" (a very 19th century concept), then non-determinism invalidates this argument.
Your only other argument so far is this:
>>7201060
>randomness means you don't control your actions
...which is clearly incorrect.
If rand() returned a genuine random number you could program a robot to move in a truly random fashion. It would still control its actions.
>>7200240
Yes of-fucking-course.
Go read Kant.
>>7201065
>It was claimed that you were arguing for something without defining it.
If I argued for the existence of radio, would you insist that I define it?
>>7201096
>I've been arguing it's a possibility, and that to dismiss it out of hand is as foolish as the nonsense you find on /x/, and for similar reasons.
And I've explained how it's not a possibility. Glad we got that cleared up.
>It's a commonly accepted definition, and it doesn't contain any contradictions.
I already explained how it's contradictory. You have not been able to argue against this.
>You let me know when that happens.
>Random processes are at your discretion if they're in your brain hur durr!
>I'm not seeing your point, do you think I contradicted myself?
See above.
>No, but if the sole argument against free will is "muh determinism" (a very 19th century concept), then non-determinism invalidates this argument.
It's not the sole argument, you just keep ignoring the fact that random processes are not at your discretion.
>If rand() returned a genuine random number you could program a robot to move in a truly random fashion. It would still control its actions.
So if you give a robot instructions it's controlling it's actions? See, you're just defining control into meaninglessness.
>>7201122
>You have not been able to argue against this.
>you just keep ignoring the fact that random processes are not at your discretion.
Once again see
>>7200964
>If some source of true randomness is a part of me, than its results are *my* results
see:
Ball's in your court, prove me wrong.
>>7201122
>So if you give a robot instructions it's controlling it's actions? See, you're just defining control into meaninglessness.
No, I'm not re-defining anything, that's your thing.
I'm giving an example where randomness could be part of a control process.
Still waiting to hear any rebuttal of my points beside the monotonous repetition of your original, unsupported, point.
>>7201147
>Once again see
>>7200964
See my replies to that post, retard. You are delusional if you think a coin flip is at your discretion.
>I'm giving an example where randomness could be part of a control process.
Randomness can be part of a control process, it can't be part of free will. Robots do not have free will if they are controlled by a random number generator. Anyone can see how stupid these arguments are. Stop deluding yourself.
>>7201160
>You are delusional if you think a coin flip is at your discretion.
And you're delusional if you ever thought that related to free will in any way.
>Randomness can be part of a control process, it can't be part of free will.
You're arguing semantics, and poorly at that.
Randomness as part of free will is consistent with almost every definition commonly used.
>>7201180
>And you're delusional if you ever thought that related to free will in any way.
>random event
>at your discretion
choose one
>You're arguing semantics, and poorly at that.
So any control process is free will? You're an idiot.
>Randomness as part of free will is consistent with almost every definition commonly used.
How is it consistent if YOU CAN'T CONTROL A RANDOM EVENT?
Until you figure out how to make a random process act according to your discretion, you lose. Now fuck off.
ya its called compatabilism
Is the ability to control your own thoughts relevant to the freewill discussion?
I've heard this "randomness + computation = free will" argument plenty of times. But I'm thinking... If I put a device in your brain, that pulsed signals using a true random time interval, would that make your thoughts more under your control or less?
anyone else following this fucking thread
Please, somebody, define "free will".
>>7202694
the ability to decide all your actions without them being predetermined by forces outside your control, like your biochemistry,psychology, quantum weirdness, string theory,whatever you can think of, we're not just actions following reactions.
>>7202700
protip : the self is a lie
>>7200240
Things like radiation and other quantum effects have an effect on your thinking, but it still doesn't make you free. Even if thought was a conservative energy, you still wouldn't be completely free because you are bound by the properties of that energy.
>>7202700
define "your", "predetermined", "forces"
Lion and Snake, law and sin, determinism offers us the materials, free-will allows us to bend them.
>>7200240
>does probability exist
Yes.
>>7200329
Why does something being random somehow magically result in you having any will over what happens or what you do?
>>7200240
Free will can not coexist with anything, because for something to coexist with something else it must exist in the first place, which free will does not.
/endthread
>>7204718
It does exist, though.
>>7200240
Well, that depends on what exactly you mean by "free will."
Certainly I believe that determinism and the ability to meaningfully make choices can exist, but that's not always what's meant by "free will".
