Free will re-redux

[Laird]

I haven't seen anything that proves the dichotomy is false

Yes, you have. I wrote a whole wiki article on it for you.

Something may cause the event to occur, but not cause the particular outcome. The particular outcome just is.

This literally makes no sense. The caused event is "the particular outcome".

But none of this is license to say "So, a free decision is just like that."

Nobody is saying that. The point is that you're being inconsistent in demanding a "how" explanation from us before you'll accept free choices as conceivable whilst you lack a "how" explanation for random events - which you nevertheless consider to be conceivable.

[Laird]

Moreover:

Something may cause the event to occur

Previously you've claimed that "random" was synonymous with "uncaused". Now you say something may cause the event to occur. More inconsistency...

When the other person says "Aha, I understand what you are saying."

Isn't this an impossible standard?

We seem to have gone from Free Will is Incoherent - as in not possible in any possible world, not even for God - to a personal quest for an explanation that produces a "Eureka" moment?

You sure you read these papers? ->



I ask because it doesn't even seem like you watched this video from months ago ->

I can't remember what I read and what I didn't read. I'm not sure why you're unwilling to post a summary of your understanding.

Anyhoo, "Causation Is Not Your Enemy" sounds interesting.

~~ Paul

I can't remember what I read and what I didn't read. I'm not sure why you're unwilling to post a summary of your understanding.

Well it seems like a waste of time if there are no pre-stated criteria to hit?

Well it seems like a waste of time if there are no pre-stated criteria to hit?

The criterion is that it rings true as a description of how a free decision is made.

I am reading "Causation Is Not Your Enemy." I just encountered this sentence:

"Causing an effect is not the same as guaranteeing it."

Now that is an interesting sentence. I'll continue reading with high hopes.

~~ Paul

Why do you say that quantum indeterminism is not random, as the term is usually understood?
~~ Paul

Usually understood in what context??  I am not as interested in metaphysics as others.  If the context is math and science - then randomness has a firm and clear definition.

 In probability theory and information theory, the mutual information of two random variables is a measure of the mutual dependence between the two variables. More specifically, it quantifies the "amount of information" obtained about one random variable through observing the other random variable. -wiki

In the way you have used the term - it implies "random" is some fundamental state. It is not, it is a relational state and something is only random to some other thing.

The criterion is that it rings true as a description of how a free decision is made.

I mean that's fine for each individual's personal journey but it doesn't seem like a debate to invest in?

Right, and because there is no consciousness "how" yet, many of you reject the proposition that physicalism allows for it. I'm simply doing the same thing for free will.

You do not have to take the dichotomy on faith, nor even that determinism and randomness make sense. But I don't see how that lets you out of some kind of description of how a free decision is made

So in your first paragraph you are willing to take a proposition without any description (e.g., physicalism can't explain "how" consciousness works) with a promissory note (e.g., physicalism ultimately may explain it).

Yet, in your second paragraph you reject the notion of free will out of hand because a description of its process can't be offered?  (Perhaps there is no "process" as you think of it behind a free decision?)

This objection of yours seems incoherent and, ultimately, pointless.  There's an embedded arrogance in insisting a description must (could?) be offered and even understood by you (or anyone else for that matter) based on our woefully modest level of knowledge.  How does your limited intelligence give you confidence that because you can't find a description of a free decision it must not exist?  Seems really odd to me unless I'm misunderstanding your consternation after all these pages and years of debate.

Usually understood in what context??  I am not as interested in metaphysics as others.  If the context is math and science - then randomness has a firm and clear definition.

One definition for all of math and science? What do you think it is?

In the way you have used the term - it implies "random" is some fundamental state. It is not, it is a relational state and something is only random to some other thing.

I'm not sure why you think I believe "random" is a state. But the definition you gave is reasonable in certain contexts.

"In probability theory and information theory, the mutual information of two random variables is a measure of the mutual dependence between the two variables. More specifically, it quantifies the "amount of information" obtained about one random variable through observing the other random variable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#In_science