Okay, thanks.

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? I've explained this to you in some detail already in another thread.

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? — Terrapin Station

Uhhhh. What? You mean it's not something deterministic? I thought your whole shtick was that free will is basically just an expression of the fact that chemical reactions aren't determinate in the quantum level

Uhhhh. What? You mean it's not something deterministic? — khaled

I explained this. What did you do when you read that explanation?

What did you do when you read that explanation? — Terrapin Station

I read and apparently misunderstood it.

What do you mean "it's not something random"

Do you mean not equipotential? As in not the same probability?

This post was from 10 days ago. It's very simple and straightforward. What don't you understand here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/316725

What don't you understand here: — Terrapin Station

But. You have different probabilities to do things before this biasing takes place no? And towards which of those this biasing takes place is not deterministic no?

I understand that the will is the thing that biases a decision to 100%. But which decision gets biased is random no? Of course it takes into account all your dispositions and past experiences and whatnot

But. You have different probabilities to do things before this biasing takes place no? — khaled

The probabilities with respect to the options are a factor of your contemplation. It's not deterministic in that you're not forced to make a particular choice.

It's not deterministic in that you're not forced to make a particular choice. — Terrapin Station

Yes. I agree. Where is the confusion here?

You asked:

So, with free will, it's not something random, is it? — Terrapin Station

Except it IS something random no?

Even you said in that thread that if something is not deterministic then it is random. So if free will is not deterministic then it is random no?

You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840. — Terrapin Station

So why when I asked...

So the sum total of your argument as to why we should not legislate against hate speech despite the clear correlation with violence is that hate speech cannot be a cause of violent action because violent action is actually caused by some magical force which we can't detect but you just 'reckon' is there. — Isaac

...did you reply

We don't even need that. — Terrapin Station

Now you're saying that the only reason your argument works is because you believe in magical force which can neither detect nor forward any supported theory as to how it functions.

Woo.

Except it IS something random no? — khaled

No, it's not random. For the third time now, at the point you make the decision the biasing is 100% (or 1 in probability terms) towards what you decide. The biasing is done by you, not by something prior to you. The biasing is not random--you don't have random contemplation about your possibilities. But it's not determined, either. You're not forced to take just one route, you have real options, due to the fact that the world isn't as strong determinism depicts it.

that hate speech cannot be a cause of violent action — Isaac

We covered this already. I'm repeating myself again. I didn't say that it's impossible for speech to be a cause of violent action. I said that we can't show that it is.

The biasing is not random--you don't have random contemplation about your possibilities. But it's not determined — Terrapin Station

Uhhhhh. Aren't you literally proposing the mystical third way of causation that we both said doesn't exist, this "free". Something is either ontologically determined or it is random. There is no room for "free" unless free means "not determined" in which case it means random. You said this yourself...

you don't have random contemplation — Terrapin Station

You do though... Sure it may not be equal chances for every thought but each thought has its chance and that's it.

Uhhhhh. Aren't you literally proposing the mystical third way of causation that we both said doesn't exist, this "free". Something is either ontologically determined or it is random. There is no room for "free" unless free means "not determined" in which case it means random. You said this yourself... — khaled

So first, you understand that at the point you make a decision, you've biased the possibilities so it's 100% in favor of one of them, right?

yes

Sure, so that's not random. There's not even any other possibility at that point.

yup

Okay. So once again--for the umpteenth time now, biasing the possibilities is something that you do. You control this.

biasing the possibilities is something that you do. You control this. — Terrapin Station

Yes. But isn't it also true that "you" is physical? According to you. Consciousness is just a subset of brain functions wasn't it?

Yes. And again--this is something else that I've had to repeat many times (which is incredibly annoying) when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws. So it doesn't work to appeal to strong determinism a la real physical laws.

And again--this is something else that I've had to repeat many times (which is incredibly annoying) when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws. — Terrapin Station

All of this was unnecessary. You can't complain about writing more while taking the time to express your frustration from answering questions that haven't been asked.

Yes — Terrapin Station

And aren't all physical processes either deterministic or random?

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic."

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this.

how does "control" happen exactly? How are the neurons "controlled". "You feel like you control this but it's actually just like every other physical interaction" seems more accurate to me.

Say there was a neuron that has a 50% chance of firing at a particular instance. Explain to me how this chance is "controlled" just because the neuron happens to be in your brain.

I accept it is true that we feel like we have control. I don't understand what "control" could possibly mean ontologically. How can it happen?

"You feel like you control this but it's actually just like every other physical interaction" seems more accurate to me. — khaled

Which is why I wrote yet again; when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a realist on physical laws.

So it doesn't work to appeal to strong determinism a la real physical laws.

nothing in my comment implied determinism. And I'm not sure how not being a realist on physical laws helps.

If it's just like "every other physical interaction" but those are not deterministic, they often involve biased probabilities, etc., then there's no distinction to be made

but those are not deterministic — Terrapin Station

Agreed

biased probabilities, etc., — Terrapin Station

Biased probabilities are still randomness no? As I said in the other thread, when I say random I don't mean equal chances of all options

then there's no distinction to be made — Terrapin Station

I agree. There is no distinction between free will and any other combination of physical interaction. Which are either random (biased or not) or deterministic

Well, I certainly think that's possible, that one can know more about what is going on in another person than they do, but here I just mean that that sentence will lead to effects. First there will be your experience of the message.

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic."

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this.


Yeehaw it's a square dance.

The point is that I'm not necessarily going to parse it semantically.

Something my wife can well confirm. ;-)

Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control this — Terrapin Station

Oh my God.

Ok. What is "you" here? A subset of brain functions correct? This subset of brain functions is ultimately just a collection of neurons and other brain matter correct? How can you say that the emergent property "you" CONTROLS the lower level mechanisms?

That's like saying the water being hot causes the particles to have more kinetic energy. No, the particles having more kinetic energy causes the experience of heat. The experience of heat itself doesn't cause anything.

In the same way, the randomness (here defined as uncontrolled random interactions) result in conscious "you" but conscious "you" in turn doesn't cause anything to change about the neurons that make it up.

Another example is: putting bricks on top of each other in a specific way results in the creation of a house. However the creation of a house doesn't do anything to the bricks.