I suggest that choices are determined irrespective of whether or not libertarian free will exists. Reflect on any past choice, and think about why you made it. If those are really the reason for the decision, then you could not have possibly made a different decision given the fact that those reasons were present. — Relativist

Aside from choices with reasons for a moment, as I noted, I sometimes intentionally make choices that are epistemically random. There's no reason for those. That's the whole point of them.

Go easy on me, translation: shred me to bits.

Could you have then picked B? If you say “yes I could have controlled the influence to pick A and still picked B” I would then again ask “why didn’t you”. This final “why didn’t you” you obviously don’t know the answer to. You can do this for any choice — khaled

This is good. When other considered choices don't come in first, the no 'if' or could have' options didn't make it in actuality, and so they become a fantasy.

If consciousness has no causal role and is merely epiphenomenal, what is the point of the experience of pain? Why would our brains be "programmed" to feel pain if it has no causal function and everything is simply deterministic? — Michael McMahon

I would surmise that the result in consciousness of the brain's prior analysis has a usage to the brain, else it wouldn't have evolved. Thus, the internal method/language of qualia is used by the brain to globally broadcast its recent product so that more of the wider brain might attend to its implications, that presuming the brain may have many separate areas coming up with their own figurings/suggestions.

So, there has to be some use to consciousness; however, the decisions/thoughts seemingly carried out instantly therein were already finished and done beforehand. The subconscious analysis takes 300-500 milliseconds, which is a delay, along with the speed of light delay, which is quite short.

but what you would consider as more of a choice? — Relativist

I don't know. That's what I'm asking people who argue for free will. I don't get the concept of "free" and I need them to explain it to me in a way that doesn't boil down to "a mix of random and determined" which I don't think is free.

Yes but the WAY it does so seems random. Sure it incorporates your beliefs and attitudes etc but whenever a decision is close and you can’t tell exactly way you picked A rather than B that’s just a random choice is it not? — khaled

No, it’s a lack of awareness. Randomness is just missing information about causal conditions, after all.

Your experiment seems to be proof that we allow unimportant decisions to be randomly determined. — Possibility

Well I guess that’s progress. — khaled

I’d like to clarify something, here: I’m not on either side of the free will or determinism fence (I’m not sure there is one). As far as I can tell, ALL actions are determined, but that doesn’t preclude a will that is free for anyone with the capacity to interact consciously with the potentiality, and therefore the causal conditions, of actions.

I understand that the view of causal chains from the other side of a collapsed potentiality wave leaves no evidence of our interaction at all. So the causal conditions I am aware of and interact with extend into the past as seamless causal chains, and those I am unaware of appear as ‘randomness’, as unknown causal chains.

Yet we often experience some freedom, at least, in a present act of choosing. So this freedom exists in a conscious experience, but not in the temporal event - it cannot be observed or measured in the brain even as it occurs. A physicalist would then be forgiven for concluding that no freedom exists, despite its existence as a quality of our experience.

I’m not a physicalist, though. I don’t believe reality is limited to the four physical dimensions. I think our ability to map all four dimensions in the first place (events across time and well beyond our own direct experience of the universe) should be evidence that we have the capacity at least to be aware of, connect with and collaborate with a fifth dimension. And I believe it is in that fifth dimension that the will (as the faculty by which one determines and initiates action) operates, and can be, for humans at least, unconstrained.

I don't know. That's what I'm asking people who argue for free will. I don't get the concept of "free" and I need them to explain it to me in a way that doesn't boil down to "a mix of random and determined" which I don't think is free. — khaled

What happened to me explaining biasing a couple times? There's something other than 50/50 random and determined.

So, there has to be some use to consciousness; however, the decisions/thoughts seemingly carried out instantly therein were already finished and done beforehand. The subconscious analysis takes 300-500 milliseconds, which is a delay, along with the speed of light delay, which is quite short. — PoeticUniverse

I am still wondering why it would matter that the choice first happens subconsciously, given that it still originates in the same brain.

I am still wondering why it would matter that the choice first happens subconsciously, given that it still originates in the same brain. — Echarmion

It only matters for those thinking that decisions/thoughts are made in/by consciousness, for that's how it seems.

Some choices are epistemically random.

Do you know why the word "epistemically" is in that sentence? — Terrapin Station

I hope so. That's what I kept referring to when I said true randomness. Randomness that is not an approximation due to our lack of knowledge

What happened to me explaining biasing a couple times? There's something other than 50/50 random and determined. — Terrapin Station

But the decision to bias or not to bias is itself completely random. I never implied there is only 50/50 random and determined.

I hope so. That's what I kept referring to when I said true randomness. Randomness that is not an approximation due to our lack of knowledge — khaled

The word is there because some choices seem random. Some do not. That doesn't mean that the choices that do not seem random are determined. They also do not involve randomness in the sense of flipping a coin. They involve biasing.

I don't know where you're getting the idea from that biasing is a decision (necessarily) or that's "completely random." I certainly didn't write anything like that.

I don't know where you're getting the idea from that biasing is a decision that's "completely random." I certainly didn't write anything like that. — Terrapin Station

You replied to me talking to someone else. I introduced the idea that the decision to bias a decision is random there. You didn't say it I did.

You replied to me talking to someone else. — khaled

?

I introduced the idea that the decision to bias a decision is random there. — khaled

Why?

? — Terrapin Station

↪Relativist
but what you would consider as more of a choice?
— Relativist

I don't know. That's what I'm asking people who argue for free will. I don't get the concept of "free" and I need them to explain it to me in a way that doesn't boil down to "a mix of random and determined" which I don't think is free. — khaled

You took it from there and I assumed you had read our conversation beforehand

Why? — Terrapin Station

You could go back and read it but I'll try to put it in as few words as possible here.

For any decision you can ask "could you have done (biased the decision) otherwise?", if the answer is no then the decision is not free. For every decision for which you answered "yes" you can ask "why didn't you?". The answer to "why didn't you?" is unknown as presenting any justification for why you chose the option you chose doesn't tell me why you didn't choose the other option if you could have. So you don't know why you chose to bias a particular option in a particular way, even if you know the evidence that led you to that decision (because you can't answer "why didn't you?"). Since you don't know why you chose to bias an option in a particular way even though alternatives were available the decision must have been random.

ou took it from there and I assumed you had read our conversation beforehand — khaled

I didn't even read that. I was responding to this: "But the decision to bias or not to bias is itself completely random. I never implied there is only 50/50 random and determined. "

For any decision you can ask "could you have done (biased the decision) otherwise?", if the answer is no then the decision is not free. For every decision for which you answered "yes" you can ask "why didn't you?". The answer to "why didn't you?" is unknown as presenting any justification for why you chose the option you chose doesn't tell me why you didn't choose the other option if you could have. So you don't know why you chose to bias a particular option in a particular way, even if you know the evidence that led you to that decision (because you can't answer "why didn't you?"). Since you don't know why you chose to bias an option in a particular way even though alternatives were available the decision must have been random. — khaled

I don't know if anything there makes any sense.

First, if you couldn't have gone another way, it's not actually a decision/choice.

Who knows why on Earth you'd say something like, "presenting any justification for why you chose the option you chose doesn't tell me why you didn't choose the other option if you could have" because that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't a justification tell you why someone chose one option over another?

You don't seem to understand the idea of biasing. You seem to just be putting the word into sentences because I brought it up.

First, if you couldn't have gone another way, it's not actually a decision/choice. — Terrapin Station

Ok. You can reword that in there and it'll still make sense

"presenting any justification for why you chose the option you chose doesn't tell me why you didn't choose the other option if you could have" because that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't a justification tell you why someone chose one option over another? — Terrapin Station

Because the other option also has justification that could have been used. That doesn't tell me why you chose to bias the decision that had THIS justification.

You don't seem to understand the idea of biasing. You seem to just be putting the word into sentences because I brought it up. — Terrapin Station

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying either.

Because the other option also has justification that could have been used. — khaled

What? What justification, coming from where?

What? What justification, coming from where? — Terrapin Station

Assume you're picking between two close options.

Assume you're picking between two close options. — khaled

We're past that already. What justification would you be referring to re the option not chosen?

You could have picked the other option yes? So if you had picked the other option and I asked you for "why didn't you pick the first" You'd have justificaiton for that yes? And vice versa. That's why there is justrification for both options

You could have picked the other option yes? So if you had picked the other option and I asked you for "why didn't you pick the first" You'd have justificaiton for that yes? — khaled

Probably, but that justification doesn't exist when you didn't pick that option, which is the scenario you're presenting.

Probably, but that justification doesn't exist when you didn't pick that option — Terrapin Station

How can justification "not exist".

How can justification "not exist". — khaled

By the person not thinking it. Justifications exist only insofar as someone consciously has them in mind.

Ok then. Assume you thought of justifications for two options A and B and then picked B. Why didn't you pick A? Would presenting justifications for B be satisfactory for answering that question?

Assume you thought of justifications for two options A and B and then picked B. Why didn't you pick A? Would presenting justifications for B be satisfactory for answering that question? — khaled

First, this isn't the case you were presenting.

But if you had equal justification for two options, you'd have to choose epistemically randomly.

Most of the time, when people have reasons for choices, they're not equal.

First, this isn't the case you were presenting. — Terrapin Station

Yes it was

But if you had equal justification — Terrapin Station

I never said equal

I never said equal — khaled

If they're not equal to the bearer, then it would be inexplicable why you'd not be able to understand why the justification for the choice made ruled out the other. The bearer considered those reasons better/stronger. That's what a justification is. Whatever S considers to be good/better reasons for x.

If they're not equal to the bearer, then it would be inexplicable why you'd not be able to understand why the justification for the choice made ruled out the other — Terrapin Station

So if the justification for A completely rules out B could the person have picked B?

So if the justification for A completely rules out B could the person have picked B? — khaled

Justification has nothing to do with whether there are real options.

Justification has to do with why S picked one rather than the other.