|vvv||vv^||^v^| Tea cof mil
|vvv||^^^||---| Tea cof mil
Well, the neurological accuracy aside, this kind of free will is random. The outcome is based on luck, and, more importantly, factors (and luck) that we do not have any kind of control over. That's to say, we are not free from luck.
Define "free will". Conceptually, not mechanistically. The latter is to realize the former; but if the former isn't clear or worse, then the latter can't be quantified or tested (i.e. How do you/we know what you're trying to achieve - model - if it's concept is undetermined or vague?)
If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from, in this case? — Zelebg
Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen.How would that work then?
If one assumes that it's not random (if it was partially random, my objection would've still stood), then it would just be deterministic and the objection would've been that our character would only be a result of our environment/genetics. In any of the cases, agent doesn't have any responsibility over what alternative happens.
What you have here is an attempt to guess the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making, made by someone with no knowledge of neuroscience. We can do a lot better than that, as far as the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making is concerned. What this has to do with free will though is anyone's guess.
Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen. — Zelebg
I defined the concept in certain terms and posed the question framed in thosee terms. I can not respond to your objection without first discussing the semantics of the terms you use. It would be much easier if you could just answer the question directly:
If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from? — Zelebg
Then it's indeterministic (i.e. the causes do not "determine" which option will be chosen) and which option will be chosen is entirely out of the agent's control. The exact mechanism doesn't matter.
You are not free from, in this case, luck. You are a result of the process and not a determiner (unless you're saying you are the thresholds and and not separate from them).
It is an abstraction. I am talking in terms of logic not in terms of any other particular science. It seems you are not aware of the problem I am proposing to solve, otherwise I would expect far more appreciation for even a bare possibility such causal mechanics could exist in principle. — Zelebg
The connection with free will is in that it describes possible causal algorithm for choice process and example of true downward causation.
— Zelebg
Without random element chance is not involved at all. — Zelebg
"Brain waves" are representation of the full state of mind, I also call it "identity", which includes memory, personality, current mood, preferences, the way how a person thinks, feels, and of course also defines the way how to makes choices. Brain waves, i.e. identity/personality or 'state of mind' is the determiner — Zelebg
What "false definitions" am i using when i didn't even give a definition? I am literally just asking a question that i got from a book written by 4 very prominent philosophers on the subject (Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom etc.).Answer 1.) Does not compute due to false definition and other semantic issues. — Zelebg
Okay. And, since free will exists, determinism, the negation of indeterminism, is true. And, since determinism and free will are both true, then we also got answer to our first question-you're a compabilist. (or you do not get what indeterminism is, in which case, i suggest you first learn about it before talking about it since that's a pretty major aspect of free will)Answer 2.) No. Deliberation is determination. Indeterminism is only randomness. — Zelebg
But what are you abstracting from? Scientists abstract from observations or from more fine-grained models. What is the basis for your proposal?
How is this an example of downward causation?
Before moving on (i still haven't been able to decipher your position, at least we know you aren't an event-casual-libertarianist now) to an objection, what do you mean by the state of mind -Why did you even bring up the mechanism then? being a "determiner"? Are you saying that it is a substance of it's own independent of causation?
But what are you abstracting from? Scientists abstract from observations or from more fine-grained models. What is the basis for your proposal?
Logic. — Zelebg
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.