How do you think the definition should be adjusted to match up with your intuitions of free will?

On the specific topic of the definition of Free Will, IMO folks get too hung up on "Free". You hear again and again "free from what?" Others propose that if an individual is influenced by this or that "they're not free". To me, forget about "Free" and concentrate on "Will". If an individual can take their numerous perceptions, memories and opinions which all, yes, influence individuals, then add their analysis, and then (most importantly) they are able to exert their Will (or choice or decision). Unlike in the Determinist universe where there is no choice, just the illusion of choice (or will), since the brain state before the (false) choice, determines the outcome, not human choice or will.

Sorry, I had not noticed your question. Let me try to answer it here. You asked: "So, would it be fair to say that in your view, any biological organism making choices has free will if it's not completely deterministic?"

Can neurological processes be semi-deterministic? I don't think so. As far as I know, neurological processes are completely deterministic and therefore, we do not have any free will.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I clearly don't have free will because my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I clearly have a determined and constrained will instead of a free will.

Of course, it is possible that I am an immortal soul who is experiencing the illusion of having a body and being on Earth. It's possible that I don't actually have a brain and body and cells and genes and environments and nutrients. It's possible that I only have the illusory experiences of being embodied. These are interesting ideas but they are totally untestable.

Knowing things with complete certainty is helpful for decision-making. Making decisions with total ignorance is highly risky. I agree with your statement ""I am, therefore I am consciously aware" is about right." I also agree with you about all the unconscious brain activities that keep us alive.

the conversation is about the definition of free will that lucky r offered, and you agreed with. Here's round 1 of the definition:

"define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that.

To me, Determinism is believing that antecedent state A leads each and every time to resultant state B, never C. Free Will is believing that antecedent state A can lead to resultant state B or C."

When I pointed out that this definition casts too wide of a net, because it implies things have free will even if they're not conscious, as long as they're also not deterministic, the definition was clarified and narrowed down a little bit:

"Determinism vs Free Will specifically refers to complex neurologic systems governing animal decision making"

So round 2 of the definition of free will on offer by Lucky R looks to me like "Any complex neurological system that isn't deterministic is free will".

My question to lucky r, which you responded to but I believe did not answer, was just clarifying that - is that what's on offer here as a definition of free will?

Please note that I'm not asking you or him if you think free will exists or is real. This is purely about the definition being put forth.

Do you think that's a reasonable definition of free will? If not, how would you change it?

Thank you very much for your clarification. Please read the reply I posted 15 minutes ago. It is the second last post from your post.

Can neurological processes be semi-deterministic? I don't think so. As far as I know, neurological processes are completely deterministic and therefore, we do not have any free will.

Can neurological processes be semi-deterministic? I don't think so. As far as I know, neurological processes are completely deterministic and therefore, we do not have any free will. — Truth Seeker

This is why I clarified that I'm not asking you if you think free will is real or possible. My question is about the definition on offer, not your opinion about if it's real or not. You have still not answered the question.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I clearly don't have free will because my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I clearly have a determined and constrained will instead of a free will. — Truth Seeker

Ah, you're referring to this as the answer.

So, any amount of genuine randomness in the brain would mean that brain has free will then, right?

You have to ask LuckyR for her/his definition. I have already given my definition.

Randomness in the brain or anywhere else is just randomness. Randomness does not equal to free will.

But you would agree randomness is contrary to determinism, right?

I agree that randomness is contrary to determinism. It is also contrary to free will. Does randomness really exist? If it does, how would we know?

great, you and I agree. Free will is contrary to determinism, AND it is contrary to free will.

So, the definition on offer which just says "define determinism, and free will is just not-that" actually cannot be a sufficient definition. I have an example of something that is not-determinism, and so if the definition were valid, it would have to be free will.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. I agree with you. I am going to stick with my definition of free will, not LuckyR's definition.

Okay.

I might be incorrect but my intuition says, your definition allows for "randomness" to meet the criteria given as well.

"My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints."

Can you talk a little bit about why you think randomness doesn't meet this criteria?

My definition does not mention the concept of randomness, nor does it require it. I don't know if randomness actually exists. I know the word exists and people frequently claim that randomness actually exists but I am not yet convinced that randomness exists.

My definition does not mention the concept of randomness, nor does it require it. — Truth Seeker

Yes, neither did lucky R's, and yet randomness fit the bill all the same.

I think randomness also fits the bill for your definition. Randomness seems free from determinants and constraints to me.

How does randomness fit into my definition of free will? How do you know that randomness exists?

How does randomness fit into my definition of free will? — Truth Seeker

Randomness seems free from determinants and constraints to me. — flannel jesus

Do you not agree that randomness fits the description "free from determinants and constraints"?

How do you know that randomness exists? — Truth Seeker

There's no context for this question. I never suggested that I know that.

I'm going to reiterate something I said before: this is purely about the definition on offer. You've put forth a definition, I am exploring that definition. Exploring the definition is separate from questions about if I think anything in particular exists or not.

How do you know that randomness exists and is free from determinants and constraints? Only omnipotence is free from constraints. I don't know if omnipotence actually exists. I also don't know if omnipotence is free from determinants.

I never said randomness exists. You've asked that question multiple times now. That's not what I said

I am trying to learn whether randomness actually exists and how that affects everything else. It's ok if you don't know. I don't know either. I know a very tiny amount and my ignorance is infinite. That's why I am the Truth Seeker and not the Truth Knower.

what constraint is randomness subject to?

I don't know.

so randomness might actually fit the bill for your definition then, right?

I don't know. I wish I knew.

Fair enough. I find the definition unsatisfying because it looks to me like randomness fits the bill. That's just my take.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am not saying your are right either. I really don't know. So sorry about not being omniscient and omnipotent.

it would really be wonderful if you were. If there's a petition going around to grant you omniscience, I'll sign it.

LOL

Of course, it is possible that I am an immortal soul who is experiencing the illusion of having a body and being on Earth. It's possible that I don't actually have a brain and body and cells and genes and environments and nutrients. It's possible that I only have the illusory experiences of being embodied. These are interesting ideas but they are totally untestable. — Truth Seeker

These ideas are very definitely testable. To state otherwise would be to say that every mystic who has ever claimed to know the truth is or was a liar. If you mean they are untestable by sensory empiricism then this is true, but only in the sense of finding a final proof. There's plenty of empirical evidence that lends these ideas credibility.. Only for a final proof would inner realisation be necessary, for this would be the only way to finally test them. .