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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I agree.

I never said that complex neurological systems can't be deterministic. As far as I know the decision making process in complex neurological systems is entirely deterministic. Of course, I am not all-knowing. If you can show that our will is not determined and constrained by genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, then please do. Thank you.

Thank you for your wise advice.

I understand the process. Thank you for explaining it.

Randomness is not free will. Randomness is just randomness.

I agree with you.

I agreed with what LuckyR said because I interpreted his definition to be talking about biological organisms making choices. I can see that you interpreted it differently which is fine.

Having a will is a prerequisite for having free will. We have a will but it is not free. It is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

That's interesting. I didn't know that a computer program could have 1+1= 257 or -35 etc.

I agree. Having a will is a prerequisite for having free will. We have a will but it is not free. It is determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

You are most welcome.

I agree with you.

Thank you for clarifying what you mean. I agree that people before Galileo and Copernicus used to believe that the Sun orbits the Earth but that didn't make it true. They were simply ignorant of the truth that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don't know what you mean by 1+1=X. Please explain what you mean. Thank you.

I have read many contradictory definitions of free will and don't agree with any of them. That's why I came up with my own definition. If you don't agree with my definition that's ok with me. I don't ask anyone to agree with me about anything. This is an excerpt of an interview of Robert Sapolski https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaxHTYtSavc It is 19 minutes 52 seconds long. You can watch it if you want to. It's fine with me if you don't want to watch it. He is a professor at Stanford University. Please see https://profiles.stanford.edu/robert-sapolsky if you want to know more about him and his research and publications.

I don't think of statements as judgements. 1 + 1 = 2 is true. The Earth orbits the Sun is true. The Earth orbits Mars is false. These are not judgements. These are truthful statements. An example of a judgement would be: X is guilty of murdering Y.

There is no universally accepted definition of 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.

Did you watch the Robert Sapolsky video?

Truth is not one's judgement on something. Truth is what is real. If I say that I went to the Moon for a holiday when I actually did not go there, that's a lie. If I say I live on Earth and I actually live on Earth then that's a truth. Hallucinations and dreams are true in the sense that they happen to us and they affect us.

I agree.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Did you see the Robert Sapolsky video?

I agree with you.

I agree with you.

This is wise.

Yes, we do learn the label "dream" from our caregivers. However, that does not preclude the possibility of our perceived reality being dream or hallucination or illusion or simulation. According to Hinduism, our perceived reality is an illusion called Maya. It's impossible to prove or disprove this claim. Of course, just because we can't disprove an idea it does not make it true. It does not make it false either. It is an untestable idea.

I agree with you. News reports and history books often include selected 'truths' while omitting inconvenient truths.

If one is convinced that one is right when he or she is wrong, this can lead to catastrophes. I remember a mentally ill person who jumped off a tall building believing that he would fly like Neo flew in the movie called "The Matrix". Sadly, he was severely injured.

I agree with you but it is still possible that your perceived reality is a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. That's why I said I am 99.99% certain that my perceived reality is actually real.

Yes, indeed.

Please explain why you think: "All the sensory perception I have through my own senses must be taken as 100% truth until they are found, and proven as otherwise via self verification, logical thinking process or repeated observations." Thank you.

I agree.

From my perspective. I agree that the world looks flat to me when I am at home on Earth but it won't look flat if I was on the International Space Station.

Along with shared subjectivity, there is also exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know the contents of my dreams and what thoughts and recollections occur to me.

Thank you for the interesting link.

Thank you for letting me know. I had never Googled shared subjectivity until I read your post. I came up with the concept many years ago when I was discussing reality with my friend.

Being conscious is a prerequisite for experiencing dream or hallucination or illusion or simulation. That's why I can be 100% certain that I am conscious whether or not my perceptions of reality (e.g. my body, other organisms, the Earth, the rest of the Universe) are of an actual reality or not.

I created the term "shared subjectivity". It is more accurate than saying "shared reality" because we don't actually know with 100% certainty whether our perceptions of reality are of an actual reality or not.

What is true at the quantum level is not true at the macroscopic level. We can't measure both the position and vector of electrons but we can measure both the position and vector of footballs. Another example would be quantum superposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition This never happens at the macroscopic level. When one tosses a coin, it does not land on both the head and the tail at the same time. It lands on either the head or the tail.