Free will

[Skepdick]

No, choices define a situation. You might be biased toward one though. You can choose it but that is what I call a non-free decision.

How do I choose A or B if I am not biased towards A or B? What would tip the scales towards one; or the other?

Bias tips the scale.

No, you can choose one.

Which one? A or B?

Why A? Because I am biased towards A; or against B.
Why B? Because I am biased towards B; or against A.

The ass can choose one but not both. So it is up to him.

The point is that the ass chose neither and died. Because the ass was unbiased.

[bahman]

No, choices define a situation. You might be biased toward one though. You can choose it but that is what I call a non-free decision.

How do I choose A or B if I am not biased towards A or B? What would tip the scales towards one; or the other?

Bias tips the scale.

A scale is not needed for the free decision. You can in fact freely decide against scale. Think of a situation where you are walking on an unknown road. You know that the road takes you to a final destination you like. You walk along the road but suddenly the road forks. You don't know which road is the correct one yet you can choose one and try.

No, you can choose one.

Which one? A or B?

Whatever you decide freely.

Why A? Because I am biased towards A; or against B.
Why B? Because I am biased towards B; or against A.

None. You don't need a reason to freely decide. The decision was not free if there was a reason for it.

The ass can choose one but not both. So it is up to him.

The point is that the ass chose neither. Because the ass was unbiased.

No, the ass wants both but he can choose only one. The choices are unbiased but he can pick up one.

[Skepdick]

A scale is not needed for the free decision. You can in fact freely decide against scale.

Based on what? A or B.

Decide.

Think of a situation where you are walking on an unknown road. You know that the road takes you to a final destination you like. You walk along the road but suddenly the road forks. You don't know which road is the correct one yet you can choose one and try.

No, I can't.

There needs to be some mechanism by which I decide. Be it a coin toss; or the left road looks like it has more red flowers. I like red flowers!

Whatever you decide freely.

How do I decide freely? Based on what criteria?

None. You don't need a reason to freely decide. The decision was not free if there was a reason for it.

I do need a reason.

Why go for A and not B?
Why go for B and not A?

Surely if I am free to decide, then I am also free to NOT decide.

Choosing not to choose is a choice.

No, the ass wants both but he can choose only one. The choices are unbiased but he can pick up one.

The ass wants both. The ass chose neither. He died.

Ass could've chosen water then food. Didn't.
Ass could've chosen food then water. Didn't.

Ass had no preference. No bias.

[bobmax]

Perhaps you need to read the OP again thoroughly and think about it.

In summary,

I say that freedom and nature are incompatible.
You reply that they are compatible.

I ask you to give me an example.
You reply by asking me if I've ever had options.

I reply that that is a feeling, that there is no proof that there is freedom in nature.
Instead of providing proof, you invite me to reread your opening post.

The circle closes.
Free will exists because it exists.
We might as well say it right away.

Zero possibility of comparison.

[Sculptor]

No, a deterministic system goes from one state to another state. Decision matters when we are faced with at least two options or two states (options that need free decision as they are described in OP) so a deterministic system cannot evolve any further when it reaches such a situation.

IF an act of will is not deterministic, then how can you act at all?

I freely decide and then act.

On what basis?
What goes through your mind when you make a decision, anything?
Or is it a random whim?

What informs your choice of action.

My awareness of the situation.

You clearly have not thought this through at all.

I have thought of this thoroughly.

Then how do you make a choice?

That is the duty of mind. Any free agent has the ability to do so.

So you make a choice based on what you know, your current wants and needs, your emotional state, your motiveation , inclination etc... etc..

All of those are antecedent conditions that determine your choice.
QED free will is deterministic.

[bahman]

A scale is not needed for the free decision. You can in fact freely decide against scale.

Based on what? A or B.

Based on nothing.

Think of a situation where you are walking on an unknown road. You know that the road takes you to a final destination you like. You walk along the road but suddenly the road forks. You don't know which road is the correct one yet you can choose one and try.

No, I can't.

There needs to be some mechanism by which I decide. Be it a coin toss; or the left road looks like it has more red flowers. I like red flowers!

You don't need to toss a coin. You just can decide.

Whatever you decide freely.

How do I decide freely? Based on what criteria?

None. You don't need a reason to freely decide. The decision was not free if there was a reason for it.

I do need a reason.

Why go for A and not B?
Why go for B and not A?

Surely if I am free to decide, then I am also free to NOT decide.

Choosing not to choose is a choice.

As I mentioned for the third time, a decision that is based on a reason is not free.

No, the ass wants both but he can choose only one. The choices are unbiased but he can pick up one.

The ass wants both. The ass chose neither. He died.

Ass could've chosen water then food. Didn't.
Ass could've chosen food then water. Didn't.

Ass had no preference. No bias.

But ass can choose one.

[bahman]

Perhaps you need to read the OP again thoroughly and think about it.

In summary,

I say that freedom and nature are incompatible.
You reply that they are compatible.

I ask you to give me an example.
You reply by asking me if I've ever had options.

I reply that that is a feeling, that there is no proof that there is freedom in nature.
Instead of providing proof, you invite me to reread your opening post.

The circle closes.
Free will exists because it exists.
We might as well say it right away.

Zero possibility of comparison.

So, again have you ever had options in your life? I don't need you to comment on free will. Just a yes or no.

[bahman]

IF an act of will is not deterministic, then how can you act at all?

I freely decide and then act.

On what basis?

On no bias.

What goes through your mind when you make a decision, anything?

I just have options in my mind and then I choose one.

Or is it a random whim?

Free will looks random in from a third-person perspective for the first two scenarios that I discussed in OP.

What informs your choice of action.

My awareness of the situation.

You clearly have not thought this through at all.

I have thought of this thoroughly.

Then how do you make a choice?

That is the duty of mind. Any free agent has the ability to do so.

So you make a choice based on what you know, your current wants and needs, your emotional state, your motiveation , inclination etc... etc..

No, I don't need any of these in or to decide. They just define a situation.

All of those are antecedent conditions that determine your choice.
QED free will is deterministic.

I have already commented on this. A deterministic system goes from one state to another one. Decisions matter when we are dealing with at least two states. They are different types of things.

[Sculptor]

I freely decide and then act.

On what basis?

On no bias.

What goes through your mind when you make a decision, anything?

I just have options in my mind and then I choose one.

Or is it a random whim?

Free will looks random in from a third-person perspective for the first two scenarios that I discussed in OP.

My awareness of the situation.


I have thought of this thoroughly.


That is the duty of mind. Any free agent has the ability to do so.

So you make a choice based on what you know, your current wants and needs, your emotional state, your motiveation , inclination etc... etc..

No, I don't need any of these in or to decide. They just define a situation.

All of those are antecedent conditions that determine your choice.
QED free will is deterministic.

I have already commented on this. A deterministic system goes from one state to another one. Decisions matter when we are dealing with at least two states. They are different types of things.

I ask on what basis and you say on "no bias."
Id always doubted I'd get an intelligent answer from you and so it was.

[bahman]

On what basis?

On no bias.

What goes through your mind when you make a decision, anything?

I just have options in my mind and then I choose one.

Or is it a random whim?

Free will looks random in from a third-person perspective for the first two scenarios that I discussed in OP.

So you make a choice based on what you know, your current wants and needs, your emotional state, your motiveation , inclination etc... etc..

No, I don't need any of these in or to decide. They just define a situation.

All of those are antecedent conditions that determine your choice.
QED free will is deterministic.

I have already commented on this. A deterministic system goes from one state to another one. Decisions matter when we are dealing with at least two states. They are different types of things.

I ask on what basis and you say on "no bias."
Id always doubted I'd get an intelligent answer from you and so it was.

Oh sorry, I misread your post. I have already defined three scenarios in OP in which a free decision requires. Do you want me to repeat OP? There are two sorts of decisions, free which is unbiased by options, and non-free which is biased by options. I defined three scenarios in the OP that I can use as a base for my arguments.

[Skepdick]

But ass can choose one.

If it could it wouldn't have died.

[Age]

Free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

To WHO or to WHAT is this 'the definition' of 'free will'?

And, if this is 'the definition' of 'free will' to some of 'you', human beings, then there is now NO wonder WHY those ones were STILL ATTEMPTING to argue or fight over that absolutely RIDICULOUS question of; 'free will' OR 'determinism'?

To show that free will is real we discuss three different situations that which a free decision is needed. We consider a situation with only two options, A and B. We may like A more than B and choose A. This is a non-free decision that we call it conditional decision. We may like A and B equally and choose one of them. It is clear that we cannot be biased by one of the options so our decision is free in such a situation.

HOW would 'you' KNOW 'this'? And, WHY would 'you' ASSUME 'this'?

Is it POSSIBLE to 'like' two DIFFERENT 'things' ABSOLUTELY 'equally'?

And, IF 'you' do 'like' two DIFFERENT 'things' EQUALLY, then WHY did 'you' CHOOSE 'one' OVER 'the other'?

There are situations that which the future outcome of A or B is not known.

Like 'what', for example?

Again we cannot be biased by one of the options yet we can decide so such a decision is free too.

Like 'what', 'where', or 'when', for example, EXACTLY?

We may like A more than B but we have the power to choose B for no specific reason.

THEN, WHY CHANGE 'your' DECISION?

This is again a free decision since we were biased by A but we were able to choose B.

But if you were 'biased', or there was a 'bias', then there was NOT the ability to 'unbiasedly choose', OBVIOUSLY.

So, I suggest STARTING AGAIN 'trying to' LOOK FOR words that you might be able USE, which could ACTUALLY back up and support your, obviously, CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here.

[Age]

I think choosing between multiple options is just a possible manifestation of free will, but not free will itself.

Because free will has to do with myself.

That is, I exist, as I, precisely because I am this same free will.

WHY then are 'you' NOT free?

And I manifest myself to myself precisely through this will.

Is this One NOT ABLE TO manifest Its Self, through determinism?

If It can manifest Its Self, through free will, why could It NOT have done this determinedly or pre-determined the manifestation?

After all if It has 'free will', and/or IS 'free will', then It could have 'freely' pre-determined to make Its Self manifest, in the future.

Which is free because it expresses myself.

You began by saying, "I exist" because "I am this free will", but now you say that 'it' is 'free will' that expresses "your" 'self'. So, does 'free will' do this, or is that 'I' 'free will'?

Also, are you even AWARE that the word/s "myself" implies and means TWO, and NOT One?

I am this same freedom of will.

However, freedom is incompatible with nature.

There is nothing in nature that is free.

So, what would you like to put up as being what is in OPPOSITION of Nature, Itself?

Because everything depends entirely on something else.

What does the 'Universe' depend entirely ON, EXACTLY?

What does 'Nature' depend entirely ON, EXACTLY? And even,

What does the 'I' depend entirely ON, EXACTLY?

There is nothing that happens whose cause is truly attributable to a specific thing and nothing else. Not even the slightest component of this cause.

Why should I be different then?

Therefore this body of mine exists, this mind of mine exists, this will of mine exists... but do I really exist?

If, as you say, 'you' are manifesting "your" 'self" to "your" 'self', then what is being, supposedly, manifested to 'you' and/or "your" 'self'? Is 'it' some 'thing' REAL and EXISTING or is 'it' NOT.

Surely, ONLY 'you' would KNOW the answer to this question, of YOURS here, correct?

[Age]

Whatever free will is, it is completely deterministic.

And, it could be argued what was completely pre-'determined' comes about because of 'free will'.

As will 'come-to-light', soon enough.

The only way the phrase makes sense is to describe a condition where an agent can act without being compelled from external forces, but act solely on their own determination.

If by 'the phrase' you mean 'free will', then there is ANOTHER WAY to make sense of this ALL.

When do an act of will, it is determined by prevailing conditions. For each of us choices are made base on our personal experience and motivation. It is wholly biased to our own way of thinking.
And thus an act of free will is 100% biased on our OWN needs, wants, and motivations.

[Age]

Give me an example, please.

You have never had options in your life?

Feeling free to want doesn't mean you really are.

The ego manifests itself through this feeling.
But what seems true is not necessarily true.

The sun appears to revolve around the earth, but it is not.

There is nothing in nature that is free.

So, what is Nature, Itself, supposedly NOT 'free' from, EXACTLY?

But we delude ourselves instead of being free to want one thing rather than another.

WHY would 'you' do such a thing as this?

It would be enough to consider that we are not able to want to want. But we only want...