Free will

[Age]

Whatever free will is, it is completely deterministic.

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.

It is BECAUSE OF the way you Wrongly described 'things' in the opening post WHY 'you', and "others", are STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED here.

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.

Yes, that is how I defined free will.

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.

No. I have already given three situations that need, want, or motivation cannot help or do not matter.

LOL "bahman" you have just 'tried to' say SOME 'thing' that you HOPED or BELIEVED would back up and support your CURRENTLY HELD BELIEF. But, it is with deep sorrow I am saddened to SAY, what you SAID here does NOT back up and support your CLAIM and BELIEF here. Those situations just do NOT WORK for you.

[Age]

Have you ever had options in your life? Yes or no?

I live most of the time convinced that I am choosing between several possibilities.
And this belief makes my "I" be.

But this belief is an illusion.

WHY do 'you' HAVE and/or HOLD ONTO a BELIEF, especially WHEN 'you' even KNOW that that BELIEF is just 'an illusion'?

That free will is an illusion can be seen by looking at how the world works.

And, how, EXACTLY, does 'the world' work?

However, that free will does not exist is above all an ethical necessity.

This is not to say that then there is no responsibility for evil.
Indeed, the responsibility extends to all the evil in the world.

Because it is as if I were at the origin of all things, and this evil depended precisely on me.

So, WHY do 'you' CONTINUE to do 'evil', and NOT 'take responsibility' for the 'evil' that 'you' CONTINUE TO DO?

[Age]

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

This conception makes no sense to me. Bias is the same thing as choice.

But you could be biased towards some 'thing', that is; you may like some 'thing' more than or over another 'thing', like, for example, chocolate ice cream over vanila ice, but there is CERTAINLY NO necessity to having to 'make a choice', NOR 'choosing', now.

So, 'bias', in this sense is NOT the same thing as 'choice'.

ALSO, if the taste buds on a tongue prefer the taste of some 'thing', more than another 'thing', and so 'you' have become what is called 'biased' to the former 'thing', that is NOT necessarily 'you' 'deciding' NOR 'choosing' either. That is just what 'that body' prefers, or is biased towards.

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose any one of the available options.

But one can be 'unbiased' and STILL be ABLE to 'choose' ANY of the available options.

For example, what was 'that body' 'biased' towards soon after birth?

Did 'you' 'CHOOSE' which milk, or which breast or bottle, 'you', supposedly, 'wanted' or were 'biased' towards?

Or, did that body just KNOW that 'it' was 'hungry' for, or more correctly NEEDED, 'nourishment', and so would go towards whichever breast, for example, where there was milk?

Buridan's ass was unbiased.

It could be argued that a new born baby is 'unbiased', and when placed precisely between two milking nipples is NOT STUPID enough to go to ONE OF THEM.

The human animal, just like EVERY other animal, (besides maybe the adult human animal) is NOT STUPID ENOUGH to NOT go to one or the other sources of life providing substances, just because it is 'precisely midway' between two sources of nourishment.

"buridan's ass" is just ANOTHER example of what lengths adult human beings will 'TRY TO' go to, in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support whatever 'it' is that they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

Back in the days when this was being written, they would, LITTERALLY, say just about absolutely ANY thing if they thought that it would "help" what they ALREADY BELIEVED was true, right, and/or correct.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True throughout human historical writings, hitherto when this was being written. Just this forum provides PRIME EXAMPLES of this DISTORTED WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

[Age]

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

This conception makes no sense to me. Bias is the same thing as choice.

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.

But what 'you' call a 'non-free decision', does NOT mean that 'it' is ACTUALLY a 'non-free decision'. Do you understand this Fact?

Do you understand that IF because 'you' call some 'thing' something, then that would also logically follow and mean that if someone ELSE could some 'thing' the OPPOSITE of what 'you' do, then that would make that 'thing', 'the thing' that they called 'it'?

In other words, just because 'you' give a particular 'thing' a particular 'name', this does NOT make IT SO.

To be unbiased is to be unable to choose any one of the available options.

No, you can choose one.

Buridan's ass was unbiased.

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

[Age]

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?

The same way you 'chose' one tit over another tit, (that is; if you did).

What would tip the scales towards one; or the other?

Your SURVIVAL 'tips the scales' towards 'you choosing'. But whether it is one or the other, in the case of the milking titties, then there is NO 'tipping of the scales' from one nor the other. ('ANY port will do in a storm', as some might say).

Bias tips the scale.

So, what could be 'the bias factor' over one breast from another, which, supposedly, would 'tip the scales'?

What IS 'the bias factor' WHY an 'ass' or a 'donkey', or even a 'horse', would go to one pile of food over another if that animal was placed 'precisely midway between the two'?

Of course, SURVIVAL is A 'bias factor', but that 'bias factor' SURELY does NOT have absolutely ANY bearing AT ALL on what pile of food an animal WOULD MOVE TOWARDS.

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.

UNTIL examples are PROVIDED, there is REALLY, and LITTERLY, NOTHING to LOOK AT and SEE here, to work off and from.

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.

LOL And here 'it' IS. The PRIME EXAMPLE of how adult human beings WILL FIND and USE words, which they HOPE and THINK will back up and support their ALREADY HELD CURRENT BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

What "ass", in the WHOLE world, would choose NEITHER, and just DIE?

The answer is the 'one', which was MADE UP and IMAGINED, in order to 'TRY TO' find absolutely ANY thing that is HOPED would back up and support ones CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

There is NO "ass", in the world, who would CHOOSE to NOT eat. Unless, OF COURSE, they WANTED TO DIE. Which, AGAIN, was a CHOICE MADE, upon a BIAS.

[Age]

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.

Depending on the 'final destination', USUALLY, one CHOOSES one road because they THINK, thus are BIASED towards, 'that one' being either the shortest, quickest, simplest, and/or easiest WAY, to the ALREADY DECIDED 'final destination'.

However, for some "others", like us, the 'final destination' might be WANTING to SEE and LEARN as much as we can, along the way. Therefore, we might be BIASED towards taking what is THOUGHT to be the longer, slower, complicated, and/or harder WAY.

But, although we might CHOOSE 'this way', 'this time', ANY 'other time', even with the EXACT SAME 'final destination' being the EXACT SAME GOAL, an infinite number of other variables might come into place, which would then BIAS 'the decision'. For example, one variable might be feeling thirsty 'this time' when 'another time' would NOT be feeling thirsty, and so the road CHOSEN, which is THOUGHT TO BE quicker, would be DECIDED UPON, 'this time'.

But ALL of these DECISION are based upon BIASED FACTORS.

No, you can choose one.

Which one? A or B?

Whatever you decide freely.

LOL It is 'freely', which IS the 'operative' word here.

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.

You seem to have MISSED the WHOLE POINT about the 'free will/determinism' discussion, which 'you', human beings, have been SQUABBLING over for centuries now. That point IS; Was it a FREE decision or NOT?

As I just SHOWED, in reply to YOUR EXAMPLE, "bahman" NONE of those DECISIONS were 'FREELY' made, as they were based upon pre-exiting BIASES.

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.

WHY can the "ass" NOT CHOOSE BOTH? Just eat, or drink, one AFTER the other one, seems VERY LOGICAL to me.

The choices are unbiased but he can pick up one.

[Age]

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.

There does NOT HAVE TO BE. BUT, there IS a 'mechanism', by which 'you', adult human beings, decide.

Be it a coin toss; or the left road looks like it has more red flowers. I like red flowers!

What 'decision', EXACTLY, are you making in a coin toss?

And, what are you basing that 'decision' on, EXACTLY?

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.

IN 'what' 'world' would this ACTUALLY happen AND occur?

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

Ass had no preference. No bias.

The "ass" OBVIOUSLY HAD A 'preference'. If an "ass" CHOSE NOT to eat NOR drink, then 'it' was CHOOSING to DIE, instead.

HOWEVER, because this WAS just a STUPID HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, at least this brings us to LOOKING AT the DIFFERENCE between the physical body REACTING, in order to CONTINUE TO SURVIVE, and the ABILITY TO CHOOSE, which the human animal HAS OVER ALL OTHER animals.

[Age]

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

In summary,

I say that freedom and nature are incompatible.

AND, 'you' ARE absolutely FREE to SAY, and/or CLAIM, absolutely whatever you like.

Or, will 'nature' NOT ALLOW you this FREEDOM?

The ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of YOUR CLAIM here speaks for itself.

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.

[Age]

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.

AND, what WILL come-to-be, which IS 'determined', or WAS 'pre-determined', is BECAUSE OF 'free will'.

It is just NOT the 'free will' being PRESENTED here. That is ALL.

[Age]

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.

This one can NOT, YET, SEE what 'it' IS that "others" are POINTING OUT.

This is because this one has NOT and STILL does NOT take an INTROSPECTIVE LOOK AT 'itself'.

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.

[Age]

But ass can choose one.

If it could it wouldn't have died.

"skepdick" are you aware that the "ass" did NOT DIE in ACTUAL REAL LIFE, and that 'it' ONLY 'died' in PRETEND?

[Sculptor]

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.

I won't hold my breath.

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.

[Skepdick]

"skepdick" are you aware that the "ass" did NOT DIE in ACTUAL REAL LIFE, and that 'it' ONLY 'died' in PRETEND?

Very much so. Demonstrating that the donkey was biased one way or another.

[bahman]

But ass can choose one.

If it could it wouldn't have died.

His death is not our concern. The point is that he can choose one.

[Skepdick]

His death is not our concern. The point is that he can choose one.

What do you mean by "can" when it's obvious he isn't choosing either?!?