Mechanism for free will I don't see anyone has proposed

[henry quirk]

No. The individual can choose (a course, an action) based on reasons he susses out for himself, informed by the past but not determined by it.

[bahman]

No. The individual can choose (a course, an action) based on reasons he susses out for himself, informed by the past but not determined by it.

Very true.

[henry quirk]

No. The individual can choose (a course, an action) based on reasons he susses out for himself, informed by the past but not determined by it.

Very true.

Lord, two agreements...hell might be gettin' cold.

[bahman]

No. The individual can choose (a course, an action) based on reasons he susses out for himself, informed by the past but not determined by it.

Very true.

Lord, two agreements...hell might be gettin' cold.

Suddenly the matter that its motion determined by past decides for future! How ironic!

[Sculptor]

So, matter moves and suddenly we have experience. Isn't that magic?

According to you, yes, humans are all magical creatures who can act in spite of themselves outside the laws of nature.
So that no matter what their life has been, their education, their situation, their needs, desires and wants, they can magically ignore all that and randomly pick a course of action out of thin air like taking a rabbit from a hat.

What I am trying to tell you is that the rabbit was already in the hat.

That is your reality. In my point of view, the experience is a property of mind. In yours, it emerges from motion of matter. I have an argument against emergence. I have an argument in necessity of mind.

What you believe is of no importance.
Unless you can account for your idea that humans are outside physics you have nothing.
Your idea not only fails practically, but also logically.
"free" will has no use whatever. In any given set of conditions, acting otherwise negates your will.

[bahman]

According to you, yes, humans are all magical creatures who can act in spite of themselves outside the laws of nature.
So that no matter what their life has been, their education, their situation, their needs, desires and wants, they can magically ignore all that and randomly pick a course of action out of thin air like taking a rabbit from a hat.

What I am trying to tell you is that the rabbit was already in the hat.

That is your reality. In my point of view, the experience is a property of mind. In yours, it emerges from motion of matter. I have an argument against emergence. I have an argument in necessity of mind.

What you believe is of no importance.
Unless you can account for your idea that humans are outside physics you have nothing.
Your idea not only fails practically, but also logically.
"free" will has no use whatever. In any given set of conditions, acting otherwise negates your will.

Have you ever been in a situation when you want your options equally or when you are unsure about the outcome of your decision in the future? A mechanical system simply fails to overcome such a situation, therefore, it halts. You won't halt, therefore, you are free. This is the use of free will in two different situations to the best of my knowledge.

[henry quirk]

I'm afraid you're wastin' your time with Sculptor.

He's one of the enlightened ones. To folks like him: all is mechanical and the human individual is just a bright ape variant. To folks like him: we're nuthin' but Roombas. Ain't nuthin' you can say will move him. Hell, his own sense of self-direction and -efficacy doesn't move him (or any anti-free type).

[Sculptor]

That is your reality. In my point of view, the experience is a property of mind. In yours, it emerges from motion of matter. I have an argument against emergence. I have an argument in necessity of mind.

What you believe is of no importance.
Unless you can account for your idea that humans are outside physics you have nothing.
Your idea not only fails practically, but also logically.
"free" will has no use whatever. In any given set of conditions, acting otherwise negates your will.

Have you ever been in a situation when you want your options equally or when you are unsure about the outcome of your decision in the future? A mechanical system simply fails to overcome such a situation, therefore, it halts.

No it does not.

You won't halt, therefore, you are free. This is the use of free will in two different situations to the best of my knowledge.

[Sculptor]

I'm afraid you're wastin' your time with Sculptor.

Because neither you nor him have anything but wishes. No argument. No reason.

He's one of the enlightened ones. To folks like him: all is mechanical and the human individual is just a bright ape variant. To folks like him: we're nuthin' but Roombas. Ain't nuthin' you can say will move him. Hell, his own sense of self-direction and -efficacy doesn't move him (or any anti-free type).

Run away!

[henry quirk]

sez you

as a mediocre mind recently posted: "What you believe is of no importance."

#

"Run away!"

I'm right here, buddy.

[bahman]

What you believe is of no importance.
Unless you can account for your idea that humans are outside physics you have nothing.
Your idea not only fails practically, but also logically.
"free" will has no use whatever. In any given set of conditions, acting otherwise negates your will.

Have you ever been in a situation when you want your options equally or when you are unsure about the outcome of your decision in the future? A mechanical system simply fails to overcome such a situation, therefore, it halts.

No it does not.

You won't halt, therefore, you are free. This is the use of free will in two different situations to the best of my knowledge.

It does halt. It seems to me that you have never written a program. Have you?

[Sculptor]

Have you ever been in a situation when you want your options equally or when you are unsure about the outcome of your decision in the future? A mechanical system simply fails to overcome such a situation, therefore, it halts.

No it does not.

You won't halt, therefore, you are free. This is the use of free will in two different situations to the best of my knowledge.

It does halt. It seems to me that you have never written a program. Have you?

Yes I have written a program. Several in fact.
I also have a solution to Buridan's Ass.


And ... BTW

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411 ... 8.751.html

[henry quirk]

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411 ... 8.751.html

...then read this: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/was-famo ... -debunked/

[henry quirk]

My thirst and hunger are equal and in front of me, both equally accessible, both equally appealing, water and food: what do I do?

I always quench thirst before satisfying hunger.

Why?

Cuz I'll last longer hydrated than with a full belly.

I can do that kinda thing cuz, while I may be a jackass, I'm not an ass, I'm a Human Being (a Free Will).

Conundrums? Paradoxes? Bring 'em on!

[bahman]

No it does not.

It does halt. It seems to me that you have never written a program. Have you?

Yes I have written a program. Several in fact.
I also have a solution to Buridan's Ass.


And ... BTW

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411 ... 8.751.html

If you have written a program then you know that the program halts if there are two outputs that both have equal weight. In simple word, there is no algorithm which can resolve such a situation when outputs have equal weight. You can try it.