Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,819
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
No, I have been very clear, concise, and precise about what I mean when I distinguish the definitions of "Free" and "will" in these discussions.You remain confused over the distinctions between will and function, rationality and free will.
I have given you my operational definitions multiple times.
You are the one who appears confused over them, between your frequent vacillations over whether "will" exists in the system at all.
I have pointed at concrete situations where, operating with my definitions which do not create in any situation I have presented any contradictions or nonsensical statements, situations where one may observe that there is a will, and where they may observe the real freedom value of the will.
And then you make an unfounded assertion again.The brain operates according to its physical makeup, which is not chosen, not will
I've told you what I mean by "free" and "will" and if you're going to attempt to talk to me about "free will" you're going to either damn well use that definition or you're not going to be talking to me but masturbating in your own face in front of the mirror PRETENDING you are talking to me.
Assertion fallacies all of them.You don't will your genetic makeup, neural architecture or electrochemical activity.
If I will to go out to a "spreader event", I will my genetic makeup will incorporate COVID 19. If I will to train myself to react a particular way under stress I will my neural architecture. If I watch a movie, I will my electrochemical activity to be altered.
Not-even-wrong assertion fallacy.That will doesn't have the right regulative control to support a claim for free will
Again, wills are not made free by the agent. Wills are made not-free by the state of reality.
You pick a will. Your will is "to see". You are blind. Your will is not free.
You pick a will. Your will is to have naturally blond hair. You have brown hair. You lack access to crisper, the knowledge of how to apply it to get your hair follicles to change behavior, the money to access it. Your will to change that part of your DNA is not free.
Someone has a will that is not "picked" yet, but which they are reading over inside their head. The will says "do this and kill people!" The knowledge they have says "if I kill people, I have an opportunity cost: doing so shall make a number of other wills definitely unfree" this they decide that they will not attempt it and thus the will is unfree.
I guess this is what is meant by "free won't" in previous parts of the conversation. It's impossible to make a will be free as freedom is a product of causal necessity at time(result), but it is absolutely possible for the agent to have another will, that happens to be free, to make some other will "certainly unfree"
Woot. Understood that position well enough to GROK it!
Anyway...
Shiny Mirror on the wall...All of this has been explained, experiments, case studies, expert analysis, etc, provided, yet your comments suggest that you haven't understood a word.
As has been stated, nobody here is accepting your libertarian free will definitions so either you start discussing with the definitions we do accept or you are just masturbating into your own face and pretending to have a conversation