According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[steve_bank]

Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction

Wow, I had no idea. I always thought people sought greater pain and misery. Well some do, ,like pushing a failed ideology. For some the pain of failure becomes an addiction.

Uhhh ... let me think ... the pleasure of sex motivates us to procreate? Eureka! I have just made a revolutionary discovery. Books to follow.

Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The word ‘hedonism’ comes from the ancient Greek for ‘pleasure’. Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth. Jeremy Bentham asserted both psychological and ethical hedonism with the first two sentences of his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do”. Debate about hedonism was a feature too of many centuries before Bentham, and this has also continued after him. Other key contributors to debate over hedonism include Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Aquinas, Butler, Hume, Mill, Nietzsche, Brentano, Sidgwick, Moore, Ross, Broad, Ryle and Chisholm.

Miracles and bible. Of course.

The book is an unstructured wandering incontinent mess.

Stream of consciousness is a narrative style mimicking the unfiltered, continuous flow of a character's thoughts, sensations, and memories, often appearing as disorganized interior monologues with unusual punctuation or syntax to capture the mind's free associations, used famously by modernist writers like James Joyce and Virginia Woolf to reveal deep psychological truths.

By the way, under the new dietary guidelines vitriol is an essential nutrient.

 

[peacegirl]

Unfortunately, I can't stomach posting more of this book because of the naysayers and the vitriol, even before I got into the actual discovery. It's just not worth it to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

Unfortunately, I can't stomach posting more of this book because of the naysayers and the vitriol, even before I got into the actual discovery. It's just not worth it to me.

And everyone cheered.

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately, I can't stomach posting more of this book because of the naysayers and the vitriol, even before I got into the actual discovery. It's just not worth it to me.

Yup. It's not that there's no substance to my claims; It's all the vitriolic personal attacks (aka "people not believing me without question") that makes it impossible for me to share the secrets of the universe with you.

Of course, if this idea really could change the world, it wouldn't stumble at the incredibly low bar of "people being hostile to it". If an idea can't get past that hurdle, it is, observably, NOT an idea that can change the world.

Perhaps it would have been useful to at least try to get some idea of how the world actually is, before attempting to change it?

 

[steve_bank]

Some people are a glutton for punishment.

I post as I see it. You are being treated no differential than your critics treat each other in terms of criticism.

Stream of copiousness fits. The book is a aimless wandering of thoughts. The basic argument could be presented clearly in a few pages.

The book appears mostly the author repetitiously proclaiming how great his idea is and how it is true.

I am wondering. Is this the actual book by yur father or is it your compilation? Did you edit it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Everyone and their half-brother's uncle has a model for how the world becomes perfect.

For some people, that model requires burning everything down until no life remains that could possibly become something like them ever again. (Nihilism)

For other people, it requires putting exactly them on the throne of the world to rule by decree as a tyrant, destroying the foreigner, the immigrant, the poor, the weird, and then any of themselves as they "purify" into a monoculture, and the people who control this would be a very small fraction of a very small club of which you are not a member, and the existence of everyone else would only continue as their lessers and playthings. Everyone else, every other story, would be put to the torch, and they would rule as god-kings until they consume each other and then the last one dies; or, more likely, extinction of the monoculture due to ecosystem collapse.
(Gods/kings/masters; Religion/Solipsism/Fascism/False Fatalists)

And for those who condone it, living as the pets of those who eat the world in slavish submission. (True Fatalists)

For other people, it is to write enough books that everyone has a library not just of themselves but of everyone else. Placed fore of the "library" of "themselves" would be those stories which give them a way to forge a path away from Religion and Nihilism and Fatalism but instead towards goals that don't involve burning or eating the world, but to share it and keep this all going, to live compatibly, and to find ways to get people what they want without destroying us all: ways for everyone to share having their little bite slowly enough to avoid eating it all up, and to find ways to taste the bites our fellows; ways that we can earlier identify, or not even become those people who hate themselves enough to burn away everything so as to give them better options; to have places where we may find some joy from some leave given, locally, to burn and burn away, or to live consensually under a boot but without involving the rest of us; ways to do other things entirely such as to dance and live and perhaps to die, but to do our best to tell good stories, and do our best not to be villains of them. (Compatibilism; Absurdism)

It's not surprising, but I pick compatibilism: to dance and take my bites and light my little fires; to be born an be burned on occasion; and eventually put myself on a hard drive somewhere for others to find and read so as to occasionally be fascinated and disgusted by and use perhaps as an example or map of how even the most unlikely sorts may be born to not be a villain.

You can pick other things, but that will put us at odds. I will have no Gods, Masters, nor Kings, nor will I consent to the burning of the world.

 

[DBT]

Reliably predicting things such as planetary orbits, comets, landing spacecraft on distant planets, etc, supports causality. That events happening now are causally related to past events, where if the links are strong enough, we have causal determinism.....or at least adequate determinism.

I believe your statement gives away too much.

To begin, I believe we both agree that the predictability of given activity is immaterial to the question of whether the given activity could be otherwise than it is as a result of antecedent activity. While some folks argue that predictability follows from Determinism, others disagree. All Incompatibilists agree, however, that the truth of Determinism (if true) forecloses alternatives without regard to the ability of anyone to predict the determined activity.

Secondly, I have an issue with the words "if the links are strong enough." Antecedent activity that is closest in time and proximity to subsequent activity are simply the most obvious of the nearly infinite antecedent activity that coalesces to cause the activity in question. To credit the activity that is closest in time and proximity is akin to attributing the weight of a single straw to breaking a camel's back, when the fact is that every straw is a causal antecedent, as is the age of the camel, the activities of the camel that contributed to the strength of the camel's back, the strength of the force of gravity at the location in which the came is standing, and innumerable other antecedents that combine to cause the instant of camel back collapse.

Determinism posits that the collapse of the camel's back was inevitable at the precise time and location it occurred as a result of all antecedent activity from the beginning of time (Big Bang?) to the moment of collapse. To characterize the antecedent causes of activity as "adequate" within the paradigm of Determinism denigrates their inevitability.

I understand that you are trying to make a point to folks who refuse to understand, much less appreciate the paradigm, but that is no reason to cater to their ignorance, as it feeds into their contrary and unsupportable contentions.

I meant causal links, as in causal determinism;

''Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other.''

Which is fundamentally how compatibilists define determinism, yet some on this forum try to deny or circumvent the given terms.

That's all.

Since I reject that definition of causal determinism in toto, for reasons I have repeatedly explained, I am not trying to deny or circumvent anything.

That you reject it doesn't alter the terms and conditions of determinism as defined by compatibilists, which is not that different, at least in terms of not permitting alternate choices in any instance of decision making.

It makes no real difference.

A brief recap:

Necessity is solely a matter of logic and not physics.

The laws of nature are not laws at all.

Therefore the definition given above is fatally flawed

The terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilism define it to be describe how the world physically works, if it is deterministic.

If that is indeed flawed, as you say, compatibilism is flawed. Then compatibilism is flawed in terms of both its definition of determinism and free will.

 

[steve_bank]

I would agree that at free will as commonly believed to be is an illusion, a myth.

I would say modern mass marketing and advertising is based on the fact that the average person does not have free will even if they have the potential for it..

And then back to free will versus free choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

at least in terms of not permitting alternate choices in any instance of decision making

Only if you commit the no-true-scotsman and state idiotically that "true" alternatives cannot exist offset from one another.

We've been over this again and again.

An alternative offset in time and/or space is still an alternative.

The conditional branch address is still an address, in computer science terms. The conditoonal branch instruction is still an instruction. Something happens that decides on some third party variable whether or not to branch, and that is the execution of a choice.

One very important aspect of a complete computing machine is that it has to be capable of branching selectively. It's an absolute requirement. A OISC, a "one instruction set computer" is possible, but only if that instruction contains a selective jump (such as the "subtract and jump if less than or equal to" or SUBLEQ computer).

This is important because we can accurately and reliably identify the existence of this "choosing mechanism", and build one and know that's what it does.

We can identify the addresses that are the alternatives.

We can identify the nature of the thing that makes the choice (although the "decider of freedom" is very abstract and chaotic, given the nature of that particular computer), and see exactly how and why the alternatives are offset, even if the reasons for its ability to choose are very (weird/circuit) shaped.

Whether or not humans are "computers", if humans can do something abstractly like "jumping between enumerator states" or anything of the like, they can similarly have as much ability to "choose" across "alternatives".

 

[peacegirl]

at least in terms of not permitting alternate choices in any instance of decision making

Only if you commit the no-true-scotsman and state idiotically that "true" alternatives cannot exist offset from one another.

We've been over this again and again.

An alternative offset in time and/or space is still an alternative.

The conditional branch address is still an address, in computer science terms. The conditoonal branch instruction is still an instruction. Something happens that decides on some third party variable whether or not to branch, and that is the execution of a choice.

One very important aspect of a complete computing machine is that it has to be capable of branching selectively. It's an absolute requirement. A OISC, a "one instruction set computer" is possible, but only if that instruction contains a selective jump (such as the "subtract and jump if less than or equal to" or SUBLEQ computer).

This is important because we can accurately and reliably identify the existence of this "choosing mechanism", and build one and know that's what it does.

We can identify the addresses that are the alternatives.

We can identify the nature of the thing that makes the choice (although the "decider of freedom" is very abstract and chaotic, given the nature of that particular computer), and see exactly how and why the alternatives are offset, even if the reasons for its ability to choose are very (weird/circuit) shaped.

Whether or not humans are "computers", if humans can do something abstractly like "jumping between enumerator states" or anything of the like, they can similarly have as much ability to "choose" across "alternatives".

STRAWMAN!!!! ALARM ALARM IS GOING OFF!!!!!! DETERMINISTS DO NOT SAY WE ARE CONTROLLED BY OUTSIDE FORCES. OUR CHOICES ARE MADE BY OFFSET ALTERNATIVES. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JARYN BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCUSING DETERMINISTS FOR SOMETHING THEY DON'T CLAIM.

 

[steve_bank]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2023 Edition)

2. Conceptual Issues in Determinism

Recall that we loosely defined causal determinism as follows, with terms in need of clarification italicized:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

When Peace girl says deterrminists which version of determinism does she mean?

Forces are a human abstraction. The inverse just is.

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events and the origin of the universe may not be specified. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.[7] In the case of nomological determinism, these conditions are considered events also, implying that the future is determined completely by preceding events—a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.[5] These conditions can also be considered metaphysical in origin (such as in the case of theological determinism).[6]

NomologicalNomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism and is generally synonymous with physical determinism.[citation needed] This is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws and that every occurrence inevitably results from prior events.

Necessitarianism

Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility and maintains that there is only one possible way for the world to exist. Leucippus claimed there are no uncaused events and that everything occurs for a reason and by necessity.[10]

PredeterminismPredeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[11][12] The concept is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.

BiologicalThe term predeterminism is also frequently used in the context of biology and heredity, in which case it represents a form of biological determinism, sometimes called genetic determinism.[17] Biological determinism is the idea that all human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human genetic nature.

Fatalism

Fatalism is normally distinguished from determinism,[19] as a form of teleological determinism. Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, resulting in humans having no control over their future. Fate has arbitrary power, and does not necessarily follow any causal or deterministic laws.[7] Types of fatalism include hard theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished through either foreknowledge of their actions, achieved through omniscience[20] or by predetermining their actions.[21]

Determined probability

Stephen Hawking explained that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, nature is not governed by laws that determine the future with certainty but by laws that determine the probability of various futures.[28]: 32 

Adequate

Adequate determinism is the idea, because of quantum decoherence, that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics). While there are specific examples of these random events magnified to macro levels, such as Geiger counters, they are still insignificant in the context of free will.[27]

 

[peacegirl]

I would agree that at free will as commonly believed to be is an illusion, a myth.

I would say modern mass marketing and advertising is based on the fact that the average person does not have free will even if they have the potential for it..

And then back to free will versus free choice.

Free choice is the ability to make a decision without external influence or coercion. Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. This discussion is not about free will versus free choice. It is about free will versus determinism.

 

[peacegirl]

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2023 Edition)

2. Conceptual Issues in Determinism

Recall that we loosely defined causal determinism as follows, with terms in need of clarification italicized:

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

When Peace girl says deterrminists which version of determinism does she mean?

Forces are a human abstraction. The inverse just is.

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events and the origin of the universe may not be specified. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.[7] In the case of nomological determinism, these conditions are considered events also, implying that the future is determined completely by preceding events—a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.[5] These conditions can also be considered metaphysical in origin (such as in the case of theological determinism).[6]

This author was very clear when he clarified that the word "past" is misleading because we only have the present. The chain still exists, but not by something forcing us to act in ways counter to how we ourselves would act.

NomologicalNomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism and is generally synonymous with physical determinism.[citation needed] This is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws and that every occurrence inevitably results from prior events.

Our memories of the past have a direct influence on our decisions day in and day out. These memories will continue to play a part in all of our future decisions. This is a natural law but it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell us what we must choose in advance of our choosing it. It can only tell us what could not have been otherwise, looking back. This is important to understand because people think determinism means we are just robots. This is due to the standard definition that is leading people astray. It is not reflective of what determinism actually means in reality.

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words ‘cause’ and ‘compel’ are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight enables man to evaluate his progress and make adjustments when necessary, as he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause,’ like ‘choice’ and ‘past,’ is very misleading, as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already.

Necessitarianism

Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility and maintains that there is only one possible way for the world to exist. Leucippus claimed there are no uncaused events and that everything occurs for a reason and by necessity.[10]

True, but the word "cause" is misleading, therefore the word "uncaused" is misleading.

PredeterminismPredeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[11][12] The concept is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.

All events were determined if we could look back to the origin of the universe, but the future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy since there are too many variables to know how every event will play out. That doesn't mean the chain of events is broken. Bringing an omniscient God into the picture doesn't help either.

BiologicalThe term predeterminism is also frequently used in the context of biology and heredity, in which case it represents a form of biological determinism, sometimes called genetic determinism.[17] Biological determinism is the idea that all human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human genetic nature.

Genetics plays a part in how we react to the environment, but it does not cause a person to become a killer without something in the environment to set that behavior off.

Fatalism

Fatalism is normally distinguished from determinism,[19] as a form of teleological determinism. Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, resulting in humans having no control over their future. Fate has arbitrary power, and does not necessarily follow any causal or deterministic laws.[7] Types of fatalism include hard theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished through either foreknowledge of their actions, achieved through omniscience[20] or by predetermining their actions.[21]

We can say that something was fate when we have done everything we could to prevent a bad situation from occurring, and it still occurs. This is not a reason to throw up our arms and do nothing. Would you stand by and let a child get hit by a car and then call it fate? No, you would try to help, and if you were too late and it couldn't be prevented, then and only then would you say it was fate.

Determined probability

Stephen Hawking explained that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, nature is not governed by laws that determine the future with certainty but by laws that determine the probability of various futures.[28]: 32 

Quantum mechanics does not control the macro world of human decision-making. Moreover, determinism does not mean every single decision can be predicted in advance. The only thing that matters regarding this debate is the issue of moral responsibility, for if we could increase this responsibility where no one would desire to strike a first blow (which is why this discussion matters), no one would care whether they could predict whether I will eat eggs or cereal for breakfast.

Adequate

Adequate determinism is the idea, because of quantum decoherence, that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics). While there are specific examples of these random events magnified to macro levels, such as Geiger counters, they are still insignificant in the context of free will.[27]

Random events have no power in our everyday lives because they don't play a part in how we come to a decision. Once again, we are discussing human decision-making and how it works, not some random event that could usurp our ability to contemplate and make choices in the direction of "greater" satisfaction.

 

[steve_bank]

I would agree that at free will as commonly believed to be is an illusion, a myth.

I would say modern mass marketing and advertising is based on the fact that the average person does not have free will even if they have the potential for it..

And then back to free will versus free choice.

Free choice is the ability to make a decision without external influence or coercion. Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. This discussion is not about free will versus free choice. It is about free will versus determinism.

And this says nothing.

When you say determiners all think... which version of determinism do you mean?

This is a philosophy forum.

 

[steve_bank]

Random events do have a profound effect in daily life.

A random event is generally defined mathematically as one event not predictably affecting the next event.

Put 10 balls one red 9 blue in a box. Shake and pick one, put it back and repeat. On any pick the probability i 1/10 for picking red. The last pick doe not influence the next pick. Random events.

Somebody getting hit by a car on one street does not affect the probability of getting hit on anotherr street. To us getting hot by a car is a random event.

In our daliy life we face randomness everyday.

And please, when quoting your book please hide it. Post what you think. The book is mostly gibberish to me.

I doubt anyone is paying serious attention to the book.

 

[Jarhyn]

A random event is generally defined mathematically as one event not predictably affecting the next event

I will note that one of the major issues in this discussion is that there are two different concepts of "random" flitting about though this discussion: the one you just stated about correlation between events; and "indeterminate" randomness, "true randomness" of the sort math cannot even possibly express.

Deterministic systems can be dripping with "discorrolate randomness"; the one thing a deterministic system cannot abide is "indeterminate randomness".

 

[peacegirl]

I would agree that at free will as commonly believed to be is an illusion, a myth.

I would say modern mass marketing and advertising is based on the fact that the average person does not have free will even if they have the potential for it..

And then back to free will versus free choice.

Free choice is the ability to make a decision without external influence or coercion. Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. This discussion is not about free will versus free choice. It is about free will versus determinism.

And this says nothing.

When you say determiners all think... which version of determinism do you mean?

This is a philosophy forum.

And I explained it Steve. I guess you didn't read it. Again, you can try to complicate things by divvying up all kinds of different definitions, but they boil down to one thing, and that is, after a decision is made and acted upon, we either could have done otherwise (free will) or we could not have (no free will). And the verdict is in: WE COULD NOT HAVE.

 

[steve_bank]

Things that appear random to us may not be random.

An old idea, if you know the exact state of the universe in all details the next step is predictable.

Aristotle's approach to understanding the universe involved deducing first principles (
archai) – fundamental truths or causes – from observable phenomena, moving from what's known to us (like earthly physics) to universal, fundamental principles, though his specific principles (like teleology and prime mover) differ from modern physics, which relies on universal physical laws (gravity, quantum mechanics) extrapolated from experiments to cosmology, viewing the universe through principles like homogeneity and expansion.

When uranium and in what direction emits a particle to us is statistical, but is the inner working of the atoms actually deterministic? We have no way of knowing.

In QM the search for hidden variables.

The philosophical debates in general to me see like an attempt to shoehorn realty into an abstract concept and resolving conflicts within a particular concept. A bit like a dog chasing its tail.

We try to resolve our concepts of random with observed causal physics.

Flipping a coin is causal, but the results to us are statistical.

hTe universe may be causal determinism, but to us we se randomness. So, we may for al practical purposes have a form of free will in a deterministic universe.

The actual universe may not be the one or the other random versus deterministic.

I tend to think universe is beyond or ability to conceptualize.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl, I do not like to put people on ignore.

Your responses tend to be lengthy pasting of your book. I read enough of it to conclude here is nothing substantive in it. It is annoying scrolling trough your lengthy quoting of the book.

You do not seem to have comprehension.

Nothing personal. The last word is yours.

 

[peacegirl]

Random events do have a profound effect in daily life.

A random event is generally defined mathematically as one event not predictably affecting the next event.

Put 10 balls one red 9 blue in a box. Shake and pick one, put it back and repeat. On any pick the probability i 1/10 for picking red. The last pick doe not influence the next pick. Random events.

The chances are one in ten. That's not random. That's statistics; the law of probability.

Law of total probability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Somebody getting hit by a car on one street does not affect the probability of getting hit on anotherr street. To us getting hot by a car is a random event.

Getting hit by a car is not a random event. There are causes such as jaywalking or walking off a curb without looking both ways. Don't we teach our children how to avoid these situations? The answer is yes.

In our daliy life we face randomness everyday.

Things happen in our lives that we have no control over; that is true. If that's what you call random, then fine. If two choices have very little consequence in the scheme of things (such as whether to choose cereal or eggs for breakfast), then you could leave it up to chance (so to speak) and say, "eeny meeny miny moe" to make the decision for you, or just close your eyes and point without knowing where each was positioned. But even deciding to close your eyes is a choice; it's not random. And if there were meaningful differences to be made (which is the whole point of contemplation), it would be impossible to choose that which would provide you with the least benefit in your eyes, namely, choosing the greater of two evils, rather than the lesser of two evils. The outcome could end up being something unintended or undesired, in which case the next time a similar situation would present itself, you would make a different choice in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is called growth.

And please, when quoting your book please hide it. Post what you think. The book is mostly gibberish to me.

It's gibberish because you didn't read what I posted. He spelled out why man's will is not free, right in the text. You would have relevant questions if you were unsure of what was being said. But you didn't ask one before telling me it's gibberish.

I doubt anyone is paying serious attention to the book.