idobox wrote:Strange Quirk,
this is a frequent cause of misunderstanding.
Wait, what? What exactly did I misunderstand? As far as I can tell, except for a few of my opinions, my post was entirely logical, and didn't actually present any conclusions.
idobox wrote:If you take one person, and confront it to a choice, there is only two solutions:
-either it's behavior is predictable, and free will doesn't really exist, because there isn't really a choice
-or it's behavior is unpredictable, or not accurately predictable, which means random.
The idea that human decisions are neither predictable nor random is an inheritance of of older times. It implies the process of choosing is other-wordly.
This is a very comforting idea, because materialist explanations give the feeling you don't have any freedom. But there is absolutely no evidence of it.
First of all, you are arguing semantics about the word "random". In common speech
, if I choose "randomly" (if I were, indeed, to be completely random) then, essentially, I'm giving and equal chance to every possible outcome. That's obviously not the case with normal decisions, where we take into account memory and input. Thus, I'll have to say that nobody thinks that all human decisions are "random". The fact that there could be a random element to our decisions is something I considered in my post.
Let's use my definition of "random" for now, ok? I'm not sure what yours is, but it doesn't make much sense, since you first say that "unpredictable means random" and then say that "decisions are neither predictable nor random", implying that they could be unpredictable but not random. Then, using my definition, you have only too situations, the ones you listed first, and we can forget about the one that you say involves other-worldly actions. So basically, we agree that decisions are either predictable or unpredictable. Pretty obvious.
Your two options are, essentially, "free will" or "no free will". You won't find an
consensus/agreement to this in one sentence, and, as I said, we shouldn't derail this thread on that debate, as I'm sure its already going on elsewhere (or maybe people have gotten tired of it already). Physics (/biology/neuroscience) doesn't give us any answers on this yet; we have no basis to believe that a person with the same memory and same input will make the same decisions. We have no basis to believe the opposite either, which, unlike the God/no God debate, means that we have pretty much no scientific footing for either case. We do have some moral questions (ie responsibility) that come up if we assume that human behavior is deterministic. The rest of your post bases on the assumption that human behavior is deterministic.
Wait, what am I talking about? All of this is irrelevant.
Where did I say that we do or don't have free will? I came up with three possible scenarios. If I missed some other possibility, if its possible that none
of them are true, do tell me. My whole idea was bringing up some other interesting questions: 2) is something none of you considered, 3) is something interesting to think about, and 1) is something that many people don't
agree with, and whose moral problems are easier to look at in terms of a simulation. If you think that humans don't have free will, then no problem. My post will probably not give you anything new. But I don't see any problems.