What is free will?

...the contradiction I referred to earlier on becomes clear when one gets to think on the implications of what having will actually does assume, which is hardcore determinism... as in order for my brain being the actual causal will factor of my actions n behaviour instead of randomness is necessarily implicating and assuming determinism must be true, but then contradictorily begs the question to what is causing my brain state of affairs in the first place, the external genetic and environmental inputs...

In resume, in all 3 possible scenarios Free Will is not possible !

If determinism is true free will is not possible as your are not the prime mover of your willing but merely a link in a chain of cause n effects.

If indeterminism is true free will (still) is not possible as randomness rather then "you" is picking choices.

Finally if correlation of events is the case and all there is is an ensemble where all events coexist in space/time frames then again free will is not possible as all your history exists and you still couldn't have decided to do otherwise.

The only foxy argument in favour of free will is the compatibilistic soft determinism version, which points to a very awkward description of free will which is not what most people intend to mean when they state they have it. The compatibilistic argument assumes determinism is true and that you could have not done otherwise but still then claims the choice is yours because you are the acting sum of all those external genetic and environmental causes...Its just a bait n shift argument used by very smart debaters who have a more political notion and vision on what assuming determinism is true n free will is an illusion would have for impact on reforming the structure of our society...a huge huge endeavour.

I don't think so. It's possible (I believe probable) that much thinking proceeds through a Darwinian process, by which many "candidate ideas" are produced randomly, and then the best of these ideas are selected through analysis or another process. Likewise in a natural Darwinian ecosystem, mutations are produced randomly but then screened and selected through non-random survival and reproductive processes.

So reason could be a form of "domesticated randomness".

The "mixed" argument doesn't change a thing, it only ads confusion...otherwise why would we have special cases on which there are random n simultaneously not random events ?...further none of those arguments makes a case for free will alone so how does a mix of them both can make it any better ? Read back my previous post please.

Depends what you call free will. All I require is that 1) the future is not determined (or then we don't need reason or will, it's demotivating); and 2) my reason is the source of the choices I make, it determines itself, it is not an epiphenomenon of something that determines it, like biochemistry. In other words, the mind has a real function.

One could of course say: "analysing this or that problem, your mind could not have come up with a different solution, so even if your mind is the cause of your choices, your reason is still determined by its own mechanisms. E.g. if you are asked how much is 2+2, you may well use your reason to find out the answer but unless you screw up, we still know what the result will be."

To this, I respond that I don't care. I don't need to be able to reason something else altogether than what I actually reason, or will something I don't will. As long as my reason is a causal factor in the decisions I make, that's good enough "freedom" for me.

Because the whole is more than the sum of its parts...

E.g., neither a man or a woman can procreate alone, but together they can.

A combination of randomness and non-randomness can marry creativity with rigor, invention with realism, freedom with will.

The only way for the future to not be determined also implies your will cannot determine the course of your actions, your are begging the question...either you take one or another, there is no middle ground here...in both scenarios you choose on a full consequence analysis there is no free willing at work. It is a consensual matter. The compatibilistic version clearly states the future is determined so which one is yours ? n please please give some honest thought before impulsively answering. It is tricky and counter intuitive.

Excuse me but that is crap talk...you are advocating for 2 kinds of distinctive substances one which is not causally bounded and another kind of "matter" which is causally bounded...please get serious n stop typical humanistic French discourse. (provocation intended but harmless)

You wrote,

To take this one step further, the sperm count of ejaculation is about 40 million.
The "healthier" ones usually reaches the woman's egg which numbers around 400,000.

Even before a human life is created, the number of possibilities are enormous! Who/what determines which ones are matched?

Physics n good swimmers !

...otherwise you may be implying a sperm might accidentally have "teleported" into the egg or something of the sort...

There is not a single well known spokesman for free will who addresses the problem through indeterminism...indeterministic arguments in fact are WORSE n not better for free will advocates !

You missed the whole message that I've been advocating since the beginning of this thread; it's about nature and evolution. Your pre-determination misses the target by its illogic.

Free will aside, I am wondering: is there one single poster on A2K who can debate without anger?

I know it's tricky, but it's tricky for you too.

It's not all randomness or all determinism. Probabilities show that it is possible to conceptually merge randomness and determination. Quantum mechanics does just that: it can predict probabilities of occurrence pretty well, but not the occurrence of one single sub-atomic event.

So try and imagine a world with some rules, including some hard-and-fast, deterministic rules and others that are more probabilistic, combined with some residual randomness. Such a world allow for reason to play a role, and while not being entirely predetermined itself, to determine (cause) some things.

Try and understand what I am saying before you call it crap. I am not saying there are two substances, I am saying there is both some cause and effect, and some randomness in this world.

There are things in nature that are "deterministic," and science is able to predict those events with some accuracy. It's the arena of "free will," that nobody can reasonable predict. As I've said a million times, free will is constrained by or genes and environment, but not much else.

A million times"? I lost count at 24,512.

C.I., Oliveir said that "neither a man [n]or a woman can procreate alone" but, I add, they continue to try.

Hey, I'm just a ******* idiot anyway, so what do I know?

You get an "A" for effort.

I wasn't addressing you with my previous post, and actually intended for Fil.

Sorry 'bout that!