Is free-will an illusion?

Selections, willed actions, are not random, that's precisely meaning the opposite of what people mean when they do make decisions, in fact had our willed actions being the product of a random process as a species and as civilization human beings would be extinct ...equally we don't have any reason to believe the processes of thought are uncomputable quite the contrary as far as I can tell the human mind is in many aspects similar to a computer, a good example being our ability to make calculus, which is precisely what we do when we make complex decisions...above all that even if you were right you still don't have any form of being able to claim authorship of will from a random process, once by definition authorship on anything implies that you have full conscious deterministic control over whatever you are intending to produce !

Hey can you tell me what Ughaibu means by prefix. He thinks he is above explaining the vague usage of the word. I do not think it really changes the validity of the argument I gave though:

I think he means pre establish or correlate a real number to a process of willed actions...of course this is gratuitous. Such description it is purely symbolic and doesn't necessarily translate or justify if that is the case, in other words it is forced onto the problem...

I've had enough of this. It seems to be a hopeless undertaking attempting to get you two to understand anything.

Or anyone for that matter.

If anyone out there knows what Ughaibu means by prefix, please define the term as it is used in mathematical randomness. He seems incapable of doing so himself.

Your delusions of grandeur are most entertaining, keep up, you are doing a brilliant job going down that road...I am yet to see a practical example on what you mean, if you are competent enough gives us a real example of the process you are describing in a concrete case of a free willed action, otherwise bug off !!!

The best possible definition I found is prescribe...now as I said, it requires justification...

A sequence of unrelated willed actions can indeed be described onto a real number as a supposed random sequence...does that say anything relevant about the needed relation between the agent and the willing ? No ! Quite the contrary willing to drink water 3 or 4 times a day everyday of my life has nothing random into it...the willing itself, not the action of making that willing come true, if random, by chance, means without specific cause, or without objective known authorship...

I keep coming up with this definition. I guess he means def 2. But then I would guess what I had said previously would be right. So I don't know or really care anymore.

You attach by prescribing or pre establishing...in an argument you are supposed to justify the legitimacy to do so why A process rather then B process...he has done none...

Anyways see my last post again...

In fact I don't think he has yet understood the point...the willing cannot be random once the willer is always the same person...I am not referring to making the will come true, to the action of objectively realizing X willing, I am referring to the authorship of willing itself, whatever will that is, the willing must always not randomly belong to the said willer...it requires a deterministic relation between the act of willing existing as an event and the event of a willer being causally responsible for whatever will is happening to claim such will is his !

Either he is thick as a brick and could not grasp the argument, or he is deliberately circumventing the need to address the counter by messing up what I have been saying all along...at this point I am in real doubt between the two...I am starting to believe he really is incapable of following the natural unfolding of the arguments presented above...

He definitely doesn't want to understand that point. He is perfectly capable of seeing that for a reasonable definition of randomness. But he would rather take a mathematical definition out of context and confuse the issue. He thrives from this confusion. As long as we are arguing about some definition then we can't address his arguments. There is always a barrier of vagueness that protects his weak arguments. And when you ask for clarity he sends you on a wild goose chase though posts he has written years ago. Never linking to anthing external to his own words. Just consider every argument we have been able to understand has fallen. I think this one has fallen one way or the other by you or me but that can never be completely determined until we know what he means by his terms.

unbelievable, u insist to pretend knowin all about free will while not only to preach determinism but worse in completely reversin free will definition

a will is not a possession of smthg, will is the futur sense not wantin smthg existin already, that is why it is called free will mean u want to do smthg that doesnt exist yet but then u are right to possess it when u did it alone

it is amazin how u keep provin alone ur standard while u seem gettin stronger at every corner as u get a life with ur sponsor around

Are you saying that a will which is yours isn't yours ? By definition it is !
It by definition requires that you alone are the causer of the act of willing...I am not referring to the objected which is being willed but to the action of willing itself, it must have a owner a cause a reason of being you dumb ass !

dumb ass urself, insolence dont exhibit but to what u belong to now till the end

a will is not mine nor urs, any is true first as objective fact before freedom adds exist which are in relative terms to what is absolutely true so individual adds that become freedom rights possessions individually

u cant want smthg unless things exist and if things exist then wantin them is not logical

Well for one I am not saying that will is caused by me alone as I am but an effective link once the all process starts before I am conscious of it, I am saying that for someone to defend the free will argument it must assume the will is his idiot and not random or externally caused !

if there is a cause idiot then the cause exist not the will, any is true first before a relative use of to smthg else

so the cause is always the truth while like another previous poster said correctly truth cannot b determined when it is the exclusive reference of present reality

you are so stupid you just shot yourself in the face when claiming truth exists not the will...I rest my case !

...and by the way the exclusive reference of present reality because unique is by definition determined ! It is what it is !

present reality is never unik moron head and ugly face

this is ur illusion in thinkin too fast that everything is done just for u

i repeat to ur deaf ears u r nothing to anything existing and any living reality

right present realities are everywhere objectively and right free wills are more then realities existing absolutely as true subjects individualities

u lost and obviously what lose is one life u are nothing but a reality of
while what win is infinite numbers of values proven objectively present and rights being totally individually

noone can b objectively true bc truth is the true object
but some intelligents can recognize some existence of it real
while a lot more enjoy realizin individually true constant values that are obvious in everything true healthy relations

it is all about the knowledge of truth existence and reactions to, the reason of all times refrainin the maximum truth existence while knowin that it cant b done but for a time without knowin how truth would surprise all since it would b above all

it is a matter of the race who is gonna do better and gain some rights when truth is absolutely existence, so a lot do good and better but then forcin the existence of the best that gets all the rights alone is clearly from evil u belong to meanin to justify ur existence by being over such misery of right

everything is absolutely objective and superiority is one reference only from everything perspective that is never superior
but freedom so conscious know that superiority is everything reason

and what clearly enjoy humiliatin true living rights and subjects values are the most objective fact that prove it

Reality is one not several...there is no such thing as reality's that we can refer to meaningfully which can be beyond us, as to whatever we try to refer to with the terming reality is the criteria we ourselves have defined...still reality it is whatever is the case and not what we think might be the case in terms of extension but not in terms of definition, thus what we think might or might not be the case it is certainly true as being a perspective which incorporates or is part of the body of Reality and yet it doesn't necessarily exhaust its description...such reality coined by our terming is one because in the meaning of its use it cannot transcend us entirely... although in relation with us as one and not many, we are not obliged to fully know the extent of its size, but only to acknowledge that the terming used to refer to it imply s by definition the linking between all its elements from where our partial knowledge of it is yet another component...in resume although we can use the term reality we cannot clarify whatever is its ultimate organizing pattern or to clarify whatever is true as it rests in it with certainty...we can only state that whatever we observe it is certainly phenomenally true...finally to clarify once more that there is no such thing as several reality's if not by metaphor !